Dr. Nathan A. French
What might the papacy of Pope Leo XIV invite us to ask about U.S. history, Catholicism, citizenship, and religious freedom?
The election of Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost to the papacy on May 8, 2025, the first U.S. citizen to hold the title as Pope Leo XIV, caught national and international observers by surprise. “Chicago’s Pope,” proclaimed the Chicago Tribune. “An American Pope,” led the headlines of The Philadelphia Inquirer. After a year as the “American Pope,” what does the papacy of Leo XIV invite us to ask about U.S. history, Catholicism, citizenship, and religious freedom in the United States?
For many Americans, to think of the Pope as being a fellow citizen invited fun questions. Some asked if the Pope was a sports fan. Having grown up on the South Side of Chicago, Chicago White Sox fans celebrated when they learned that the Pope had attended the 2005 World Series and is a lifelong fan. In May 2026, the Pope offered advice to students at his alma mater, Villanova University, encouraging them to carry forward the university’s mission. Recent polling by the Pew Foundation suggests that over 80% of U.S. Catholics hold a favorable opinion of Pope Leo’s papacy.
Calling Pope Leo XIV an “American Pope,” however, invites another question: what do we mean by “American?” While many in the United States think of “American” as simply, “from the U.S.,” the biography of Pope Leo XIV would invites those in the U.S. to consider how the very term “American” might be used by those in Central and South America as well. Given his work in Catholic ministry in Peru, for example, calling Pope Leo XIV an “American Pope” invites us to think about how the words we use to identify ourselves might hold different meaning locally, nationally, and globally.
This idea of an “American” Pope also invites us to consider a relationship to what scholars and geographers sometimes call the “Global North” and “Global South.” Born and educated in the U.S., Pope Leo XIV understands the questions faced by wealthy, technologically advanced societies. But, his pastoral work in Peru connects him to communities shaped by poverty, migration, inequality, and differing relationships to powerful global political and financial institutions.
Catholic Contributions & Anti-Catholic Sentiments in U.S. History
Of course, at one time in U.S. history, many Americans would have considered the idea of an American Pope not simply unthinkable but a direct threat to democracy in America. There have always been Americans who have identified as Catholic, but Catholic citizens were not always treated as fully trustworthy. As Denise Spellman has observed, in 1783, the year that the United States achieved full independence from Great Britain, George Washington wrote to Irish Catholic immigrants to New York City assuring them that “the bosom of America … was open to receive … the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges.” Why might Washington have sent this encouragement? Following the passage of the Quebec Act in 1774, which granted Catholic emancipation and freedom of religion in the province of Quebec, New Yorkers feared the spread of Catholicism into their colony. Further, while Catholicism was not mentioned explicitly in the New York Constitution of 1777, the state’s first, the text did require of every person to be naturalized in the state to take an oath that would “abjure and renounce all allegiance and subjection to all and every foreign king, prince, potentate, and State in all matters, ecclesiastical as well as civil,” which many understood to be a section aimed at various minorities, especially Catholics.
Though Catholic Americans, such as Charles Carroll (1737-1832), made substantial contributions to the founding of the nation and fellow founder Benjamin Franklin facilitated the appointment of the first Bishop of Baltimore, John Carroll, in 1784, by the 1800s and early 1900s many American Protestants accused their fellow Catholic citizens of harboring unresolvable “dual loyalties” to the Pope and to the Constitution. These fears shaped American politics well into the twentieth century. Al Smith, the Democratic nominee for president in 1928, was the first Catholic major-party presidential candidate, but his campaign faced significant anti-Catholic prejudice.
The candidacy and presidency of John F. Kennedy continued the question and debate over the possibility of a Catholic holding the highest executive authority in the United States. Hoping to assuage non-Catholic Americans on the campaign trail, Kennedy addressed their concerns during a series of public remarks, such as those given to the Houston Ministers Conference in which he declared, “contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic.” During the Vice Presidency and Presidency of Joseph R. Biden, Americans again returned to the question of his Catholic faith and how it would inform his governance.
A Papal Presidency?
Obviously, Pope Leo is not a Catholic trying to become president of the United States. He is a U.S.-born Catholic elected to the papacy, the global spiritual leadership of Catholics and the sovereign of Vatican City. That makes his “American” identity unusual. He is American by birth, but his life and ministry have been international. His years in Peru especially matter because they complicate any simple idea that he represents only the United States.
Yet, there are interesting constitutional questions presented by his papacy. Constitutionally speaking, Pope Leo is the first pope to meet the qualifications required of all U.S. Presidents. According to Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, any natural-born citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of the President, provided that citizen is 35 years -old and resided in the United States for fourteen years. Certainly, Pope Leo meets those requirements.
However, among his titles, Pope Leo XIV is the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal (Catholic) Church, the Primate of Italy, the Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, the Bishop of Rome, and the sovereign head of the State of Vatican City. Of those titles, that last affirms that he is the head of state of a sovereign, foreign nation and this causes some to question the Pope’s eligibility for public office. While it is well-known that the Pope holds Peruvian citizenship following his pastoral work there, becoming a foreign head of state opens the possibility of the U.S. Department of State reviewing his citizenship status as an American who “serve[s] as a foreign head of state, foreign head of government, or foreign minister.” Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, for example, renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2016 prior to his election.
Does this mean that the U.S. Department of State will investigate whether to remove Pope Leo’s citizenship? That’s unlikely. A 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Vance v. Terrazas, ruled that Americans cannot be stripped of their citizenship unless they signal their intention to renounce it.
Would the Pope eventually declare his candidacy for the U.S. Presidency? Again, also unlikely. According to Catholic canon law, the laws governing the church, all clerics, including the Pope, are forbidden from the assumption of public offices “which entail a participation in the exercise of civil power.” The church would likely expect Pope Leo’s resignation before he took to the U.S. campaign trail.
As a U.S. citizen, however, Pope Leo holds civic responsibilities shared with his fellow citizens. Prior to his election to the papacy, Pope Leo voted in a number of U.S. primaries and general elections, most recently in 2024. Perhaps the most interesting of these, however, is whether the Pope will be expected to continue to pay U.S. income taxes. Such questions led U.S. Congressman Jeff Hurd (R., Colorado-03) to propose the “Holy Sovereignty Protection Act (H.R. 4501)” to protect the citizenship of any American serving as pope and exempts the individual from U.S. tax obligations. Given that U.S. tax code is based upon citizenship and not upon country of residence, it is arguable that the Pope does face the necessity of filing U.S. income taxes, leading some to publicly argue that the Pope should consider expatriating, effectively renouncing his U.S. citizenship.
This is a terrific chance to explore lessons in U.S. civic life. The First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a national religion and protects the free exercise of religion. That means Americans can be deeply religious, not religious, or religious in ways that do not fit familiar categories. It also means public life includes many religious voices, but no single religious authority governs the country.
Leo XIV’s papacy helps us to explore how Americans live and express their religious identities in a plurality of ways. In one era, Catholics were suspected of being foreign or disloyal. In another, a Catholic president had to explain his loyalty to the Constitution. Now, a man born in the United States leads a global church from outside the United States.
Calling Leo XIV an “American Pope” should not mean that the papacy has become American. If considered a symbol, the papacy of Pope Leo XIV is local enough for Americans to recognize parts of themselves in him, but global enough to challenge narrow ideas of what “American” means. It reminds us that American identity itself has always been shaped by migration, pluralism, and connections to communities across the globe. For U.S. history and civics classrooms, Leo XIV’s papacy is a chance to study how American lived religion can be both personal and public, both local and global.
Questions for Class Discussion
Why might some Americans once have feared a Catholic president? What might that reveal about religious freedom?
Imagine you’re talking to an American during the founding of the country. How would you explain Pope Leo XIV’s papacy? How would you explain American responses to it? How do you think those of the founding generation would respond? Why?
Can someone be shaped by more than one country or culture? How does Leo XIV’s life in Peru complicate the label “American Pope”?
What is the difference between religious influence in public life and government establishment of religion?
How does Pope Leo’s papacy help us to explore how Americans share in similar civic obligations? How might it help us to explore tensions in those obligations (e.g., taxation)?
Additional Sources
The Association of Religion Data Archives, “Catholic Events and People in American History,” (link)
“Biography of Pope Leo XIV, born Robert Francis Prevost,” Vatican News (link)
James T. Keane, “Al Smith and the First Catholic Run at the White House,” America: The Jesuit Review, February 18, 2025 (link)
John T. McGreevy, Catholicism & American Freedom: A History (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004)
Public Broadcasting (PBS, WGBH), JFK (American Experience), November 12, 2013 (link)
Leave a Reply