COMMENTARY: What are the advantages, perils and unwanted consequences of Pope Leo XIV’s Tuesday evening ‘doorstep’ exchanges with the press at Castel Gandolfo?

It has become a new papal convention.

Every Tuesday evening, as Pope Leo XIV departs for the Vatican after his now routine day of rest at the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo just outside Rome, he will stop and chat with the press. 

Reporters ask the Holy Father questions relating to whatever is in the news, usually to do with world politics or the Catholic Church, and the Pope spontaneously responds with unrehearsed answers. The format resembles a “doorstep scrum” or “press gaggle,” which is common for politicians or celebrities when engaging with the media. 

For a pope, however, this is a first. No supreme pontiff, not even Pope Francis, who liked to be interviewed as pope, has stopped to speak to the press in such an ad hoc way. In-flight papal press conferences, begun by Pope St. John Paul II, are similar but they are infrequent and more controlled. 

Pope Leo’s own motives for taking this media approach remain unclear. He first started the practice in June when journalist Ignazio Ingrao from Italy’s state broadcaster RAI collared the Holy Father as he left Vatican Radio territory near Rome. 

The Holy Father seemed comfortable answering Ingrao’s questions, especially as they were on topics that interest him: sustainability, the environment and threats to world peace. But the exchange was striking in that, for the first time outside of a papal trip, it removed a certain recognized distance the pope naturally enjoys as the Vicar of Christ.

Some like the down-to-earth, spontaneous and folksy appearance of these exchanges; others say these informal encounters risk blurring the distinction between the Petrine office and a political celebrity, even while offering pastoral and PR advantages.

Running in their favor is that they can help the Pope look less distant, accessible, more human and answerable to the faithful in this democratic, accountability-demanding, 24/7 news cycle age. They serve the insatiable contemporary demand for transparency in all things, which has become especially acute at the Vatican following the scandals of clerical sex abuse, financial malpractice and poor governance. 

The inherent frankness of the exchanges can help the faithful become better acquainted with Leo who is still unknown to many and somewhat enigmatic. The Holy Father can also make use of this opportunity to teach, reach more people who might not otherwise see his other pre-written messages, and apply his teaching to burning issues of the day. 

Yet the very qualities that commend this practice also generate new risks. Since the Pope began giving these Castel Gandolfo “doorstep” interviews in early September, the media has drawn him into spontaneously commenting on specific policy matters and domestic issues, leading to a fair amount of unwanted and, some would argue, avoidable controversy. 

The most significant example was in October when an EWTN colleague asked Leo about Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago awarding pro-abortion Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois a “lifetime achievement” award. In response, Pope Leo framed the debate in terms of a seamless “pro‑life” ethic, appearing to undercut U.S. bishops who had mostly opposed the award. Leo also argued that someone who opposes abortion but supports the death penalty or “inhuman treatment of immigrants” cannot really be called pro‑life — a clear criticism of Trump administration policy. 

The Pope prefaced his comments by saying he was “not terribly familiar” with the Durbin award case — a remark that observers said should have prompted him to speak no further. Instead, by answering the question in the way he did, Leo made a rare papal incursion into a particular church-state matter. Even though Durbin soon afterward declined the award, the Pope’s comments served to deepen polarization between different camps. 

In other Castel Gandolfo media scrums, Leo has waded into U.S. immigration policy and taken aim at U.S. foreign policy, urging President Trump not to launch a military invasion of Venezuela. 

More recently, he said he “would rather not comment” on a U.S. peace plan for ending the Russia-Ukraine War as he had not “read the whole thing.” He nevertheless ventured to say that parts of it “unfortunately” represent a “huge change in what was, for many, many years, a true alliance between Europe and the United States.” Without naming him, Leo said recent remarks President Trump had made about Europe were “trying to break apart what I think needs to be a very important alliance today and in the future.” The media read his comments as a rare papal rebuke of a sitting U.S. president. 

So, is it prudent and necessary for a pope to engage in these exchanges?  

A pope is not a politician or a supra-governmental technocrat but the vicar of Christ, anointed as his leading representative to guide souls to heaven. His statements, therefore, not only demand careful forethought and consideration but also a focus on transcendent and eternal realities. His priority is forming consciences, affirming the faith, and guarding unity rather than offering detailed guidance on politics and temporal affairs, which can be used for partisan ends. These interview remarks will also be mistaken by some to be magisterial, even though that is reserved for formal papal pronouncements.

Pope St. John Paul II and Popes Benedict XVI and especially Pius XII, understood this well. The latter was exceedingly cautious, avoiding media‑driven confrontations that might have been read as overtly partisan.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI deftly addressed (though not always) pressing topical issues on their terms, and usually by speaking in generalities. They responded to current events by referring to Church doctrine, especially her moral or social teaching, and left it to journalists to tie that doctrine to a news story of the day. In so doing, they upheld the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, thus leaving it to a country’s bishops or qualified Vatican officials, such as the Vatican secretary of state, to respond to the specifics of such issues if they wished.

They also respected the long-established and necessary distance between the pope and the people. This was not because of clericalist motives or to convey that the pope is better than others, but rather because, as any ordained priest, he is “set apart,” sharing in Christ’s headship and mediation in a way the faithful do not. A pope should also not be unreachable, aloof or physically distant from people, but by being somewhat removed and above the worldliness of temporal affairs he reflects the essence of holiness and the dignity of the Petrine Office. 

Such separation also augments the mystique of the office, arguably strengthening papal authority — a quality that has tended to be second nature to monarchs. Part of Queen Elizabeth II’s appeal was that she almost never gave media interviews and, due to her constitutional role, seldom let her views on policy be known. This served to enhance her regal stature that popes, by the monarchical nature of their office, also possess.

Lastly, apart from journalists looking for a story, no one is demanding that Pope Leo share his views on a particular domestic policy issue in such detail, or on any other topical story for that matter. The Holy Father does not have to answer to an electorate; his only judge is God. He is also free to pontificate on his terms whenever and however he sees fit, and has many opportunities to do so, whether in homilies, messages, or magisterial documents. 

By contrast, these spontaneous “doorstep” interviews proceed on others’ terms and demand an immediate, unconsidered answer, thereby making him vulnerable to stepping into controversy and to committing doctrinal errors that will likely be interpreted as magisterial. 

Given the problems, risks, and pitfalls of these “media scrum” encounters, it might therefore be prudent for Pope Leo and his advisers to reconsider their use. They could introduce safeguards and some internal “rules of engagement.” Or, in view of the limited good they achieve, simply discontinue them altogether, along perhaps with the in-flight press conferences. 

Silence is golden. And in this restive, fickle, and querulous age of social media, more so than ever.

This article was originally published by NCRegister.