Interview with Rodrigo Guerra conducted for Religion Digital by Jimena Hernández, Mexican correspondent. Translated from the Spanish original. Published with permission.
- “The pope is neither anti-right nor anti-left, but it is no secret that those who are immersed in some ideology feel uncomfortable with him.”
- “The reductionism and violence of the old guerrilla groups is just as lamentable as the reductionism and violence of the far-right techno-authoritarianism that, in the present moment, is mobilizing for war and xenophobia.”
- “Robert Prevost has studied St. Augustine and Karl Rahner, has gone deeply into Benedict XVI’s interpretation of The City of God, and has appreciated Gustavo Gutiérrez: creative fidelity, with great love for the Church, and always open to the movements of the Spirit.”
One year after the election of Pope Leo XIV, the world appears more tense than ever and more in need of the Gospel. The Church herself is shaken by various rampant neoconservatisms. We spoke with Rodrigo Guerra, secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America and a close collaborator of Cardinal Robert Prevost during his time as prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops.
How does one celebrate the first anniversary of the election of Pope Leo XIV in the midst of a world wounded by various wars, and in a Church that keeps offering resistance to the synodal reform processes that are so badly needed?
Whenever we experience a gift — the unmerited irruption of something good into our history — even when the rest of things is difficult or dark, we Latin Americans feel called to celebrate. To “celebrate” means to gather together and proclaim aloud that something good has happened and deserves to be honored and given thanks for. And that is what took place. One year ago, we all looked with astonishment at something “unexpected.” Some describe it as the arrival of a “North American pope,” trying to underscore that it was unthinkable that an American could be elected Successor of Peter. I prefer to think that what we actually have is the “second Latin American pope” in history. Indeed, Robert Prevost, born in Chicago, chose to live — and expected to die — in the heart of Latin America. I have the impression that this peculiar circumstance, along with the many others that make up both his personal life and the process of his election, shows not only that something good happened on May 8, 2025, but that something which surpasses us is still happening in our midst.
Is Pope Leo a pontiff for our times?
It may sound like a cliché to say that God gives us a pope for each age. Even so, patiently studying the history of the popes — at least from Leo XIII down to our own day — helps us to appreciate that it is not in spite of the particular profile of each pontiff but through it that God manifests, in part, the mercy he has for the world and for the Church. Moreover, when I look at the worldwide social and ecclesial scene, my conviction is reinforced that Leo XIV is indeed a singular gift of Providence.
The world stage has been marked, among other things, by the advance of the “new right” in various parts of the world. Is Pope Leo XIV an antidote to right-wing extremism?
The pope is neither anti-right nor anti-left, but it is no secret that those who are immersed in some ideology feel uncomfortable with him. Leo XIV proclaims the beauty of the Gospel in the most unarmed and disarming way. Without resorting to the logic proper to power games, the pope simply proclaims the risen Jesus Christ — a living Person, especially present in the wounds and pain of marginalized and excluded men and women. Taking the certainty of faith as his hermeneutical criterion, the pope looks at and interprets the situations before him, issues some important judgments, and at times proposes actions — always aimed at reconciling brothers who have been set against one another. Obviously, this makes those who hold power uncomfortable. The “discomfort,” then, does not come from entrenching oneself in an opposing ideological corner but from a higher standard. And perhaps this is what we ought to concentrate on: there exists a meta-ideological point of reference that offers greater depth when it comes to understanding the challenges of the present! It is not merely a metaphor to say that faith enlarges reason in the search for the truth of our wounded world! We have to relearn how to look at the heart of reality with the renewed eyes that spring from conversion, from the following of a Person, and from the places where that Person comes out to meet us!
You have published some studies that are especially critical of the “new right” and the “far right.” What are the most significant errors you detect in these ideologies?
I think there are numerous problems in the ideological-political galaxy of the “new right”: conspiracy theories, hateful oversimplifications, anthropological errors, deficient interpretations of the crisis of modernity, and others besides. Nevertheless, in my opinion, at the bottom of several modalities of the “new right” there gravitate two deeper and more troubling problems: the uncritical use of socio-analytical and philosophical mediations that are incompatible with the Gospel, and the temporalization of the Kingdom. If we look closely, these two problems are quite analogous to the ones denounced in the more radicalized modalities of liberation theology in the instruction Libertatis nuntius. In my opinion, the most serious problem with figures such as Hugo Assmann, Giulio Girardi, certain works of Porfirio Miranda, and the Christian militants of M-19 was that they embraced a certain Marxism with enormous naïveté. Coupled with this, I am still struck by the docile submission to a form of political theology that tends to immanentize the person of Jesus Christ, and that ends up betraying the people by drawing them into the dynamic of revolutionary violence. These same issues, which now belong to a history fifty years old, are being reconfigured in new vocabularies through neoconservative channels, causing grave pastoral and social damage. The reductionism and violence of the old guerrilla groups is just as lamentable as the reductionism and violence of the far-right techno-authoritarianism that, in the present moment, is mobilizing for war and xenophobia.
Some political authorities in the United States, including Catholics, have accused Pope Leo XIV of making theological claims too lightly, as if he were unfamiliar with the thought of St. Augustine, the theological-moral principles of just war, legitimate self-defense, and the like. In Spain, too, more than one party has repeatedly warned that the pope will be challenged if he keeps teaching the Church’s doctrine on the dignity of migrants during his upcoming visit to that Iberian country. Various Catholic-conservative “influencers” in Latin America offer judgments that are even sharper still. What is going on in these Catholic sectors that challenge the pope whenever he does not agree with them?
The anti-Roman complex shows up in everyone who embraces some gnostic mode of being Christian. The Christian faith is faith in an incarnate God — in a God who becomes a people, and in a People of God presided over by a fragile fisherman from Galilee called “Peter.” For some, the fact that God involves himself to such a high degree with flesh, with contingency, with limitation, and with suffering is a scandal and a folly. To every form of puritanism, to every “Catharist” movement, it is repugnant to acknowledge that God dwells in what is most fragile. If there is anything for which we should be grateful to the liberation theologies that remained within ecclesial communion, it is that they reminded us — with particular vivacity — of the teaching of Jesus, of the early Church, and of the Fathers. I say it in the words of Bartolomé de las Casas, which Gustavo Gutiérrez used to recall frequently: “for of the very least and the most forgotten, God has a memory that is fresh and very much alive.” In my opinion, the anti-Roman complex always conceals a certain Docetism — a Christology that dissolves the Incarnation.
How was it that some liberation theologians remained in communion with the Church?
Each one will surely have to tell his own story. Still, watching and listening to Gustavo Gutiérrez, it seems to me that his close contact and friendship with the poorest was what placed his heart in a real — not metaphorical — openness to the Mystery of the Church. The method was his spirituality. And the method, taken seriously, made him love the Church more. What St. Augustine said is true: the poorest are the sacramental presence of the Lord.
Does this mean that the poor correct us?
The poor and the marginalized, in a very real way, evangelize us. Every missionary, every pastoral worker who has lived in genuine immersion knows this. In his homily of March 16, 2012, Robert Prevost meditated on this question: “Are we ready to let ourselves be renewed by the poor?” He did not do so in a speculative way but in that other way which springs from real life. In my opinion, the kind of Christianity we should distrust is the aristocratic, bourgeois, and small-minded kind — the kind of people who, whether from the left or the right, look down on their neighbor with “moral superiority,” the kind who do not like to let themselves be taught by the faithful faith of the holy People of God. The bourgeois despises “the charcoal-maker’s faith”; he does not really immerse himself in popular religiosity, nor in the humble forms of living in communion with the shepherds. Some ultraconservative theologians and some supposedly “progressive” theologians converge in despising the way the poorest approach the sacraments, simple prayers, devotion to the Virgin Mary, love of the pope, and so on. I am convinced that Pope Francis and Leo XIV have learned on the ground, in the day-to-day work of pastoral ministry, that conversion to Jesus passes through this singular moment of grace — namely, the building of true friendship and the willingness to be taught by the voice of God in the last of history. The exhortation Dilexi te stands as an explicit and eloquent witness of this experience.
Leo XIV studied at the Angelicum and chose to live as a missionary in Peru. How does one reconcile a traditional formation with a missionary commitment that values the preferential option for the poor?
Perhaps Elise Ann Allen, biographer of Pope Leo XIV, can answer this question better than I can. What immediately comes to mind is a conversation I had with Carlos Galli many years ago, in which he said something like this to me: “in order to do theology that is relevant in the present, it is necessary to love and to know deeply the thought of the past.” I think the heart of the matter lies there. On June 26, 2007, Robert Prevost sent a letter to the Augustinians of Latin America in which he explains that they are not there to invent their identity but to bring it up to date in history through the work of the Holy Spirit. He calls this “creative fidelity.” Indeed, pure creativity that makes no reference to the wisdom and identity that have preceded us becomes superficiality and improvisation. Pure mechanical repetition of figures from the past is immobilism. Robert Prevost has studied St. Augustine and Karl Rahner, has gone deeply into Benedict XVI’s interpretation of The City of God, and has appreciated Gustavo Gutiérrez: creative fidelity, with great love for the Church, and always open to the movements of the Spirit.
Pope Leo XIV speaks in season and out of season about an “unarmed and disarming” peace. Is this a programmatic line of his pontificate?
My impression is that the most essential programmatic line of Leo XIV’s pontificate is the proclamation of the living Jesus Christ, and, starting from him, the proclamation that the peace we have to seek is not a mere cosmetic balance, a temporary stabilization, a momentary repair of diplomatic channels. From his very first greeting, on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, we all heard him announce, before anything else: “Peace be with you all!” … “This is the first greeting of the Risen Christ” … “an unarmed peace and a disarming peace, humble and persevering. It comes from God, God who loves us all unconditionally.” If we look closely at these brief words, we find in them an entire path for our own conversion and for the peace of the world.
Finally, Cardinal Prevost was your boss for two years at the Pontifical Commission for Latin America: will the current pope continue the path of ecclesial reform that Francis undertook through synodality?
Pope Leo XIV has lived out with gratitude the fatherhood of each pontiff of our time, and especially of Pope Francis. Francis taught us all that “time is greater than space” — that is, that one must give priority to long-haul processes over positions or short-term, momentary achievements. This is the case with synodality. Leo XIV understands in depth the importance of synodal reform. Even so, this reform calls for patience, the long view, and conversion. Synodality is the dynamic dimension of ecclesial communion. It is not parliamentarianism. It is not democratization. And still less is it a passing fad or some Vatican whim. It is the full living out of the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council. Let me share something with you: a few days ago, we received at the Pontifical Commission for Latin America the presidency of CLAR (the Latin American Confederation of Religious). It gave me great satisfaction to see that they immediately linked the word “synodality” to conversion. I am convinced that, without personal-synodal conversion, synodality either becomes unintelligible or turns into ecclesiastical populism. Likewise, CLAR interpreted the concept of “synodality” primarily as “synodalization” — that is, as a verb we have to learn to conjugate in every ecclesial space and structure. It seems to me that this is the road that all of us have to travel in the future. A road on which we will have to set aside many attachments and securities. A road that will give us more freedom and, at the same time, a renewed communion.
Image courtesy of Rodrigo Guerra.
Rodrigo Guerra López is the secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America.
Originally from Mexico City, he graduated in philosophy from the Free Popular University of the State of Puebla, Mexico; he was then awarded a higher degree in university humanism from the Ibero-American University, Mexico, and a doctorate in philosophy from the International Academy of Philosophy of the Principality of Liechtenstein.
He has held the role of academic coordinator of the John Paul II Pontifical Institute in Mexico City and has served as professor of metaphysics, bioethics, and philosophy of law at the PanAmerican University, Mexico. In 2013 he held the Karol Wojtyla Memorial Lectures at the Catholic University of Lublin, Poland.
From 2004 to 2007 he directed the Observatorio Socio Pastoral of the Latin American Episcopal Council. In 2008 he founded the Centro de Investigación Social Avanzada (CISAV), of which he is professor-researcher of the Division of Philosophy and member of the Consejo de Gobierno.
He is a member of the theological commission of the Latin American Episcopal Council and of the Pontifical Academy for Life, and is the author of numerous publications in the field of anthropology, bioethics, and social philosophy.
Popular Posts