Vito Caiati on Pope Leo XIV: An Initial Assessment

The following just over the transom from Dr. Vito Caiati, posted verbatim with a few minor  edits and additions of hyperlinks. Asterisks refer to footnotes.  

.............................. 

Taking a hard look at the composition of the electors, 81 percent of whom were chosen by Bergoglio; the rapid elevation of Prevost by him*; and the gauchiste content of this cardinal’s posts and re-posts on X,** I wrote the following on that site on May 19^th: "Too many people [i.e., the conservative and traditional critics of Bergoglio] are swayed by liturgical gestures and nods in the direction of tradition, rather than objectively judging who elected this man and waiting to see over the coming months if he will acknowledge and undo the evils of the Bergoglian regime. So far little to cheer."

Prevost’s words and actions until the present time confirm this judgment. Thus, on two occasions, he has assured the faithful that the “beloved” Bergoglio, against Church teaching, is CERTAINLY in Heaven (“He accompanies us and prays for the Church from Heaven”).  In a meeting with the representatives of other religions, he has also endorsed the Abu Dabhi declaration that Bergoglio signed in 2019, which contains the heretical statement that “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, sex, race and language are willed [thus DESIRED rather than permitted or tolerated] by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings,” as well as the ideologically related encyclical Fratelli Tutti. Furthering Bergoglio’s globalist political vision, Leo has similarly "urged Catholic university leaders to back the United Nations climate agenda, calling participants to ‘build bridges,’ and encouraging them in their ‘synodal work of discernment’ in preparation for COP30.” *** We can add to this troubling list his favorable references to the synodal path, which, of course, is inimical to the unity of the Church and the orthodoxy of its doctrine. Finally, his first appointments, in keeping with the disruptive and heterodox intentions of the late pope, are deeply troubling,; for instance, he appointed a priest who supports women priests and LGBT rights as bishop of St. Gallen, Switzerland;  an auxiliary bishop tied to the left-wing, scandal laden Cardinal McElroy, as archbishop of San Diego; and another nun [of the pants-suit variety] to a key leadership position in the  Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, thus following Bergoglio in giving, as never before, un-ordained women authority over religious orders and congregations.

The pattern here is evident, and with the May 22 report of  Austen Ivereigh, the late pope’s biographer and confidant, we now know that the election of Prevost, which came so quickly, was essentially orchestrated by Bergoglio, who along with packing the College of Cardinals, was engaged in a constant dialogue with the rapidly advanced Prevost in the final years of his life, meeting with him every week.**** So, I expect that while perhaps certain concessions might be granted to traditional Catholics on liturgy and the brutal rule of Bergoglio will be softened (although as of now the repression of the TLM [traditional Latin mass] continues (Detroit, Charlotte, NC, and France, notably restrictions on the Chartres Pilgrimage), the modernist capture of the RCC remains unchallenged. Unfortunately, so far, too many take the wearing of the mozzetta and a smiling face as substance rather than form.  Rather, let’s see what the coming months reveal, allowing history rather than mere hope to be our guide.

_______________________

*September 2015: Appointed Bishop of Chiclayo, Peru by Bergoglio

January 2023: Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops (responsible for naming bishops throughout the world and hence determining the direction of Church policy; Prevost was, for instance, responsible, under orders from Bergoglio in removing the orthodox Bishop Strickland, who rightly criticized Bergoglio for not protecting the Deposit of Faith.

September 2023: Made Cardinal Priest by Bergoglio

February 2025: Made Cardinal Bishop by Bergoglio (one of 12 of 253 cardinals)

**These include (1) re-posts of harsh criticisms of the Trump administration policy on immigration, including support for the gangbanger and wife beater Kilmar Abrego Garcia (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14693013/pope-robert-prevost-tweets-donald-trump-jd-vance-maga.html); (2)  a post harshly objecting to J.D. Vance’s orthodox understanding of ordo amoris as a hierarchy of love and responsibility; and (3) a repost asking for prayer for the criminal George Floyd and his family! (https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-leo-xiv-posted-george-220216069.html).

*** https://www.wmreview.org/p/leo-xiv-cop30

****https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/ivereigh-prevost-francis-pope-leo-austen

Comments

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

Looking at X this morning, I just ran across this post from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, which echoes some of my concerns and which may be of interest to you and your readers:

“It is normal and humanly understandable that more than a decade of open persecution of Catholics by the one who presented himself as their Pope would lead many of us to desire a truce, hoping that Our Lord would give His Church - if not a new Pius X - at least another Benedict XVI.

But this legitimate desire - certainly animated by good feelings and love for the Church - cannot transform itself into a virtual reality in which, even against all evidence, everything must necessarily be read as a confirmation of what we would like, and not of what is really happening. We cannot build for ourselves a "virtual church" with a "virtual papacy" that we love and serve in a consoling but unreal fiction.

The confirmation of a notorious heretic to the Cathedra of Saint Gallen in Switzerland; the appointment of a nun as Secretary of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, in line with the appointment of a Prefectess by Bergoglio; the repeated references to the heretical documents of his predecessor and to Vatican II; the declarations on ecumenism and synodality, and finally the acceptance of climate fraud; all place Robert Francis Prevost in evident and disturbing continuity with his predecessor, and it will certainly not be the stole and mozzetta that will change reality.

May looking at reality with supernatural eyes help us to recognize the deceptions of the Evil One and push us, today more than ever, to place all our hope in Christ the King and Pontiff, so that He may help and protect His Church. May He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life be our guide in a rebellious world doomed to perdition, lies, and death.” *

* https://x.com/CarloMVigano/status/1926239129198530747

[BV]

Vito,

Thank you for your guest post and the above addendum. For a while I had some hopes for Prevost, but your and Vigano's comments have adjusted my expectations downward.

But I haven't really looked deep into this matter.

I now ask you: why did Robert Prevost take the name Leo XIV? To throw people off the scent? What does he have in common with Leo XIII?

Did you watch Jimmy Failla last night? He is funny albeit crude, though not as crude as Gutfeld, who I do not watch for that very reason. (I reckon being a Boomer makes me crude enough.) Failla repeated something Prevost's brother said about Nancy Pelosi, something so nasty that I won't repeat it, despite my contempt for her and her ilk.

Is the pope a head of a state? If yes, can a head of state be a citizen of the USA? I'm just asking. Am I asking a sensible question? (The second question is like the first, not rhetorical: just asking!)

Finally, if you saw Mark Levin last night, it seemed to me that he was meek as a lamb as compared to his guest, the fiery Leo Terrell. A rare occurrence; I mean: being lower-keyed than his guests.

[Vito B. Caiati]

I am unclear as to why he chose the name Leo XIV, other than suggest that its obvious relation to Leo XIII (1878-1903) suggest his intention to speak on contemporary social and political questions, as his forerunner did in Rerum Novarum, and, perhaps to assuage the religious concerns of conservative and traditional Catholics, who celebrate Leo XIII for such acts as the revival of Thomistic learning, Marian devotion, and advocation of the rosary (i.e. thus perhaps as you say, “to throw us off the scent”). Again, time will reveal his intentions.

“Is the pope a head of a state? If yes, can a head of state be a citizen of the USA?”

Yes, he is the head of state of Vatican City, and there are apparently real legal questions about the right of an American citizen to be one. On this matter, the Foreign Affairs Manual of the U.S. State Department, we find the following entry (7 FAM 1285), which appears to answer in the negative:

“Holding a head-of-state, head-of-government, or foreign-minister position may be incompatible with maintaining U.S. citizenship, although the issue has not been expressly decided by the Department. Under international law, as applied in the United States, a foreign head of state, head of government, or a foreign minister (who is not a local national) enjoys absolute immunity from the criminal, civil and administrative jurisdiction of U.S. law, a status that some believe to be inconsistent with continued allegiance to the United States. However others have expressed a contrary view. There is also an issue as to whether this absolute immunity typically enjoyed by a foreign head of state or head of government would extend to a U.S. citizen or would instead be reduced to a more limited immunity such as “official acts” immunity, as the United States does not surrender jurisdiction over its own nationals. A third factor is whether the authorities of the office would be inherently incompatible with U.S. allegiance. Additional considerations would be whether other conduct of the individual is consistent with retention of U.S. citizenship such as whether the individual continued to travel to and from the United States on a U.S. passport and continued to pay U.S. taxes, and similar indicia of intent. The possible expatriation of a head of state is a complex issue that would need to be coordinated with the Office of the Legal Adviser, including the Office of Legal Adviser for Consular Affairs (L/CA) and the Assistant Legal Adviser for Diplomatic Law (L/DL).”*

I did not see Mark Levin’s show, but I have a high opinion of Leo Terrell.

*https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1280.html

[BV]

Vito,

Will Pope Leo have to pay income tax to the U. S. gov't? https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/05/jacob-hornberger/pope-leos-subservience-to-the-irs/

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

Since the United States tax system is based on citizenship rather than residency, American expatriates are still required to pay the federal income tax. They avoid double taxation, by the tax treaties and totalization agreements that the U.S. has with many countries. However, the Vatican and the U.S. do not have a tax treaty; consequently, Pope Leo would be required as a citizen to file and pay any tax owed on his income to the United States.

Vito

[Bill V]

Vito,

Have you seen this article? https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2025/05/26/where-is-pope-francis/

As for the CID affair, I have found no corroboration, not even at the Remnant. Have you?

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

I just read the article for which you provided a link, and I agree with its argument; in my email to you, I alluded to the problematic status of Leo’s claim: “that the “beloved” Bergoglio… is CERTAINLY in Heaven,” since it diverges from the Church’s teaching that the state a person’s soul at the time of death is known only to God. As Morello indicates, given Francis’ many heretical statements, whether formal or material, and other manifest defects, we have many reasons to doubt that he is has been saved.

Morello, however, ignores Leo’s equally theologically dubious assertion that Francis had “returned to the Father’s house,” since it implies an endorsement the heterodox belief in the pre-existence of souls, a view famously advanced by Origen and condemned by the Synod of Constantinople (543) and the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). A soul non-existent before conception cannot return anywhere.

The best part of the article is Morell’s critique of the “instrumentalization of canonizations,” which, as he points out, are designed to “consolidate… the dominant ecclesiastical regime, helping to impose and enforce its ideological commitments. This the Vatican II Church in operation, and I, for one, see no sign that Leo will break with its relentless imposition of doctrinal confusion and liturgical decay.

Just today, he continues along this path in speaking of the story of the Good Samaritan, ensuring his audience that “the practice of worship does not automatically lead to being compassionate. Indeed, before being a religious matter, compassion is a question of humanity! Before being believers, we are called to be human.' 'Religiosity does not enter into this. This Samaritan simply stops because he is a man faced with another man in need of help.” So, it seems that we are to believe that the conscience of the Samaritan has not been refined by religious teaching or practice. This is a highly doubtful, since the ancient Samaritans adhered strictly to the Pentateuch, especially regarding ethical behavior, as in Leviticus 19:18: "[T]hou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord". Here we have muddled modernist humanism parading as orthodoxy, so dear to the late Bergoglio.

As for the CID affair, I have not found no mention of it anywhere, and I am wondering who has possession of the signed affidavits. I will keep an eye on it and let you know if I learn anything else.

[Bill V]

>>Morello, however, ignores Leo’s equally theologically dubious assertion that Francis had “returned to the Father’s house,” since it implies an endorsement the heterodox belief in the pre-existence of souls, a view famously advanced by Origen and condemned by the Synod of Constantinople (543) and the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). A soul non-existent before conception cannot return anywhere.<<

Astute observation, Vito.

As for the instrumentalization of canonizations, one might think that the RCC would want to avoid the perception that it is just another power-hungry worldly hustle.

Finally, this longish document may interest you. Hyperlink infra. The picture is of the monks of CID standing before the oratory before the COVID years when the monastery was closed to lay visitors and before the defection of some of their best monks, McCaffree among them, despite his defense of Bergoglio against the hard-liner Jetchick.

https://inquisition.ca/corr/mccaffree_benedict.htm

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

Leo is far more subtle in rhetoric than Francis, but in his homily of yesterday morning (https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/homilies/2025/documents/20250608-omelia-pentecoste.html), we have the same globalist, open-border, anti-national message, only this time tucked away in a more general reflection on the transformative power of the Holy "Spirit) (modernist newspeak of Holy Ghost). Paragraphs 9 and 10 reveal this ideological continuity with Bergoglio:

"Finally, the Spirit also opens borders between peoples. At Pentecost, the Apostles spoke the languages of those they met, and the confusion of Babel was finally resolved by the harmony brought about by the Spirit. Whenever God’s 'breath' unites our hearts and makes us view others as our brothers and sisters, differences no longer become an occasion for division and conflict but rather a shared patrimony from which we can all draw, and which sets us all on journey together, in fraternity.

The Spirit breaks down barriers and tears down the walls of indifference and hatred because he 'teaches us all things' and 'reminds us of Jesus’ words' (cf. Jn 14:26). He teaches us, reminds us, and writes in our hearts before all else the commandment of love that the Lord has made the center and summit of everything. Where there is love, there is no room for prejudice, for 'security' zones separating us from our neighbors, for the exclusionary mindset that, tragically, we now see emerging also in political nationalisms."

To utter these words while the Left, including numerous anti-American illegals, engages in a violent insurrection in Los Angeles against the deportation policy supported by the majority of American voters in the last election, is particularly condemnable.

[Vito B. Caiati]

P.S. The precipitating event for Leo's remarks were most likely the close victory on June 1 of the conservative nationalist Karol Nawrocki, who wishes to keep his country free of illegal aliens, in Poland's presidential elections. The apparatchiks of the Vatican Secretariat of State under Parolin, who sold out the orthodox Chinese faithful to the CCP, are well that what happened in Poland is no anomaly, but rather the last of a series of right-wing electoral gains in several European nations in 2024-25.

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

Yesterday on X. Chris Jackson, who runs the excellent blog Hiraeth In Exile posted a lucid, reasoned assessment of the Leo, one that acknowledges his likable personal qualities, while underscoring his troubling doctrinal continuity with the nefarious Bergoglio, whom he never ceases to praise:

"We are back to JPII in one sense. A man with a lot of personal piety and charisma, a gentle and positive demeanor, and, in general, a taste for more conservative attire and liturgy. This is amplified by the contrast between his demeanor and that of his immediate predecessor.

The problem is that Francis’ aesthetics and sour volatile demeanor were not the things that mattered. His teachings and doctrine are what mattered and still matter. And Leo is keeping those intact and solidifying them and building on them using his piety, gentleness, aesthetics, personality, and likability to further them.

Nobody wants to dislike someone who is so likable and has many virtuous traits. But it is not a matter of liking or not liking the person of Leo. It is a matter of accepting or not accepting the Francis agenda that he is promoting as genuinely Catholic.

If Leo were a friend or colleague one could politely disagree with him and go on your way. Unfortunately, Leo is in a position to further implement Francis’ program on the entire Church. In this situation I believe Catholics are in the unenviable position to speak out against what is happening.

Of course we pray every day Leo turns away from the Francis agenda. But we cannot compromise Catholic truth out of a misguided 'prudence' when the Church is threatened with a transformation that may soon become permanent. Especially if we do not both sound the alarm and pray for God’s intervention."

Today, Jackson deepens his critique in a post on his blog that analyzes Leo's address to the bishops of Italy, "This is Not the Faith that You're Looking For."*

Vito

* https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/this-is-not-the-faith-youre-looking?r=5mfttc&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

[BV]

Vito,

Did I recommend this Substack to you, or maybe I only thought of doing so.

I read the article you refer to, and it reminded me of an old post of mine in which I try to put my finger on the underlying phenomenon.

https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2013/07/on-criticizing-something-for-being-what-it-is.html

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

In the post to which you link, you write: "1. Its core doctrines are essential to the Roman Catholic Church; to demand that it abandon one or more of them is to demand that it cease to exist."

This is an essential point, and it evaluating if such an abandonment has taken place, we must consider not simply outright rejection (formal or material heresy) of these doctrines, but also the more common and insidious phenomena of leaving them intact on the books, so to speak, but distorting or disregarding them. The crisis of doctrine, discipline, liturgy is very grave and no smiling pope who does not, at a minimum, renounce the heresies of Bergoglio is going to put it right.

Vito

[Vito B. Caiati]

Bill,

Perhaps, I am sending in too many comments on this almost month old post, but here is one more that directly relates to what I wrote previously about the continuing "insidious" undermining of the faith: Chris Jackson on Leo's appointment of a second extremely heterodox bishop: https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/leo-appoints-a-second-bishop-in-favor

Vito