On Thursday, May 8, the Vatican appointed Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, a 69-year-old Chicago native, as Pope, succeeding Francis and becoming the first American in history to ascend to the papacy. It is neither by accident or coincidence that there has yet to be an American pope. For as long it could, the Catholic Church refrained from mixing the U.S.’s established global influence with religious authority. Pope Leo's appointment signals a clear shift in this paradigm. Naturally, this begs the question; what changed? Why an American pope? The reality seems to be that more than anything, an American pope, may be a sign of America’s decline. 

To understand the significance of an American pope, the term must first be defined. Some Catholics contend that Prevost is not an ‘American pope,’ so much as he is a ‘Pope from America.’ They would argue that the papacy should not be bound to a single nation; the Church is universal and by extension, so is the pope. However, this definition seems to only work in theory. The reality of an American pope seems to be deeply political. Theoretically, the pope is Catholic first, American second, but in less than a month as leader of the Catholic church, his nationality has already become his defining feature. So, an American pope means more than  a pope who is from America, it means a pope who is going to be active in responding to and determining the standard for religion and politics in the U.S..

The second element of this discussion, adding to the significance of Pope Leo’s appointment, is why there has never been an American pope. First, there’s simply a numbers game that must be considered. The papacy has existed for almost two thousand years, whereas the United States, only around three hundred. Consequently, there has not been sufficient time or opportunity. 

Historically, the vast majority of popes have been Italian, 217 of 267. This is no surprise considering the location of the Vatican and Catholicism’s presence in Italy, but only recently has the papacy become a more international position, posing the question of an American pope. Thus, when considering the simple lack of opportunity and overall bias toward Italy in the first place, the question becomes, not why hasn’t there been an American pope, but why have there been deliberate attempts to prevent the pope from being American? 

Numbers can explain why there has yet to be a pope from the U.S., but the question of why the Catholic Church has historically tried to prevent this requires a more thorough explanation. 

The strength of the U.S. as a global superpower is undeniable. As a result, there have been fears of also giving the U.S. moral authority over all the world’s Catholics. There is also the issue of the United State’s inherent secularism, embedded in the Constitution. An American pope would simply concentrate too much power in a single nation. However, this clearly seems to no longer be a concern. Therein lies the significance of an American pope, the U.S. is no longer perceived with the power it once was. Otherwise, Pope Leo would not have been selected. Italy does not suffer from this problem because they are a relatively small nation whose power and influence is minor compared to the U.S.. In fact, continued access to the papacy may be one of Italy’s greatest sources of power, without it they are not particularly strong when it comes to their military or economy. It is ironic that a pope, traditionally a figure meant to inspire unity and faith, would inadvertently become a symbol of a country’s decline. 

However, there must be more to Pope Leo’s appointment than the U.S.’s declining global image. Perhaps Pope Leo will replace the U.S.’s long held military and economic power with newfound moral authority. Perhaps this is how the myth of America is restored. In a tumultuous time of political upheaval, division, and the loss of an objective truth, the pope may represent change not only for U.S.’s Catholics, but the nation as a whole. 

Already, the pope has called out Vice President Vance on the nature of Catholic love, made subliminal comments about the state of immigration in the United States, and drawn fire from the president himself. This raises the question that comes with any political position, is the pope liberal or conservative? As a religious figure, he should be thought of as immune to these binary labels. Regarding the function of government, a pope could be considered liberal, whereas socially they could be more conservative. By virtue of its religion and tradition, the papacy is a conservative institution, but that does not mean it is bound to operate this  way. This was the case with Pope Francis who made strides in a decidedly liberal direction but still did not fit neatly into any political category. Pope Leo seems to be largely following suit. Prior to becoming pope he was an advocate for social justice and outspoken about combating climate change. During Covid-19, he was a supporter of vaccination, and even openly opposed the death penalty. Now, he has continued to push for the rights of migrants and refugees. However, his stance on the LGBTQ community is more ambiguous and past remarks have indicated that he, like Francis, is wary of gender ideology. 

Whatever his views may be, it seems Pope Leo will be having an intimate relationship with American politics. Only time will tell where the new pope chooses to take this influence, but one thing can be said for certain; an American pope means the U.S. is in a state where its global power is no longer taken as seriously as it once was. A first reading of this claim would imply it is a bad thing, but instead we must ask ourselves; will we ever return to a time when American popes seem impossible and would we want to? Or should the U.S. shed its global power for the renewal of its morality and the chance for unity, albeit imperfect? Given that the Vatican has historically avoided an American pontiff, wary of tying itself up with a global superpower. Their choice to do so now suggests that the U.S.’s greatest influence lies not in its might, but in its potential to lead through moral example.