John Prevost discusses life as the pope’s brother: 'We always knew that he had that calling'
John Prevost, brother of Pope Leo XIV, shared memories of a typical Catholic upbringing, attending school, altar service, choir, and Catholic education. He recalled childhood anecdotes, such as building a shed where Pope Leo XIV fell through a rotted roof and their appearance on Chicago's Bozo's Circus in 1960. Prevost emphasized that faith began at home and grew gradually, reflecting on how his family's religious environment shaped his perspective. The interview was conducted by EWTN News in Depth on April 17, 2026, offering personal insights into the Pope’s family life.
2 days ago
John Prevost, the older brother of Pope Leo XIV (born Robert Prevost), reflects on their ordinary upbringing, the early sense of his brother’s vocation, and how his role as the pope’s sibling shapes daily life and his views on Catholic education. He describes a childhood steeped in family faith, shared activities, and a long‑standing belief that Robert was destined for the priesthood, now realized in his papacy 1 2.
John recalls a “normal” childhood in Chicago, with school, homework, and outdoor play.
All three brothers served as altar servers, sang in the choir, and attended Catholic schools through high school 1 2.
Memorable moments include building a shed that collapsed when Rob fell through a rotted roof and appearing on the local TV program “Bozo’s Circus” in 1960 1 2.
The Prevost household emphasized Scripture and prayer.
Their father regularly read Bible stories and the family prayed the rosary together after dinner 1 2.
John says the family sensed Rob’s priestly vocation early on.
A neighbor once told the boys that Rob would become “the first American pope” when they were in first or second grade 1 2.
Rob’s desire to become a priest persisted throughout his youth, culminating in his election as Pope Leo XIV in 2025 1 2.
According to John, Pope Leo XIV concentrates on the “disenfranchised” and “ignored,” addressing important social issues with patience and depth 1 2.
John notes that people have returned to church because of his brother’s influence, sometimes contacting him directly to share their renewed faith 1 2.
John describes taking each day “day by day,” acknowledging the unpredictability of public expectations 1 2.
He feels both honored and limited, often listening to others who hope he can intervene 1 2.
Despite the papacy’s demands, the brothers maintain daily communication, discussing mundane topics like gifts received after the Wednesday General Audience and playful questions about meeting famous people 1 2.
The siblings share light‑hearted moments, such as joking about the volume of candy gifts (“two closets full of them”) 1 2.
They stay connected through mobile games, with John usually winning at “Words with Friends” while Pope Leo XIV beats him at “Wordle” 1 2.
John, a former teacher and principal, stresses that Catholic schools instill values and integrate faith into all subjects, from math to moral formation 1 2.
He expresses concern that rising costs may make Catholic schooling inaccessible to average families, fearing it could become an elite option 1 2.
Examine familial influence on papal vocation in Catholic tradition
Familial influence has long been treated in Catholic tradition as a real (though not decisive by itself) factor in nurturing any divine vocation that may later lead to priesthood, the episcopate, and—through further discernment and Church election—eventually the papacy. The Church’s teaching highlights the family’s educational and formative role, while also insisting on freedom of the person and the Church’s responsibility to discern and guide vocations. Where we do have biographical data, it often shows family pressure, encouragement, or protection acting as the “first environment” in which a future churchman’s vocation either matures or is resisted.
Catholic doctrine does not treat vocation as merely personal psychology; it is a response to God that develops through concrete formation within the Church. Pastores Dabo Vobis explicitly assigns responsibility to the family for priestly formation: parents and relatives “should never seek to call back the future priest within the narrow confines of a too human logic,” and instead should “accompany the formative journey with prayer, respect, the good example of the domestic virtues and spiritual and material help.”
Even more strongly, Pope John Paul II describes the family as the first and best environment for vocation growth—calling it “il primo e il miglior seminario” for consecrated life’s vocational training. The same homily adds a practical criterion: “Normally a vocation nasce e matura in un ambiente familiare sano, responsabile, cristiano.”
While these texts directly concern priestly and consecrated vocations rather than explicitly the papacy, the logical continuity in Catholic ecclesiology is clear: the papacy is not a vocation that begins in a vacuum. A pope must first be—through God’s call and Church recognition—part of the clergy and often the episcopate. Therefore, factors that shape formation for priesthood and religious life are historically and spiritually relevant to papal “pathways,” even if the papacy itself is conferred by election rather than by family request.
Catholic teaching repeatedly draws a boundary: families should foster vocation signs without manipulating the child into a predetermined trajectory. The Pontifical Council for the Family states that parents “must respect and appreciate the freedom of each of their children,” encouraging the child’s personal vocation “without trying to impose a predetermined vocation on them.”
This is important for analyzing “familial influence” without turning it into a theory of social control. In other words, Catholic tradition expects that families may:
But the family must not treat vocation as something it owns or dictates.
Catholic pastoral frameworks for youth and young adults describe discernment as “a path of freedom” toward full fruit. While not aimed at papal vocation specifically, the principle reinforces how the Church understands vocational growth: it is meant to be free, guided, and oriented to God’s call, not trapped by familial expectations.
The Church never teaches that papal vocation is transmitted by bloodline in a deterministic way. Rather, the analysis should focus on formation and readiness: a family that truly functions as a “first seminary” can create conditions where a candidate for higher ecclesial service is more likely to:
This helps explain why Catholic tradition can credit family influence in vocation stories while still insisting the Church discerns, tests, and guides vocations through its own structures.
Even when family is strong, the Church also recognizes the parish’s role. Pastores Dabo Vobis connects family and parish, noting that “Often, afterward, the parish… supplements the family's role.” Since future leadership in the Church normally presupposes sustained pastoral formation and integration into ecclesial life, the combination of family formation + parish support becomes a plausible “ecosystem” for later ecclesial responsibility.
Pope John Paul II also links vocational renewal to ordinary pastoral care, including the role of family and parish life in making God’s voice “resound” more easily.
Because the provided sources do not give a systematic survey of papal family histories, the most faithful way to proceed is biographical illustration: show how “familial influence” appears in the lives of figures who later served with unusually high authority (including in papal contexts), thereby illuminating the Church’s general framework.
One of the most striking cases in the provided material is Desiderius of Monte Cassino (later tied to high papal office and cardinalate in the account). The narrative explicitly includes:
After a period of resistance and renewed escape, his family ultimately accepted the vocation—placing conditions (leaving one monastery to join another). The Church’s teaching about family influence emphasizes exactly this pattern: a vocation can meet opposition, but the family’s prayerful accompaniment and respectful acceptance are decisive when the call proves genuine.
This example also shows why Catholic tradition distinguishes between:
The same Butler material presents Desiderius as of notable background and later notes his prominence in ecclesial service (including papal connections). Other entries similarly describe saints’ noble contexts (e.g., Sergius of Radonezh being born “into a noble family”), and the account emphasizes spiritual development rather than social privilege as the causal driver.
These biographical notes therefore support a nuanced claim: family status can be part of historical circumstance (education, networks, stability), but Catholic tradition attributes the vocation’s ultimate origin to God and its maturation to formation and discernment—not to social rank.
St Agatho (as presented in Butler’s account) had “been married and engaged in secular pursuits for twenty years before he became a monk.” In other words, the “family” dimension in papal lives may take the form not only of childhood encouragement or resistance but also of mature life choices before full religious commitment.
That does not mean the Church teaches marriage as the necessary path to papal holiness; rather, it illustrates that papal history often includes complex transitions in a person’s life before their high ecclesial office is reached.
As noted above, parents must respect the child’s freedom and avoid imposing a predetermined vocation. This is a key safeguard against reducing discernment to family will.
Even where families are active, the Church uses structured formation. For priestly and religious vocations, John Paul II highlights the importance of seminaries/centers and appropriate guidance aligned with ecclesial norms. This implies that family influence must feed into ecclesial discernment—not replace it.
Catholic tradition consistently attributes vocation to God’s call and treats human formation as a means. The family’s most authentic contribution is therefore moral and spiritual education—prayer, example, and support—while the Church ultimately tests and confirms the authenticity of the call.
In Catholic tradition, familial influence on papal vocation is best understood as indirect but real: families shape the early moral and spiritual environment in which a future cleric may hear, test, and accept God’s call. The Church’s magisterial teaching emphasizes the family as the “first and best seminary” for vocations and calls for parental accompaniment—prayer, example, respect, and readiness to avoid blocking a genuine vocation. At the same time, the tradition insists on freedom and proper ecclesial discernment, preventing family expectations from becoming coercion or substitution for the Church’s role.
Where biographical evidence is available in the provided sources, it commonly shows either family opposition that later yields to acceptance (as in Desiderius’s story) or life circumstances that include family-linked phases before full consecration (as in St Agatho).^5 These accounts harmonize with the Church’s broader teaching: the family is a formative “seedbed,” not the source of the vocation itself, and its influence is fruitful when it works in harmony with God’s call and the Church’s discernment.