The Education of Pope Leo XIV

Robert Prevost studied at the Pontifical University of Saint Thomas Aquinas in Rome from 1981 to 1985, during which time he acquired a licentiate in canon law and then successfully defended his doctorate in the same field. Although his thesis was submitted in 1985 and received high marks, it was not officially published by the Angelicum, as the university is commonly known, until 1987, presumably due to the ministerial work that Prevost had recently undertaken in Peru as a newly ordained priest in the Order of Saint Augustine.

The influence of ecclesiastical graduate studies in Rome on the lives of those who later become popes ought not to be overstated, but neither should its importance be underestimated. The most recent previous pontiff to have undergone formal training in canon law was Giovanni Battista Montini (Saint Paul VI), who completed a degree in this subject as part of his training to become a member of the international diplomatic corps of the Holy See. Montini subsequently steered the Church through a challenging period, overseeing the completion of the Second Vatican Council and its initial reception throughout the Catholic Church. His canonical training probably influenced him in myriad ways throughout this process, and yet, research into Montini’s early study does not allow one to predict and explain later outcomes. Later in life he clearly arrived at new insights and moral inclinations in his leadership of the Church that were not manifest earlier in his ecclesial career.

Similarly, we can observe that the doctoral research of Karol Wojtyła, completed in the 1940s at the Angelicum on the theological virtue of faith in the thought of Saint John of the Cross, is indicative of some themes that remained steadfast in the character of the author throughout his life. However, the dissertation in question is hardly predictive of the wellspring of teaching and activity that would characterize the pontificate of Saint John Paul II. The early academic work of such figures is part of a much larger story. But it does tell us something, namely, about each of them becoming a certain kind of truth-centered person through research and formation of intellectual habits. It is persons, after all, who govern the Church in and through living ideas, rather than ideas that govern, mediating through persons.

Unlike Montini and Wojtyła, Prevost was a member of a religious order, one of medieval origin: the Order of Saint Augustine. Accordingly, Prevost’s doctorate focuses on a different subject matter: It is titled “The Office and Authority of the Local Prior in the Order of Saint Augustine.” Founded in the mid-thirteenth century, this community is an order of mendicant friars marked by vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. It is dedicated to the observance of a common life of liturgical prayer, theological study, priestly ministry, and evangelization. As such, it bears similarities to other communities of friars, such as the Franciscans, the Carmelites, and the Dominicans. The Augustinian Order takes its original inspiration from the writings of Saint Augustine and thus is governed in part by the ancient Rule of Saint Augustine, which served as a basis for the religious life of this and several other medieval orders, including the Dominicans. The Augustinian Friars in Rome maintain a prestigious institute for the study of patristic theology (the Istituto Patristico Augustinianum), but they lack a faculty of canon law. Hence, it is hardly surprising that an Augustinian friar should undertake the canonical study of his own order’s constitutions at the Angelicum, with canonists from an adjacent religious order which is similarly marked by governmental reference to the Rule of Saint Augustine.

Prevost took courses with and wrote under the guidance of José Manuel Castaño, O.P., a respected canonist of his time. Castaño was an expert in particular on law pertaining to both marriage and consecrated religious life. In the 1980s, he was a lecturer in canon law both at the Pontifical Lateran University in Rome and at the Angelicum, where he also served as dean of the faculty of canon law. This context is of relevance for a variety of reasons. Castaño regularly lectured on Church–state relations (the interaction of civil and canon law) and the canon law of matrimony as well as that pertaining to consecrated religious life. He was one of many canon lawyers who advised Pope John Paul II on the revision of the 1917 Code of Canon Law that took place in light of the Second Vatican Council, which resulted in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Naturally, then, Castaño was a close observer of the revisions that took place in the code pertaining to consecrated and religious life. It should be noted, accordingly, that Prevost began working on his doctorate with Castaño in this field in 1983, the same year the new Code of Canon Law was promulgated. His interpretations of the code were aided, then, by the guidance of a person who had a privileged analysis of the text under consideration.

Prevost’s thesis seeks to analyze the modern Constitutions of the Order of Saint Augustine in light of the newly promulgated 1983 Code of Canon Law to consider how they are to be interpreted in the post-conciliar epoch. In 1968, the Augustinian Order had already completed a revision of its own constitutions in light of the Second Vatican Council, as was required of every major religious institute at the time. However, these modern constitutional revisions took place before the promulgation of the 1983 code. Thus, there remained the outstanding challenge of interpreting the constitutions of the Order of Saint Augustine in light of the 1983 code and its norms regarding religious life.

Prevost’s thesis sets out to do this not in a comprehensive way, which would have been too extensive a subject, but instead by concentrating prudently on a precise but important topic: the role of the prior in the governance of the local priory, in accord with the order’s norms and the general law of the Church.

At this point the reader may well wonder whether this subject is of interest to those unfamiliar with canon law. The answer is, I think, undoubtedly affirmative. Rightly understood, the Catholic Church’s canon law is indicative of the life of the Church and Her convictions regarding the mystery of God and the nature of human rights and responsibilities. It indicates fundamental structures found in the world of nature and grace, and thus is something profound at heart, and of universal interest. Indeed, we can say that, precisely speaking, the law of the Church seeks to indicate the nature of the human person and his or her responsibilities, privileges, and rights, in relation to God and to other human persons. In this sense, canon law is implicitly theological and ontological, and its subject matter points us toward the individual and collective moral agency of persons in the Catholic Church.

It is also, however, practical. Treating a range of important topics, from the governance of the Church as a whole to the nature of the sacraments, justice in human society, and the aims of priestly ministry, this body of law has a wide-reaching application. Its prescriptions and prohibitions touch upon the very constitution of the Catholic religion, in its essence and in its concrete daily life. As such, canon law is, when rightly understood, a daily companion of Catholic theological, moral, and philosophical doctrine. It derives from their principles, or is their architectural offspring, employed by the Church for the governance of Her ordinary life in time.

This last observation is of importance when evaluating key themes in Prevost’s doctoral thesis. It is best understood as a work that seeks to indicate and analyze the objective structure of the life of the Catholic Church, particularly with regard to the religious practices of a specific community of ordained priests and their common commitments. This has suggestive importance when considering the later biography of the author, but only up to a point. On the one hand, it is the excellent work of a young priest, and it does focus on themes that have relevance for his later life as a prior, provincial, and major superior in the Order of Saint Augustine, as well as for his work as a bishop, cardinal, and pontiff. However, the themes as enunciated by a doctoral student of canon law should not be made to bear too great a weight in seemingly predicting or casting expectations upon subsequent developments or decisions of Prevost as a religious superior or bishop.

And yet we should keep in mind that the work in question is not part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. It should not be confused with documents having an authoritative value when estimating the teaching legacy of Pope Leo XIV. Certainly it does not fall within the oft-misunderstood papal charism of infallibility, nor does it call for the “religious submission of the intellect and will” that Catholics are meant to give the ordinary authoritative teaching of the Roman pontiff. This all being said, if these pages do not tell us where Pope Leo is going, they at least give us some background on where he is coming from, so to speak, on themes that will perdure in his pontificate.

The thesis is composed of six parts that develop organically and logically from one another. The introduction and first chapter are concerned with the nature of authority in the Church and with the role of the superior in the life of the community. The second chapter treats governance in religious life in general, and the power of jurisdiction in the Church, specifically relating to the priest who is a prior in a religious community. The third chapter examines the office of the prior according to the Constitutions of the Order of Saint Augustine. The fourth, fifth, and sixth chapters then examine sequentially the munus docendi, the munus sanctificandi, and the munus regendi. These are the three modes of authority envisaged by the Second Vatican Council as constitutive of priestly authority in the Church: the gifts of teaching, sanctification (particularly through the administration of the sacraments), and prudential government.

If we were to summarize the whole simply, we could say that the thesis treats the Augustinian religious superior as an authority whose office is to serve the common good of the religious community, in accord with its objective needs, the rule of life, the respect of persons, and the life of the virtues, with charity being principal among them. In doing so, the prior as a priest has the responsibility to exert the three munera in a way that conforms to and is at the service of his religious institute. Thus, in the Augustinian life, he is responsible as a priest-superior to teach the truth of the Gospel, to celebrate the sacraments and assure their apostolic vitality, and to govern prudently in accord with the rule of the institute and the law of the Church. At the heart of this vision is an Augustinian conception of the spiritual life—where the superior, who depends upon God’s grace, is called upon to make a personal sacrifice of his life to God for the service of the community, and in doing so is meant to be inwardly conformed to the charity of Jesus Christ. Understood in this light, we can summarize briefly six themes that characterize the thesis, one for each chapter.

How did the young Father Robert Prevost view authority in the Church? A central theme of the introduction and first chapter of the thesis pertains to the common good as a measure for the exercise of ecclesiastical obedience. On this view, authority in the Church, as well as obedience to legitimate authority on the part of subjects, is characterized by the shared pursuit by all of the common good of the Church and of the local religious community. The notion of the “common good” (bonum commune) derives particularly from the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas, but it is of systematic importance in the modern articulation of Catholic social thought, in authors such as Pope Leo XIII and in documents of the Second Vatican Council. The notion also appears in the 1983 Code of Canon Law. The simplest way to think of the common good is to consider that there are many essential goods that we cannot enjoy individually but only collectively. Human beings cannot enjoy being married or being members of a human family individually but instead only participate in these goods collectively. The same can be said of other goods such as universities, national states, congregations of religious orders, and the Catholic Church as a whole.

Authority, the thesis underscores, is exerted as a service of the superior who seeks to take account of the objective parameters of the common good as a communion of persons who pursue a common set of activities. The law of the community is measured by the common good in question and the means or joint activities by which the good is pursued. The superior, then, is a person who seeks to facilitate the common pursuit of the good on the part of all the members of the community, taking into account their individual gifts, limitations, needs, and so forth, as well as the way that each one can contribute to the whole. This vision of obedience is personalistic and intellectual in character. It is personalistic because the observance of a common set of norms is intended to facilitate personal growth in communion with God, the life of virtue, and the love of God and neighbor. The common life of the members is oriented toward personal flourishing in communion. It is intellectual in nature because it presupposes that the superior who commands and the subject who obeys are joined together in a common exercise of understanding, referring themselves to the truth about God and humanity revealed in the person of Christ and in the teachings, sacramental practices, and ethical norms of the Catholic Church.

Thus, obedience is not blind or merely voluntaristic. Instead, our freedom is augmented through obedience precisely because it is guided by a sustained reference to the truth and because it aims at personal growth in love. Obedience, on this view, cultivates character or virtue in the service of the love of God and of the truth about the human person. The superior is bound when he commands by reference to the truth about divine and human love, and the superior seeks to facilitate his own freedom and that of others in reference to this truth. The human conscience has a necessary and vital role to play in this process, as each one is called upon by the mission of the Church to reflect on the commonly held truth and practice of the faith and to seek together the common good of the Church by facilitating in oneself and in others a deeper life in Christ.

The second chapter of the thesis touches upon a series of challenging historical and theoretical topics. It notes first that the authority of religious superiors is not formally identical with that of the apostolic hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and that there are various opinions on the ontological origins and theological status of the authority of religious orders and their founders and rules of life, as related to their participants. By contrast, the priesthood of any given religious superior is directly under the jurisdiction of the apostolic hierarchy, and functions according to the triple munera of teaching, sanctifying, and governing, in keeping with the universal mission of the Catholic Church. Consequently, the Catholic priest-superior who is in a religious order must maintain the governance of the institute both in accord with its particular law, in keeping with its distinct charism, and in accord with the universal agency of the priesthood, subject to the apostolic hierarchy and the episcopacy of the Catholic Church. Far from thinking of this priestly identity of the religious superior as something alien to the religious life, one should instead consider it as essential to the life of a clerical religious institute. Just as the religious congregation functions for the pursuit of the common good of the Church in its members and in those to whom it ministers, so those religious who are priests serve the greater order of the Church through religious observances that intensify and perfect their life of priestly ministry. This takes place through the contemplative dimensions of religious life—in liturgical prayer, meditation, study, and conversion of life—and through the external ministries of the religious institute that perform spiritual and temporal works of mercy on behalf of others. In sum, the priest-superior is a representative of the charism of the institute and of the hierarchical Church. He seeks to govern the institute in view of the conversion of life of himself and its members. This occurs through a life of contemplation and apostolic ministry. This is the context in which the superior should seek to exert the three apostolic munera: teaching, sanctification, and apostolic governance.

The third chapter of the thesis notes that the prior of the Augustinian community possesses canonical and jurisdictional power in virtue of the office that is assigned to him by the provincial (his ordinary superior) and his provincial council. However, Prevost also notes that canonical power is distinct from personal authority that is moral and spiritual. The latter stems from the moral credibility, spiritual integrity, and prudential competence of the superior. Evidently, subjects find it easier to obey a person who is in possession of a jurisdictional mandate when the person in question is also characterized by spiritual understanding and moral wisdom. The capacity to govern in light of these higher qualities is something that the Church should seek to cultivate in its leadership to the extent possible. Likewise, those assigned to lead others are greatly helped in this task to the extent that their own interior life, Christian prudence, and human moral competency are well formed.

Laws that govern the exercise of office, such as that of the prior or provincial, are designed to allow a timely rotation of leadership personnel. This method allows the Church in Her religious orders to circumnavigate the problem of excessive reliance upon or submission to individual personalities. It invites various contributions successively over time from persons of distinct and complementary gifts. It also protects good leaders and superiors from unsustainable or imprudent forms of commitment and continuation. The exercise of leadership itself, then, takes place within a communitarian logic and a historical unfolding of shared responsibility and ongoing prudential conversation and recalculation. This wider context of communitarian distribution of leadership provides institutes with a greater flexibility and strength in meeting the demands of adaptation to new circumstances and sustained fidelity across time.

The fourth chapter of the thesis considers the prior’s role in the exercise of the teaching office of the Church, understood by analogy to the episcopacy and papacy and in subsidiary service to the latter. The Augustinian prior must be a kind of magister in the sense articulated by Augustine: a person who conveys genuine learning in the Catholic tradition to elicit from others their own search for the truth. The Church receives genuine divine revelation from God and thus shares in divine truth, but She also conveys this truth through a common life, one shared by individuals who seek truth out in their natural freedom and mutual capacities for learning. The prior must, therefore, acquire a real and profound sense of theological learning and must exert his teaching within the context of religious life. This notion has several consequences. First, the prior like other priests must train to acquire accurate and qualified understanding of the intellectual patrimony of the Catholic tradition. In doing so he has to have a sense of his responsibilities and capacities, and also his limitations, within a communal context. Second, his teaching is exerted in an analogical sense, across a spectrum of forms: preaching, theological instruction, and sound counsel and advice.

Third, his responsibility as prior is one of not only spiritual instruction but also the assurance of intellectual and spiritual formation. This is acutely the case when he is responsible for the formation of future priests and consecrated religious. The superior of a priory of formation for candidates to the priesthood must be especially attentive to the central role of study in the Augustinian life and of the norms and requisite aims of priestly formation on the part of the Catholic Church. Even outside the seminary context, the prior in an Augustinian priory needs to attend to the role of study in the Augustinian life so that the friars nurture their interiority and their apostolic commitment by a constant return to the intellectual life and the study of theology. Fourth, the prior must have knowledge not only of theology but also of the constitutions and norms of the order so that he can teach these to others and govern the life of the community effectively in light of the order’s internal law. Here law is understood also as having an intellectual grounding in the truth about the Church and Her religious life. Finally, the cultivation of a life of learning and study within the order is oriented not only toward the search for God and the contemplative life but also toward the apostolic teaching and preaching of the Catholic faith to others. The prior’s respect for a life of dedication to study in the order can bear fruit for the larger ecclesial community because this way of life facilitates a deeper meditation on and effective communication of the sacred teaching of the apostolic faith and the resources of the Catholic intellectual tradition.

In the fifth chapter, Prevost characterizes the prioral-priestly role of sanctification in terms of the cura animarum, the care of souls. The prior should be concerned to facilitate a priestly life of sanctification on behalf of the religious community through the medium of the common life. His principal concern in this regard is with the holiness of the brothers. Here the famous saying from canon law holds especially true: salus animarum suprema lex. The supreme law of the Church is ordained to the salvation of souls and their growth in sanctification.

Accordingly, the prior has a responsibility to uphold and facilitate the integral celebration of the liturgical prayer and sacramental life of the Catholic Church, since, after all, it is primarily through the liturgy and the reception of the sacraments that the members of the Church are directed immediately toward God. Canonical religious life thus entails the Liturgy of the Hours, which is the collective practice of prayer expressed through the recitation or singing of a precise schedule of Psalms and hymns, accompanied by readings from sacred scripture and tradition. Daily meditation, devotional practices, annual retreats, and spiritual chapter talks of instruction all form part of the life of the priory, and these too are to be facilitated or provided by the prior.

The celebration of Holy Communion is of central importance to the life of the Church and of every religious community. The Mass is a privileged place of encounter with God, and it is the instrumental occasion for every person’s spiritual conformity to the mystery of Christ. So too, then, in religious life, the Mass is at the center of the identity and spiritual practice of the religious community. The prior must above all be responsible for the life of daily celebration and corporate participation in Mass. The practice of sacramental Communion, however, has as its necessary complement in religious life the regular practice of the sacrament of penance. The community should have access to regular occasions for confession. Here the superior must show respect for the conscience of the members of the order.

Ordinarily the superior should not act as the confessor or spiritual director (i.e., one who has competence in “the internal forum”) for those he governs (having public authority in “the external forum”), and he is forbidden to seek any manifestation of the internal state of conscience from those he governs. Nevertheless, the superior is one of the persons involved in making sure that the priests of the community do have canonical faculties to hear confessions from the bishop of the diocese, in accord with the exigencies of the sacrament that contribute to its validity.

Finally, as part of the munus sanctificandi the prior must be vigilant to seek the well-being of the sick, and to serve the suffering or dying members of the community with vigilance. He must take care of the dying not only by helping them to prepare for death but also by seeing that the community prays for them after death and by ensuring that he offers Mass on their behalf. Praying for the dead is a constitutive obligation of the religious life, and one in which living members of the community seek to assist the souls of their departed brethren by their intercession and by celebration of the sacrifice of the Mass on their behalf.

In this perspective on the priestly life of the superior, the conception of leadership that prevails is undoubtedly theocentric. The common good that characterizes religious life is centered on God, and it is principally for this reason that it is subject to the law of the Church. The superior who seeks the salvation and sanctification of the membership of his community must seek to govern them liturgically and sacramentally in view of their union with God, especially through a public and personal life of prayer, contemplation, and love of God.

As the final chapter of the thesis notes, the most tangible responsibility of the prior is for the concrete care of the priory in its daily life. Here references are made to the House Council and the House Chapter as governing bodies of the community. The prior presides over each, and each has a distinct administrative function. The work of the council is more hierarchical and restricted, while the chapter is inclusive of the whole community. The former has more governmental weight, but both the prior and the council need to consult with and listen to the chapter. Here also Prevost notes the place of the treasurer, who maintains practices of economic probity, responsibility, and transparent reporting. In other words, the governance of the community is cooperative and entails a system of checks and balances, common deliberations, and collective accountability in finances. The prior does officiate and must frequently make decisions over and above the directions indicated by the chapter, but he is bound to consult and can at times be required by law to receive a vote of approval for his decisions.

Prevost also notes the importance and challenge of the discipline of errant members of the community who neglect or act in disaccord with their religious vows. Correction and guidance from superiors toward such members of the community is to be exerted in view of their conversion, well-being, and moral progress, as well as the well-being and protection of the community and the Church.

Throughout this process of governance, the prior should maintain consistent respect for procedures of government. The details matter. It is important to oversee elections carefully so that any voting that takes place is always valid, in accord with the rights of the community and the norms of the constitutions. When the council or chapter requires consultation by law, the prior should consult. Advising and mutual deliberation are a part of the life of the Church, including for authorities, who can seek to develop their deliberative prudence in the greater service of the order. Likewise, the prior has a unique, genuine, and irreplaceable executive power, which he must exert with responsibility, even after the deliberations of his council and in light of them. In other words, in the end someone must be in charge and must make final decisions that others are bound to obey. This central leadership of the priory is essential precisely so that the unity, integrity, and harmony of the life of the community can be maintained consistently, for the good of all.

To repeat, it is not really feasible to predict or foretell from the youthful doctoral work of a future pope how and in what way that pontiff might govern. Human life is in many ways historically open-ended, interesting, and surprising, not governed by a simple history of ideas. Nevertheless, the formation of our ideas does matter, and they can have historical legacies and consequences. Accordingly, there are pertinent observations one can make about Prevost’s thesis that should have some bearing upon a truly Catholic conception of the papacy. Clearly the notion of the Augustinian prior and his priestly ministry that is envisaged in this thesis has its context in a larger whole, that of the Church. Consequently, the Augustinian notions of governance and the vision of the munera of the priesthood that it explores are exemplified in more overarching ways if one expands the realm of reflection to consider the role of the major superior, the bishop, or the pope. Each of these figures is responsible for the common good, in ever-expanding and more extensive ways, and each is bound to participate in the authority of Christ and His Church by accord with the threefold munera of teaching, sacramental sanctification, and governance. Truth be told, one could reconceptualize the thesis in question by thinking of the role of the papacy in the universal Church rather than the prior in the local Augustinian community, and certainly not all but many of the spiritual and canonical norms would remain, and only gain importance of universal extension and intensive significance.

Evidently the author of the thesis at age thirty did not have this horizon in view, but one can respectfully ask whether divine providence is not at work when a person preparing himself for the participation in the common life of his religious community in fact considers elements of communal existence—an existence that will have great pertinence for all of the offices that he will subsequently accept in unforeseeable circumstances under obedience to others. I will not attempt to envisage the larger story of how Prevost’s early work was preparatory for or indicative of themes that might emerge in his service to the Church as Pope Leo XIV. There are clearly, however, in this early work central themes regarding the life of the Church, the apostolic tradition, and ecclesial authority in the service of the common good that may well indicate directions and themes in the subsequent life and teaching of the author. Historians and theologians alike may enjoy considering parallels that occur between this Augustinian vision of the prior and the subsequent unfolding of an Augustinian pontificate. Hopefully, the publication of this work by The Catholic University of America Press in its original English (and other presses in other languages) will lead to constructive debate about and comprehension of the relationship between the two. May it inspire all priors, pastors, bishops, and anyone who holds authority in the Church to exert that authority for the sake of the common good: to find unity with one another through a shared life of charity, a common pursuit of the truth, and a life ordered toward union with God. 

This essay serves as the introduction to Robert Prevost’s doctoral thesis, The Office and Authority of the Local Prior in the Order of Saint Augustine, republished this fall by The Catholic University of America Press.