Leo XIV’s appointments reveal his quiet governance style
Pope Leo XIV has appointed new bishops and officials, reflecting a preference for low‑profile leadership. The appointments emphasize continuity and stability within the Church hierarchy. The selections favor experienced clergy with a history of quiet, collaborative ministry. The Pope’s approach contrasts with more public, high‑profile appointments seen in previous pontificates. The moves signal a strategic focus on internal governance rather than external visibility.
5 months ago
Pope Leo XIV’s first‑year appointments have reshaped the Roman Curia through low‑key, internal moves that emphasize continuity, a growing African presence, and a tranquil governance style rather than sweeping reforms1.
Leo XIV filled the vacant prefecture of the Dicastery for Bishops with Archbishop Filippo Iannone, a quiet canon lawyer who previously led the Dicastery for Legislative Texts1.
He also promoted familiar curial figures: French Archbishop Thibault Verny to the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, Australian Archbishop Anthony Randazzo to the Dicastery for Legislative Texts, Croatian Archbishop Petar Rajič to the Papal Household, and Italian Archbishop Paolo Rudelli as substitute for general affairs1.
Monsignor Renzo Pegoraro, former chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Life, became its president, underscoring a pattern of promoting existing insiders1.
Archbishop Luis Marín de San Martín was moved to prefect of the Dicastery for the Service of Charity, succeeding Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, whose departure marked the end of a two‑decade curial tenure1.
The Pope created the vice‑regent of the Papal Household role for Nigerian Father Edward Daniang Daleng, further diversifying the Curia’s leadership1.
African clergy feature prominently among the new appointments: Father Daleng (Nigeria) as vice‑regent, Monsignor Anthony Ekpo (Nigeria) as assessor for general affairs, and Tanzanian Monsignor Romanus Mbena as deputy at the Service of Charity1.
Religious‑order members also received key posts, such as Carmelite Iannone and Franciscan Sister Tiziana Merletti, secretary of the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life1.
While Europeans—especially Italians—still dominate senior curial roles, the Pope’s selections have left Asia without representation and the Americas largely absent, apart from Peruvian Monsignor Edgard Iván Rimaycuna Inga, his former diocesan secretary1.
Many senior officials have remained in place: Cardinal Pietro Parolin (Secretary of State), Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández (Doctrine of the Faith), and Cardinals Michael Czerny, Kurt Koch, Kevin Farrell, and Arthur Roche, all past the canonical retirement age, continue their mandates1.
A Vatican diplomat noted that Leo XIV “respects the institution” and prefers a “more serene face” for the Curia, a sentiment echoed by staff who value the Pope’s quiet, hardworking approach1.*
Investigate the theological basis for appointing low‑profile bishops
Appointing “low-profile” bishops is not a vague preference for quiet personalities; it can be grounded theologically in what the Church says the episcopal office is: a service rooted in Christ’s kenosis (self-emptying), expressed through humility, simplicity, and closeness to people, so that the bishop remains credible as a living sign of Jesus Christ rather than a self-promoter.
In Catholic teaching, a bishop’s authority is intrinsically linked to how he exercises it. Bishops are called not to seek prominence, but to stand humbly so that God’s light shines through them. Benedict XVI explicitly frames this as the antithesis of self-assertion: duties must be carried out “in a spirit of service,” and “we do not wish to be prominent but to stand humbly before God and let his light shine through us.”
John Paul II develops this deeper Christologically: the bishop must imitate the kenosis of Christ, the “poor and humble servant,” so that his pastoral ministry consistently reflects Jesus the Servant of God and helps him become “close to everyone, from the greatest to the least.”
Pope Francis highlights the same theological logic from God’s own nature: “God loves humility,” and therefore Christians—especially bishops—are called to be “humble labourers in the vineyard of the Lord,” serving rather than seeking to be served or placed at the center.
So, “low-profile” in a theological sense means:
The Church does not treat humility as merely a personal virtue; it is connected to the moral authority needed for effective governance.
John Paul II teaches that unless the episcopal office is grounded in “the witness of a holiness manifested in pastoral charity, humility and simplicity of life,” it risks becoming “reduced to a solely functional role” and then “tragically” loses credibility before clergy and faithful.
Benedict XVI similarly insists that episcopal life must be understood from Christ the Eternal High Priest, and that the bishop’s lifestyle should imitate Christ’s humble servanthood so he becomes “close to everyone, from the greatest to the least.”
In addition, a bishop’s spirituality is described as an “ecclesial spirituality,” ordered to building up the Church in love through the bishop’s self-gift (charity as “the heart” of the ministry of the bishop).
Thus, the theological basis for appointing “low-profile” bishops is that humility is not optional decoration—it supports the sacramental-spiritual purpose of the office: the bishop becomes a credible sign of Christ’s pastoral charity.
A low-profile bishop is also grounded in the Church’s expressed pastoral aim: bishops as shepherds who are close to the people. In Pope Leo XIV’s comments regarding Angola, he describes the rationale for creating/adjusting diocesan structures in concrete terms: proposals can be made “for the good of the people,” including “the opportunity for more Bishops to be closer to the people as shepherds.”
This indicates that “low-profile” should not be understood as retreating from responsibility; rather, it is a style oriented to spiritual proximity: the bishop’s leadership should be embodied in being accessible and present.
The theological basis for appointing such bishops also appears in the Church’s appointment criteria: the Church seeks bishops who are worthy, loved, and suited to the burdens of pastoral office.
In Benedict XVI’s letter to bishops in China, the appointment of bishops touches “the very heart of the life of the Church,” because the Pope’s appointment is the guarantee of unity and hierarchical communion. He therefore reminds that candidates should be “worthy priests,” “respected and loved by the faithful,” and “models of life in the faith,” with pastoral experience to shoulder the “burdensome responsibility of a Pastor of the Church.”
The same logic supports “low-profile” selection indirectly: a humble, service-oriented bishop is more likely to be “respected and loved” as a model of life, rather than merely exercising power.
Moreover, the Church’s current governance documents show that appointment discernment involves ecclesial participation within the Church. Pope Francis’ Praedicate Evangelium states that the Dicastery for Bishops handles appointments by considering proposals from particular churches and in “appropriate ways” engaging “members of the people of God” in the process of discernment.
And Pope Leo XIV, speaking to the Italian bishops, links synodal style with shared responsibility in bishop appointments: coordination between the Dicastery for Bishops and the Apostolic Nunciature should promote greater participation in consultation, “in addition to listening to the Ordinaries,” and those preparing to end their service.
So, “low-profile” bishops can be theologically grounded not only as a personal virtue, but as the expected fruit of a discernment process that listens to the people’s reality and seeks bishops who are authentically pastoral and credible.
Catholic theology also places a boundary around how bishops are appointed. The Church teaches that the right of nominating and appointing bishops belongs exclusively to competent ecclesiastical authority, specifically to protect the Church’s freedom. Vatican II says the right belongs “per se exclusively” to ecclesiastical authority, and requests that civil authorities renounce rights/policies of nomination.
Canon law then grounds the Pope’s role: “The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops…”
Pius XII likewise states that it “pertains to the one Apostolic See to judge whether a person is fit” for episcopal dignity, and that “complete freedom in the nomination of bishops is the right of the Roman Pontiff,” with lay/other participation only if expressly allowed and determined case-by-case.
Benedict XVI’s China letter adds that when the Pope issues the apostolic mandate, he exercises supreme spiritual authority “within the strictly religious sphere,” not as political authority.
This matters for the theological basis of “low-profile” bishops: if the appointment is a spiritually discerning act of the Church aimed at unity and communion, then selecting bishops for humility and pastoral closeness aligns with the spiritual nature of the office—not with political optics.
Catholic “low-profile” should not be misunderstood as timidity. The Church can praise courage expressed without self-display.
Pope Leo XIV, interpreting John the Baptist, describes him as “upright, austere and frank,” “even to the point of being imprisoned for his courageous words,” while also being “rich in mercy and understanding” toward those who truly repent. He is explicitly not a “reed shaken by the wind.”
Therefore, the theological basis supports a style where the bishop is humble and accessible, yet authentically firm—because humility is measured by self-emptying service, not by lack of truth-telling.
The theological basis for appointing “low-profile” bishops is that the episcopate is inherently a Christ-shaped service: bishops should exercise authority with humility, simplicity, and proximity—imitating Christ’s kenosis—so that the bishop functions as a credible sign of the Good Shepherd rather than seeking prominence. This is supported by the Church’s teaching on episcopal spirituality, credibility, and service, as well as by the Church’s appointment criteria and discernment structures that aim at unity, communion, and pastoral suitability.