The appointment of the new Prefect for Bishops marks Leo’s first true act of governance. Bishop Iannone, a Carmelite with substantial experience in the Curia, academic teaching, and diocesan leadership, is known for his meticulous approach and respect for canon law. Predictions of Tagle heading the Dicastery have been disproven. Still, concern remains over the internal confirmation of the “Bergoglian team”.
On September 26, 2025, Pope Leo XIV appointed Bishop Filippo Iannone, O.Carm., as Prefect for Bishops, ending a four-month vacancy that followed the papal election of Robert Francis Prevost, who had previously been named by Pope Francis in 2023 to lead the Dicastery.
This appointment marks the first act of governance truly attributable to Pope Prevost — a gesture that bears the imprint of his style, both in the slow deliberation with which it was made and in the choice of a figure who, as we shall see, embodies a pastoral and institutional profile closely aligned with that of the Pontiff himself.
Bishop Filippo Iannone, born in Naples and trained as a jurist, has a solid and distinguished résumé. After holding sensitive positions within his diocese, he was appointed in 2009 by Benedict XVI as Bishop of Sora-Aquino-Pontecorvo, succeeding Bishop Luca Brandolini, who had resigned upon reaching the age limit.
Internal sources confirm that Iannone successfully restored the diocese, addressing serious inefficiencies attributed to his predecessor, who was deemed “poor” in both governance and direction. Iannone taught Canon Law at the Pontifical Theological Faculty of Southern Italy, earning recognition for his methodological rigor, clarity of exposition, and unwavering fidelity to doctrine — with no concessions to personal opinions, let alone heterodox tendencies.
The appointment of Bishop Iannone thus marks a significant step: a solid profile, faithful to canon law and capable of reform, yet situated within a context still overshadowed by the previous pontificate.
In 2017, Pope Francis called Iannone to the Curia, appointing him as adjunct secretary of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. The following year, he was promoted to president of the same body.
The Pontifical Council is responsible for the official interpretation of Church laws — particularly the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. It provides legal counsel to Vatican dicasteries and episcopal conferences, and promotes canonical formation within the Church.
Despite the prestige of his role and the esteem he enjoys within the Curia, Iannone was never granted the cardinal’s biretta by Pope Francis. It is reasonable to expect that Leo XIV will confer this recognition in upcoming consistories, given the significance of the Dicastery for Bishops and the tradition of entrusting its leadership almost exclusively to a cardinal. Such recognition would not be merely honorary, but also functional, as it would grant Iannone full authority within the Curia and in the governance of the global episcopate.
The appointment of Iannone as head of the Dicastery for Bishops is a decidedly positive development, especially when compared to forecasts that had favored Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle.
Tagle — a key elector and a personal friend of Prevost — is the most prominent face of progressive theology in Asia, earning him the nickname “Asian Francis”. A leading figure of the so-called Bologna School, he interprets the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with preconciliar tradition and advocates a vision of synodality understood as a decentralization of papal authority in favor of a collegial power shared among bishops. His doctoral thesis focused precisely on episcopal collegiality in the doctrine of Paul VI.
The appointment to the Dicastery for Bishops is a strategic move: it determines who leads dioceses around the world, and thus who shapes the episcopal body that constitutes the teaching Church. Had Tagle been chosen, it would have reinforced a more explicitly Bergoglian trajectory, favoring bishops open to decentralized forms of synodality and pastoral interpretations less anchored in the Church’s official doctrine. Iannone, by contrast — like Prevost — is a jurist. His personal history reflects prudence, method, and a capacity for institutional renewal.
That said, the enthusiasm is certainly tempered by the news that Pope Leo XIV has confirmed the “Bergoglian team” alongside the new Prefect.
Nevertheless, it must be remembered that, while certainly pivotal and strategic within the Curia, the Dicastery for Bishops operates in synergy with the Secretariat of State and remains subject to the final approval of the Pope. Its role is to coordinate the episcopal selection process, but the decisive levers lie elsewhere: with the apostolic nuncios, who gather information and propose candidates; with the Secretariat of State, which filters and steers those proposals; and ultimately with the Pope, who retains the absolute prerogative of appointment.
Robert Francis Prevost’s leadership of the same Dicastery has been emblematic. Though formally at the helm, his actions were heavily influenced by his operational team, particularly Secretary Ilson de Jesus Montanari. According to internal sources, the lists of candidates prepared by the Dicastery were often rejected by Pope Francis, who preferred to personally select the names to head the dioceses. In some cases, the Pope intervened directly, bypassing the entire consultative process with decisions that reflected his own personal and exclusive agenda.
That said, the enthusiasm is certainly tempered by the news that Pope Leo XIV has confirmed the “Bergoglian team” alongside the new Prefect. Archbishop Ilson de Jesus Montanari has been reconfirmed as Secretary ad aliud quinquennium — for another five-year term — and the same applies to Ivan Kovač, until now an Official of the Dicastery, who has now been appointed Undersecretary for the next five years.
How, then, should Pope Leo’s decision be interpreted?
Leo XIV’s choice appears to be a gesture of prudent continuity — not a rupture with the Bergoglian pontificate, but neither its unreserved continuation. Opting for Tagle, as many had predicted, would have sent too stark a signal: a mark of absolute fidelity to the progressive line, likely to provoke considerable unease among the Church’s more conservative and traditional sectors. It also risked alienating certain cardinal electors of Leo himself, such as New York’s Timothy M. Dolan, already embittered by his experience with Francis (in whom he had placed both his vote in 2013 and his hopes).
Instead, the selection of Iannone — a discreet and authoritative canonist — allows the Pope to reaffirm the course without triggering overly conspicuous breaks in image.
The new Prefect, in fact, embodies a style that partly mirrors that of Leo XIV himself: a methodical jurist, respectful of norms, inclined toward collaboration rather than centralization. The Pope displays a similar disposition — reflective, fond of delegation, and eager to foster a collegial working atmosphere.
The issue, however, lies in the confirmation of Ilson de Jesus Montanari at his side — a far more independent and enterprising figure who will, in all likelihood, continue to play a decisive role in drafting the lists of episcopal candidates, alongside Pietro Parolin’s Secretariat of State.
And the Secretariat, as is well known, is not composed of men aligned with a tradition-minded ecclesial line.
The confirmation of Montanari and the “Bergoglian team” weighs even more heavily when viewed in light of Pope Leo XIV’s initial episcopal appointments. Some of these have raised considerable concern: figures who are doctrinally ambiguous or openly heterodox, whose profiles risk further weakening the Church’s structural integrity.
This is where the true future of the Pontificate is at stake — not primarily in the liturgical question of the Traditional Latin Mass, though that remains central, but in the formation of the new episcopate, the concrete backbone of the Church.
Leo certainly does not intend to pursue radical purges. He is well aware of the serious problems left by Francis’s pontificate, but he does not wish to replicate its authoritarian and divisive style, which inflicted many wounds. Instead, he prefers to aim for ecclesial cohesion, keeping diverse sensibilities united, convinced that only in this way can synodality acquire real depth: a broad listening process, in which the Pope remains the ultimate arbiter, but without fracturing the ecclesial body. The appointment of Iannone — a conservative canonist with a love for dialogue — alongside a progressive but independent Secretary, precisely reflects this desire for balance.
It is not out of the question that Leo has a broader juridical project in mind. Being a canonist himself, he may wish to initiate a more structured reform of the Church’s legal system — perhaps even reconsidering the role of the episcopate. This may well explain his choice of a Prefect endowed with the necessary expertise to lead such an undertaking.
The focus on disciplinary matters is no coincidence: in recent years, bishops have been at the center of grave crises. From the German Synodal Path, with its openly heterodox positions, to the scandals of sexual abuse, it is clear that the global episcopate has not acquitted itself well.
In this regard, Iannone’s profile offers reassurance. In the early stages of the German Synodal Path, he signed a clear and unequivocal juridical document stating that the decisions taken by the German bishops were “ecclesiologically invalid”. Likewise, he is responsible for several important juridical clarifications, including one that reaffirmed the absolute incompatibility between the Catholic Church and Freemasonry.
It should also not be forgotten that Iannone distinguished himself for his clarity in matters of canon law, particularly in the fight against sexual abuse.
It should also not be forgotten that Iannone distinguished himself for his clarity in matters of canon law, particularly in the fight against sexual abuse. In a 2024 interview with Vatican News, he rigorously explained the procedures concerning the punishment of crimes, the lifting of excommunications, and the protection of victims, emphasizing the supreme principle of the salus animarum. His legal expertise in this highly sensitive field offers an additional guarantee, especially in the wake of scandals that have severely undermined the credibility of numerous episcopates.
The appointment of Bishop Iannone thus marks a significant step: a solid profile, faithful to canon law and capable of reform, yet situated within a context still overshadowed by the previous pontificate. Leo XIV has chosen the path of balance — not turning the page abruptly, but neither yielding to the more radical currents of progressivism.
Yet the decisive unknown remains: what kind of episcopate will emerge from these choices? It is the bishops who shape the concrete life of the Church, its fidelity to doctrine, and its ability to safeguard the flock. Ultimately, overcoming the current crisis in the Church will depend less on gestures from the Curia than on the faces of the bishops who will lead the dioceses. They will be the ones to define the true character of Leo XIV’s pontificate.
