We Catholics have had a few days since Thursday to reflect on the appointment of our new leader Pope Leo XIV. The cardinals have flown home, St Peter’s Square is less crowded and tourists will be back in the Vatican Museum surreptitiously photographing the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

The election was mercifully quick, Cardinal Robert Prevost chose a significant Papal moniker. Reflecting one of our greatest popes who established a significant aspect of Catholic social teaching with Rerum Novarum (1891) on the proper relationship between capital and labour, his demeanour and mode of address when he appeared on the Vatican balcony were encouraging.

However, all we can really conclude so far is: habemus quendam (we have someone). Time will tell what Pope Leo’s agenda is. Of course, reformists wish for more reforms of the kind Pope Francis was instituting. These were mainly around greater acceptance of people formerly marginalised by the Church such as gays and divorcees, an emphasis on social justice and an obsession with climate change.

Those of us at the traditional end of the spectrum (many would consider us to be ‘on the spectrum’) are mainly concerned about the future of the pre-1969 traditional Latin Mass. While there is evidence that he is a reformer in the mould of Pope Francis – who appointed him cardinal – we are yet to learn what he thinks about the traditional Latin Mass which his predecessor was so eager to wipe out.

Like recent popes and nearly every bishop across the world, he will have to run the gauntlet of accusations about ‘turning a blind eye’ to evidence that priests under his authority were engaged in child abuse. It remains to be seen how much such accusations will dog him. Undoubtedly, Catholic bishops have often managed such accusations badly. But it is also the case that even when dealt with it is never soon enough or harsh enough for the victims. I imagine he will survive such accusations, as did Pope Francis.

Another major plank in the thinking of the previous incumbent was migration. Not, as should be the case, concern about such migration, but a seemingly unquestioning belief that all migrants are equal and all must be met with kindness, hospitality and a fast track to citizenship wherever they choose to land. Over the weekend, articles emerged in the media and in political magazines revealing Pope Leo’s overt criticism via his X feed of Donald Trump and his co-religionist, J.D. Vance. The criticism was related to their attitude to mass migration and their desire to tighten border security.

Vance’s riposte was that there was an order in which we should show care and concern (ordo amoris). Ordo amoris, formulated by St Augustine, suggests a concentric approach to love. One where “our love for God should be supreme, followed by love for our family and then outwards to our community, nation, and ultimately, the rest of the world. It’s not about loving some more than others, but about prioritising our love in a way that reflects God’s will and the nature of our relationships”.

This cut no ice with Bishop Prevost, who said: “J.D. Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.” Reluctant as I am to contradict a bishop, especially one who is now Pope, I think that Pope Leo will find that, while ‘rank’ may not have been the best word for J.D. Vance to use, he may be wrong. To invert the ordo amoris surely verges on hypocrisy. After all, we all know social justice warriors, religious and social reformers who will take to the streets or enter a debate while their families are neglected.

I wonder if we can expect a relaxation in the rules about who can enter the Vatican City and an opening of the gates and the Vatican coffers – estimated between $10-15 billion – to refugees under our new Pope? I expect not.

Nobody, J.D. Vance included I am sure, would say that we must hate, ignore or persecute migrants. And none but the most xenophobic would say that we must never accept anyone within our borders who is genuinely fleeing persecution or death. But, just as the ordo amoris should prioritise our concerns, surely also there is an order in which we should show our concern for migrants. Those genuinely seeking asylum should be our priority; those simply looking for a better life should be considered. But if it is to the detriment of our society – culturally, socially or economically – then there must be a limit.

Our recent and present popes seemed incapable of such nuanced thinking, instructing the faithful to accept migrants in their midst unquestioningly, without apparent limit and without considering the consequences. Well, popes past and present, that was precisely the attitude we took in the UK for decades, with disastrous consequences for many cities and communities. One tangible outcome has been the industrial levels of rape of young, mainly white, girls by predominantly Pakistani Muslim grooming gangs.

Nevertheless, something must underlie the senior churchmen’s uncommon emphasis on a passive approach to migration and an active, loving approach to migrants. It is noticeable that, while much has been made of Pope Leo’s US birth and citizenship, both Pope Francis and Pope Leo have strong roots in South America. While a large proportion of migrants to the US – legal and illegal – come from Mexico and other countries such as India and China contribute many migrants, a large proportion of undocumented (i.e., illegal) migrants arrive from South America.

Could it be that our popes have a vested interest in seeing mass migration from south to north on the American continent? While declining, Roman Catholicism remains, at 54%, the majority religion across South America. In Mexico the proportion of Roman Catholics is 78%. Perhaps their unquestioning approach to migration and attacks on those who try to limit it is part of a hope to turn the US, currently only 22% Roman Catholic, into a Catholic country.

While there may, therefore, be some method in their madness regarding mass migration, popes clearly need to observe what is happening in the UK and across Europe. There is certainly a religious ‘revival’ of sorts. But it is one that is to the detriment of Christianity generally and may have consequences for Roman Catholicism. I am referring, of course, to the Islamification of our society. If Pope Leo XIV is content to overlook that, then he is either not listening to or not being properly informed by his Bishops.

However, our popes are not alone in advocating on behalf of migrants. This includes some bishops close to home. Former Archbishop Murphy-O’Connor of Westminster advocated for undocumented migrants and current incumbent, Cardinal Nichols, has criticised the government over its response, which he considers inadequate, to migrants and refugees. Of course, this may well be a sentiment driven by Christian compassion. But compassion is cheap, especially when other people are paying for it.

Dr Roger Watson is Professor of Nursing at Saint Francis University, Hong Kong SAR, China. He has a PhD in biochemistry. He writes in a personal capacity.