PROVIDENCE, R.I. [Brown University] — No one saw an American pope coming — not even David Kertzer.

Kertzer, a professor emeritus of social science, anthropology and Italian studies at Brown University, has spent decades studying and writing about papal history. Through bestselling books and scholarly articles, he’s delved into the rich, complex and dramatic goings-on at the Vatican, focusing specifically on the 19th and 20th centuries. He understands more than most why this moment in papal history — the election of the first ever American-born pope, Robert Francis Prevost — is unique. 

In the weeks after the news of Pope Leo XIV made international headlines, Kertzer, currently a professor of international and public affairs (research) at Brown’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, spoke from Rome about why he never thought he’d see an American leading the Vatican, what his papacy could mean for international politics and where the Catholic Church is headed in the decades to come.

Q: When you found out Robert Francis Prevost would become the next pope, what was your reaction?

It was a surprise, for various reasons. The favorites on the betting market were mostly Italian cardinals and one Filipino cardinal. Prevost initially had only a 2% chance of being elected; when the white smoke went up so quickly, his prospects dwindled to two-tenths of a percent. Everyone assumed that, with an election that quick, whoever was chosen couldn’t possibly be a dark horse. Additionally, it’s been taken as an article of faith by everyone in the Vatican that there would never be an American pope. The United States is too politically strong; it was thought that an American pope might be too intimidating. 

Q: How do you think an American “dark horse” gained favor in the conclave?

I believe that behind the scenes, Pope Francis had been promoting Prevost to some extent. A couple of years ago, Francis appointed him to a position within the Roman Curia, where he was responsible for selecting bishops worldwide. That allowed Prevost to get to know the cardinals within the Vatican, something that’s more difficult for cardinals who are based in other countries and continents. Prevost gained experience that Francis never had. He came to understand the power struggles and the politics of the Vatican. Before he was appointed to that position, he had also gained respect as the worldwide head of the Augustinian religious order.

Q: How have Italians reacted to Pope Leo XIV?

I think Italians always hope for an Italian pope — that’s how it was for centuries until recent decades. But judging by what the local newspapers are writing, Italians find the new pope to be likeable, approachable and humane. Some people, especially women, have said he has a “buon viso” — a good face, a friendly face.

Q: Do you think the conclave’s decision to choose an American pope was politically motivated?

First, I think Prevost only became pope because, though he’s American, he’s not seen as part of the American church hierarchy. Because he was most recently in the Vatican, because he spent 20 years in South America before that, because he’s fluent in Spanish and fairly fluent in Italian, he’s seen as independent from the American Catholic Church. That is why he stood a chance.

The U.S. is seen as the most powerful arm of the global Catholic Church because it brings in the most money. The U.S. is also seen as the home of the power center of the right wing of the church, which mostly ran in opposition to Pope Francis and his ideas. I believe one of the things the cardinals are hoping is that Pope Leo XIV can somehow keep the church’s right wing in line in a way that a non-American may have a harder time doing.

Q: How else could the new pope influence politics?

Leo certainly seems to be continuing Francis’ emphasis on supporting immigrants and those who live in poverty, which is what made Francis unpopular with the Catholic Church’s American right wing. But in other ways he appears to be more of a moderate — someone who was close to Francis, but not another Francis.

That makes sense in the context of how the Catholic Church is changing. You have to realize that for decades now, the church has been losing members in Europe and the U.S., partly due to sexual abuse scandals, and gaining members in other parts of the world, particularly throughout Africa and in parts of Asia. That’s notable because the calls to make the Catholic Church more progressive are mostly coming out of Europe and parts of the U.S., not out of Asia or Africa. Ordaining women, divorce, same-sex marriage, contraception — even 50 years ago, people believed the Catholic Church would have to bend on these things eventually. But if the church’s Asian and African population keeps growing under Pope Leo XIV, that might not happen.

Q: How might the new pope work — or clash — with world leaders?

The pope is in a somewhat unusual position; in addition to being a religious leader, he is also head of a sovereign nation. That means he’s speaking to heads of state not just as an advisor but also as a peer, in some respects. 

For a long time, there’s been this idea that popes could play a leading role in international affairs, but the idea has never come to fruition. Previous popes have harbored big political ambitions: Pope Benedict XV tried to play a part in the settlement following World War I, and Pope Pius XII hoped to broker a peace deal during World War II. Pope Francis did speak up about international conflicts, but he didn’t necessarily enter the fray.

The issue has always been that getting involved in international political matters means taking a divisive stance, and doing so could jeopardize the pope’s credibility as a religious leader. I don’t see Leo XIV as someone who is interested in getting too involved, but we’ll see what happens.

Q: Do you think Pope Leo XIV could transform the Catholic Church?

I think the last transformative pope we had was John XXIII, who came into the papacy in 1958 and died in 1963. Before then, clergy were forbidden from having inter-religious meetings, the Vatican opposed freedom of religion and freedom of speech and the church demonized Jews. All of that changed under John XXIII; it was the modern transformational moment of the church.

Each pope since John XXIII has left a mark on the Catholic Church, but I don’t think any of them could be called transformative. Francis took progressive stances, but he didn’t actually enact major progressive changes worldwide. He blessed same-sex couples, but he didn’t change the church’s official policy on same-sex marriage. He gave women some positions in Rome, but he didn’t take the next steps and make it possible for women to become ordained as priests.

I don’t see Leo as a transformative pope, but I do think there are several major disputes he’ll have to manage. Like Francis, he’ll probably continue to put pressure on Opus Dei, a right-wing power center of the Catholic Church, without alienating the entire right wing of the church. He’ll have to navigate relations with the Muslim world, which are getting more tense. He’ll potentially have to address the ramifications of increased migration and population decline in Europe and the U.S. I believe that many parts of the world, including Italy, have been repressing public inquiry into sexual abuse in the church; those stories will come out, and he’ll have to manage the fallout. 

Q: How could Pope Leo XIV impact your work as a historian?

I know I just said Francis wasn’t transformative, but he did do one thing that was transformative for me: He opened the archives of Pius XII, who was pope during World War II. [Editor’s note: Kertzer’s research in those archives led to the release of his 2022 book “The Pope at War.”] Under Francis, the Vatican Secret Archive was renamed the Vatican Apostolic Archive.

Whenever a new pope comes to power, the question for scholars is: Will this pope make it more or less difficult to do historical work? Who will he appoint as heads of the archives? Will our relationship with them be collegial or adversarial?

Until then, I’ll continue to work in the archives. I’ve become fascinated by one aspect of what happened when Benito Mussolini created anti-Jewish laws in 1938: Thousands of Jews, in an attempt to escape persecution, rushed to get baptized and have their racial identity changed from Jewish to Aryan — i.e., Catholic. In some cases, that decision literally saved their lives. It’s not something Italians like to think or talk about today.

Q: When can we read more about that history?

Soon. I’m just finishing a manuscript for Random House, which I’m hopeful will be published as a book next year.