Pope Leo's vote in US, but not Peru, raises questions about papal identity
Pope Leo XIV voted by mail in the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, the first documented instance of a sitting pope voting in a country where he holds citizenship. The Vatican said Leo considers voting a citizen’s right and duty; he later said he did not vote in Peru’s April election because it was not possible, though he would have. Leo holds U.S. and Peruvian citizenship, and his different voting choices have prompted questions about his civic obligations and how he distinguishes his personal identity from the papal office. The article compares Leo’s distinction between his personal views and his role as pope with examples from Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.
5 hours ago
Pope Leo XIV’s vote in the November 3 U.S. midterm elections—the first documented instance of a sitting pope voting in a national election where he holds citizenship—has prompted debate about papal political participation and his relationship to his two citizenships. The questions have sharpened ahead of his visit to Peru, where he lived for years and is also a citizen, but did not vote in that country’s April election. 1
Leo, born Robert Francis Prevost, requested a mail-in ballot in Illinois and cast it in Chicago. The Vatican confirmed his vote and said he believes citizens have “the right and the duty” to participate in democratic processes; Leo later said he was “proud to be an American” and to exercise his voting right. 1
The announcement drew both praise and criticism, and raised the broader question of whether a pope should take part in political elections. The Vatican’s confirmation also connected the act of Prevost, an individual citizen, to the public authority of the papal office. 1
The Vatican said Prevost had voted in Peru during years when he was eligible. He became a naturalized Peruvian citizen after becoming bishop of Chiclayo in 2014, remained there until returning to Rome in 2023, and renewed his Peruvian identity card after becoming pope. 1
The Vatican did not initially say whether he voted in Peru’s April 2026 elections, which resulted in Keiko Fujimori’s election as president. During his flight to Uruguay on November 6, Leo said he had not voted because it was “not possible,” adding that he would have voted because it is “a good thing.” He did not explain why he could not vote from Rome; Peru does not offer mail-in ballots, and voting would have required him to attend a Peruvian consulate. 1
Peruvian citizens ages 18 to 70 are required to vote, but Leo, 71, is exempt. His stated support for participation in democratic processes has nevertheless prompted questions about why he did not seek to vote in Peru’s election. He is scheduled to meet Fujimori after arriving in Lima on November 11. 1
The report describes Leo’s vote as drawing a distinction between the papal office and his personal identity as Prevost. Earlier examples include Benedict XVI publishing theological studies as Joseph Ratzinger among his personal works rather than as papal teaching, and Francis renewing his Argentine passport after becoming pope. 1
Leo has also made the distinction in lighter settings: before basketball games involving his alma mater, Villanova, and Notre Dame, he said that although the pope does not take sides, “Prevost has another opinion.” The article notes that Leo is the first modern pope to hold dual citizenship outside Vatican citizenship, adding a further dimension to questions about how he understands his civic obligations and his ties to the United States and Peru. 1
The papal office transcends national citizenship and civic allegiance
Yes, the papal office is universal and is not defined by the pope’s nationality. But that does not mean that citizenship and ordinary civic duties disappear. The distinction is between the pope’s universal spiritual office and the civil obligations that belong to a person as a citizen.
Pius XI described the papal sovereignty as extending “beyond the confines of nations and states,” and argued that the pope’s office must not be subject to a human authority in a way that compromises its freedom. That is a claim about the independence required for the Church’s universal mission—not that the pope’s personal nationality becomes meaningless or that every question of public life falls under papal jurisdiction.
Catholic teaching also affirms civic responsibility. Pius XII praised Christians who pay respectful homage to public authorities within their proper competence and fulfill their duties as citizens. The qualification matters: civil authority has a real sphere, while the Church’s spiritual mission is not reducible to any nation’s interests.
Nor is civic allegiance absolute. When civil commands conflict with God’s law, the Christian must obey God. That limit applies to citizens generally; it does not make the pope’s universal office a warrant to disregard every civil obligation.
So the formulation is sound if it means that the papacy transcends national identity and cannot be subordinated to a state. It would be too broad if taken to mean that the pope has no civic ties or that citizenship and civic duties have no bearing on his personal life. The supplied material supports the theological distinction, but it does not settle the particular legal questions raised by the news—such as the pope’s citizenship status or the details of his voting eligibility.