Who is Robert Francis Prevost, the man now known to much of the world as Pope Leo XIV?
Those interested in a conventional biography can access one via the Vatican News website. If, however, one is searching for hard evidence that might reveal his theological and doctrinal makeup – most especially as it concerns today’s “hot button” ecclesiastical issues – much more effort will be necessary.
Now, I wouldn’t call myself an internet sleuth, but I am fairly proficient at using search engines and AI tools in order to unearth just such information. After several hours of diligent research, however, I was tempted to conclude that Robert Francis Prevost may well be described as an international man of mystery.
In other words, I could find very little in the way direct quotes that shed light on his views concerning such gravely important things as the Traditional Latin Mass (Traditionis Custodes), the blessing of gay couples (Fiducia Supplicans), adulterous relationships (Amoris Laetitia), etc.
This is not to say that we are left without any sense for who this man is vis-à-vis Catholic faith and morals. In fact, the absence of any readily available public information concerning his stance on the abovementioned matters tells us much.
How can the shepherd of a diocese, which Prevost was for nearly a decade, fail to speak on such things, either pro or con?
It seems to me that his apparent silence indicates one of two things, either he is in full support of the Bergoglian agenda, or he has reservations about certain aspects of said agenda but is a careerist who knows when to keep his mouth shut.
While some may wish to believe that it’s the latter (not exactly a good sign in itself), there can be little doubt that it’s the former.
There is no way that Bergoglio would have appointed Prevost to the powerful position of Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops unless he was absolutely certain that he could be counted on to identify, and recommend, likeminded candidates to serve as Ordinaries of vacant Sees, or to be raised to the episcopate more broadly. Francis was cunning enough to realize that the conciliar bishops are the boots on the ground in this revolution, which is why Joseph Strickland was ousted from Tyler, TX and Robert McElroy was installed in Washington, D.C., both on Prevost’s watch.
About the latter: McElroy is the episcopal poster boy for conciliar homo-deviancy in the United States. Some will argue that his appointment to Washington, D.C. in January 2025 may have been made solely by Francis, with little input from Prevost.
I would point out, however, that Francis was already experiencing health problems by that time. As early as February 2024, he was showing signs of respiratory distress so severe that not only was he forced to curtail his daily activities, he was also examined by specialists at Gemelli Hospital, with the result being (according to the Vatican Press Office) that his condition required further evaluation.
By then, Prevost had been serving as Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops for just over a year. There can be no doubt that Francis had come to rely on his judgment more and more in the months leading up to what would prove to be his final illness, which commenced in December 2024.
Cardinal Wilton Gregory’s resignation as Archbishop of Washington, D.C. was accepted on January 6, 2025, at which point Cardinal McElroy was named as his successor.
Did Prevost endorse McElroy’s promotion? Did he caution against it? Did he flat out push for it?
I suppose we will never know for certain.
For what it may be worth, however, I took a look at archived versions of the website for the Diocese of Chiclayo, Peru, dated 2015 to 2023, the time during which Prevost served as its bishop, to see if it might provide some clues as to his mindset.
I found very little in that regard save for the image to the right, which appeared on the diocesan homepage for most of that period.
When you look at that image, what is the first thought that comes to your mind?
Now, it may be that the rainbow, in this case, signifies something entirely innocent, but let’s not be naïve. Peru, like practically every other nation on earth, has an active LGBT community. Chiclayo even has its very own “Pride” parade every June. No educated person can possibly fail to recognize that the rainbow is widely understood as a symbol for this godless movement.
It’s so familiar to the average person that it’s often used as a marketing tool that tells would-be patrons, “We support the homosexualist cause!”
Maybe I’m reading too much into it. What I can say with absolute certainty, however, is that if I was the local bishop, that image wouldn’t appear on anything pertaining to my diocese, ever.
Amoris Laetitia
I’ve long held the view that Amoris Laetitia was Jorge Bergoglio’s gift to the Church. Why? Because it is a litmus test extraordinaire. The text is so blasphemous, heretical, and dangerous that it forces every self-identified Catholic into the light of day – especially those with a public voice – to declare where he or she truly stands, either with Christ or against Him.
When Amoris Laetitia was published in 2016, Robert Prevost was in his second year as Ordinary of the Diocese of Chiclayo where he would remain for another seven years, and yet, my search of the diocesan website archive found no mention of that dreadful text at all; no statements, no workshops, nothing.
The Diocese of Chiclayo is home to 1.2 million Catholics (at least in name) and forty-eight parishes. It is inconceivable that Prevost’s priests neither requested nor received any guidance from their bishop on how to field queries from parishioners on the topics it addressed, or how to implement it moving forward. And yet, there was nothing of this sort to be found, which suggests to me that he took steps to keep his handling of the matter as private as possible.
Although his failure to condemn the text leads one to believe that he’s at peace with Amoris Laetitia and its all-out attack against Almighty God, there’s one way to find out rather quickly…
Cardinal Burke: You’re on the clock
As everyone knows well, Cardinal Burke and three other cardinals (the Dubia Brothers) sent a dubia to Francis, ostensibly asking him to clarify the meaning of certain propositions found in Amoris Laetitia.
In reality, it was no such thing, rather, it was an opportunity – a plea, actually – for Francis to correct his grave errors by reaffirming the Catholic faith.
Francis steadfastly refused to respond, i.e., those questions are still in need of answers.
Now that the stubborn tight-lipped author of Amoris Laetitia is dead – the man Burke called “Holy Father” – the time is fast approaching for him to resubmit the dubia to Bergoglio’s successor, Robert Prevost, stage name, Leo XIV.
If he doesn’t, it will be crystal clear to all that Raymond Leo Burke has no genuine concern for the good of souls in light of the dangers posed by Jorge Bergoglio’s Love Letter to Satan, but rather he’s primarily concerned with his own comfort.
Stage name? Really? Isn’t it too soon for that?
No, it’s not too soon. In fact, one might even argue that it’s late given Prevost’s loggia declaration, We want to be a synodal church.
Today, Prevost delivered an address to the College of Cardinals in which he set forth a brief manifesto that removes all doubt:
Robert Francis Prevost is no international man of mystery, rather, he is yet another anti-pope.
Speaking to the men who elected him to continue the revolution, he said:
I would like us to renew together today our complete commitment to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Francis masterfully and concretely set it forth in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium…
In other words, Antipope Leo XIV just declared that he is committed to the conciliar mission – which includes placating schismatics, heathens, heretics, and above all, Jews – calling no one to conversion, while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the Kingship of Our Lord, a mission that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the one given to the Holy Catholic Church by the Risen Christ.
