Pope Leo XIV’s election has sparked global reactions, but his appointment has struck a deeper chord in Peru.

The now-pontiff served for years as bishop of Chiclayo, a city in northern Peru. For LGBTQ leaders and activists in the country, Leo represents a figure who, while unlikely to overhaul church doctrine, could signal a shift towards a less hostile and more open Catholic Church.

“The fact that the new pope lived and served pastorally in Peru is no small thing,” said George Hale, director of Promsex, an advocacy group that is based in Lima, the Peruvian capital. “Leo XIV is deeply familiar with inequality, abuses of power, popular religiosity, and the pain of a society scarred by classism and exclusion. His support for victims of the Sodalitium scandal showed a courageous figure willing to listen when others remained silent.”

The Sodalitium of Christian Life, a Peruvian Catholic lay group implicated in cases of sexual and psychological abuse against minors, became one of the church’s worst scandals in Latin America. Leo’s direct involvement in sanctioning those responsible — and his central role in the group’s eventual dissolution — was widely viewed as a sign of his commitment to reform from within.

Former Congressman Alberto de Belaunde, one of Peru’s few openly gay political figures, also welcomed Leo’s election, describing his trajectory as “good news within the Vatican.” De Belaunde emphasized Leo’s time at the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, where he served on the university’s assembly as the church’s representative.

“Unlike other pontifical universities, the PUCP is progressive and diverse,” De Belaunde said. “Monsignor Prevost always demonstrated a remarkable ability to dialogue and showed respect for differing views. That speaks volumes about both his intellectual and pastoral approach.”

The question still remains: How much could the church change under Leo’s papacy when it comes to LGBTQ rights?

“Sometimes, even just a change in tone makes a difference,” De Belaunde noted. “I grew up under the influence of Pope John Paul II and Bishop Cipriani, both known for confrontational rhetoric. When the pope says things like ‘Who am I to judge?’ — it doesn’t change doctrine, but it humanizes the discourse. And that matters.”

De Belaunde specifically referred to Pope Francis’s 2013 comments about gay priests. (The Vatican’s tone on LGBTQ and intersex issues softened under Francis’s papacy, even though church teachings on homosexuality did not change.)

“There are very conservative factions within the church, outright enemies of our rights,” said Congresswoman Susel Paredes, who is a lesbian. “But there’s also space for love of neighbor, as Jesus taught. Even if Pope Leo XIV were to chart a path toward full inclusion of LGBTQ people, resistance would remain. These things don’t change overnight.”

Paredes also highlighted Francis’s legacy — especially his vision of a synodal church. The Argentine-born pontiff who died on April 21 was Leo’s direct mentor.

“Pope Francis spoke of a church where ‘everyone, everyone, everyone’ walks together without distinction,” she said. “Leo XIV was already part of that vision when he worked in some of Peru’s poorest areas. That gives us hope and reason to watch his papacy with expectation.”

Activists, however, are clear-eyed about the limits of symbolic change.

“He (Leo) doesn’t appear to be a hostile figure,” Hale said. “But he’s not pushing for radical reform either. He won’t lead the fight for same-sex marriage or trans rights. But his more humane tone — his closeness to those on the margins — can help de-escalate hate speech, especially in a country like ours.”

Hale also pointed to a recent gesture from the new Leo that raised concerns: His public support for the Peruvian bishops’ statement opposing a court ruling that granted Ana Estrada, a woman with a degenerative disease, the right to die with dignity through euthanasia.

“By endorsing that statement, he reaffirmed official doctrine. And while he may be compassionate, he’s still aligned with traditional positions on some key issues,” Hale said. “That’s why we insist: We’re not expecting a revolution, but a shift in tone matters.”

Peru does not recognize same-sex marriages, and transgender people lack legal protections. Expectations about Leo’s papacy remain measured because church rhetoric remains a roadblock to civil rights.

“Rights are granted by laws, and the separation of church and state must remain fundamental,” said Paredes. “That’s where progress happens, in secular legislation.”

“Yes — it’s a breath of fresh air to have a pope who doesn’t slam the door shut, who has walked with Peru’s most excluded,” she added. “That gives us encouragement to keep going.”

Former Uruguayan President José “Pepe” Mujica died on Tuesday. He was 89.

Mujica, a farmer, was a member of Tupamaros National Liberation Movement, a leftist guerrilla group that carried out bank robberies and bombings and kidnapped politicians and businessmen in the South American country during the 1960s and 1970s.

Mujica spent nearly 15 years in prison. The right-wing military dictatorship that governed Uruguay from 1973-1985 tortured him and held him in solitary confinement for a decade.

Mujica in 1989 joined the Movement of Popular Participation, a party that is part of the Broad Front, a leftist political coalition. Mujica was Uruguay’s president from 2010-2015.

Laws that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples and legalized abortion took effect in 2013 and 2012 respectively. Mujica in 2013 also signed a law that legalized recreational marijuana in Uruguay.

Mujica earlier this year announced he would not undergo further treatment for esophagus cancer that had spread to his liver. The AP notes he died in his small house outside of Montevideo, the Uruguayan capital.

“With profound pain we announced that our friend Pepe Mujica has died,” said Uruguayan President Yamandú Orsi, who currently leads the Broad Front, on X. “President, activist, guide, and leader. We are going to miss you very much, dear old man. Thank you for everything that you gave us and for your profound love for your people.”

Esteban Paulón, a gay congressman in neighboring Argentina, celebrated Mujica as a “guide” for “Latin American progressivism.”

“He made humility, honesty and austerity his hallmarks,” said Paulón on social media.

A three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments May 7 on whether a 2023 decision by a D.C. Superior Court judge dismissing a lawsuit against seven of the eight former board members of the now-defunct Casa Ruby LGBTQ community services center should be overturned.

The Wanda Alston Foundation, an LGBTQ youth housing services group that assumed control over the operations of Casa Ruby in August 2022 under a court appointed receivership role, filed its lawsuit against the former board members in December 2022 under the Casa Ruby name.

It accuses them of violating D.C.’s nonprofit corporations’ law by failing to “hold regular meetings/or maintain official records – thereby exercising no oversight or governance over the organization.” 

Among other things, the lawsuit said the former board members failed to take steps to prevent Casa Ruby’s founder and former executive director, Ruby Corado, from embezzling large sums of Casa Ruby funds for personal use.

Corado, who was arrested in March 2024 on multiple embezzlement related charges, pleaded guilty in July 2024 to a single charge of wire fraud under a plea agreement with prosecutors. She is scheduled to be sentenced on July 29, 2025.

The lawsuit called on the court to require Corado and the former board members to pay “restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, receivership fees and expenses, court costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses and any other relief the court deems necessary and proper.”

In May 2023, at the request of defense attorneys, D.C. Superior Court Judge Danya A. Dayson dismissed the lawsuit against seven of the eight former board members but did not dismiss the case against Corado and one of the board members who allegedly received improper financial benefits from Corado.

Dayson stated in her dismissal decision that it was based on her interpretation of a D.C. law that members of an organization’s board of directors can only be held liable for harming an organization like Casa Ruby if they “intentionally, rather than negligently, inflicted harm on Casa Ruby.”

According to Dayson, the law in question also says board members can be held responsible for harming an organization if a “board member intentionally violated a criminal law or that the board member received some amount of money to which they were not entitled.” She states in her decision that the Alston Foundation lawsuit did not provide sufficient evidence that the seven board members committed those types of violations.

Attorneys for the Alston Foundation disputed Dayson’s interpretation of the law in their initial legal brief filed before the D.C. Court of Appeals in February 2024. Among other things, the brief argued that the Alston Foundation’s Third Interim Report in its role as Casa Ruby receiver provides sufficient evidence that the former board members are legally liable for harming Casa Ruby.

That and follow-up briefs and their oral arguments at the May 7, 2025, hearing state that the appeals court can find that the former board members “were deliberately indifferent’ or ‘willfully blind’ to the alleged wrongful conduct of the nonprofit’s executive director amounting to actual knowledge on their part that inaction would harm the non-profit, ultimately and forcibly leading to its financial inability to continue operating.”

A follow-up brief filed by Alston Foundation attorney Theodore Howard argues that the former board members violated Casa Ruby’s by-laws by conducting only one board meeting in six years.

According to the brief, that “allowed Ms. Corado to maintain complete authority over the organization, including by allowing her to unilaterally appoint new Board members” and allowed her “to maintain sole control over Casa Ruby’s bank and financial accounts, even after Ms. Corado cut off access to those accounts to anyone but herself.”

An opposing brief filed by attorney Marlin Grifith, who is representing former board member Miguel Rivera, states that the decision dismissing the lawsuit correctly interpreted the law pertaining to nonprofit corporations.

“The Superior Court did not err…,” the brief states, adding “there are no facts alleged that support a conclusion of reasonable inference that the individual board members acted with actual knowledge that their inaction would cause harm to the organization.”

Howard, the attorney representing the Alston Foundation in its role as Casa Ruby receiver, said the attorneys on both sides of the case are now waiting for the three-judge appeals court panel to issue their decision. 

If they rule in favor of Casa Ruby/Alston Foundation, the case will be sent back to the Superior Court for further proceedings on the lawsuit, Howard said. He said negotiations would likely begin for a possible out-of-court settlement.

If the appeals court rules in favor of the former board members by finding they did not intentionally and knowingly inflict harm to Casa Ruby, “then the case, at least as between Casa Ruby [via the Alston Foundation] and the former board of directors, will be over,” Howard said.