Pope Leo XIV’s recent statement in response to the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela likely left both its supporters and opponents unsatisfied. Pope Leo called for the “good of the beloved Venezuelan people” to be a priority, with guarantees for “the sovereignty of the country” and “special attention to the poorest.” Unsurprisingly, he did not cheer an extra-legal strike by the United States on another country. But neither did he issue a specific and blunt denunciation. Instead, he made clear that the Roman Catholic Church desired peace, but did not indicate how that would be achieved.
There will be great scrutiny over this statement, and every statement Pope Leo makes on international affairs. This is in part due to the legacy of his predecessor, Pope Francis. Francis became a popular figure because he defined his role through high-profile activism on social justice. Many Catholics have been watching to see whether and how Pope Leo will change his approach.
Based on what we have seen so far, Pope Leo appears poised to shift away from Francis’s style when it comes to international peacebuilding. Pope Leo seems to be extending his consensus-based approach to intra-Catholic disputes into the realm of international relations. He will make the Roman Catholic Church a voice for peace but, unlike his predecessor, will leave it to others to figure out how to achieve that peace. Pope Leo likely hopes this will allow him to steer the church in a peaceful direction without upsetting potential critics. Based on early pushback to his efforts, however, Pope Leo may have to decide between Pope Francis’s forceful peacebuilding and a more conservative retrenchment.
The logic behind Leo’s international outreach matters, as the Vatican’s influence over international relations, and the popular respect that generates it, has varied with time. Many saw Pope Pius XII as complicit in Nazi atrocities for trying to ensure the Roman Catholic Church was protected during World War II. Pope John XXIII, by contrast, was praised for his modernizations in Vatican II and the interreligious dialogue it enabled. Pope John Paul II attracted worldwide popularity for his stand against communism, although his—and the Church’s—moral authority was tainted by the unresolved sexual abuse scandal. Pope Benedict XVI proved divisive, gathering some support for his defense of Middle Eastern Christians while drawing criticism for his seeming rejection of interfaith outreach.
Based on early pushback to his efforts, Leo may have to decide between Francis’s forceful peacebuilding and a more conservative retrenchment.
To many, Francis—who became pope in 2013—was a breath of fresh air. He called for tolerance and interfaith dialogue, actively worked for peace, and decried the deaths of migrants. Pope Francis became a celebrity with influence well beyond Roman Catholics.
But his activist stance also created controversy. Some criticized his opposition to intervention in the Syrian civil war, blaming him for how long that conflict lasted. He was also criticized for seeming to blame both sides following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (one of those critics was me).
Pope Francis also faced resistance within the Church itself. Many traditionalist Roman Catholics opposed his reforms and priorities. Pope Francis, in turn, was happy to push back, referring to conservative critics as “backwardists” holding a “suicidal” attitude.
Pope Francis had a clear sense of what afflicted the world and wanted the Roman Catholic Church to have an active role in addressing it. He was not afraid to push aside those who resisted. While he seemed to have increased the Vatican’s influence through his activism, his activism was also polarizing: progressives wanted him to do more on certain issues, while conservatives argued he went too far.
Naturally, Pope Leo’s actions will draw comparison to Francis. Based on his first few months in office, Pope Leo’s approach appears disjointed.
On intra-Catholic issues, he has adopted a mix of stances. In some ways he has broken with Pope Francis, most notably on traditionalist worship. The traditional Latin Mass was limited with Vatican II, and later permitted by Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis curtailed it again, to the consternation of conservatives. Pope Leo has undone Pope Francis’s ruling, allowing a conservative U.S. cardinal to conduct a traditional Mass in the Vatican, seeming to side with the conservatives.
In other ways, Pope Leo has continued to pursue Francis’s priorities. Leo’s first major statement argued that care for the poor is an “essential Christian task.” He also called for “deep reflection” in the United States on the treatment of migrants and whether it satisfies Jesus’ teachings.
Leo has likewise continued Francis’s interfaith and ecumenical work. He has said interreligious dialogue is a “way of life” for the church. In October, Pope Leo met with King Charles III of the United Kingdom, and the two held an ecumenical service. While the event may not have received much attention outside watchers of the UK monarchy and the Anglican Communion, this was a historic moment. The gathering was the first public prayer between an English monarch and a pope since the break between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church under King Henry VIII in the sixteenth century.
Pope Leo’s mixed record extends to his approach to international conflict. Back in May, during a meeting with Eastern-rite Catholics, including members of Ukraine’s Catholic community, the pope offered to “host or facilitate peace talks among countries at war.” It was clearly a move reminiscent of Francis.
But then in October he said “that while popes should be a voice for peace, it wasn’t very realistic” for the pope to mediate conflicts. This shift may reflect a decision that the resources spent on such a high-profile, and possibly fruitless, mediation could be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps the press release from the May meeting got ahead of his intentions. Whatever the explanation may be, it indicates he will not be engaging in Francis’s approach to peacebuilding.
He was similarly hesitant to firmly engage the Vatican in peacebuilding in other areas. When asked about U.S. strikes on Venezuelan boats suspected of drug smuggling, Leo said the goal should be to “seek dialogue.” And the pope was circumspect when asked to address Israeli settler violence in the West Bank, calling for those involved to “work together for justice for all peoples.”
At first glance, these various stories seem disconnected, a new pope working to figure out his paradigm for engaging with the world. But I see a logic here, one that subtly builds on Francis’s legacy while redirecting it. In place of Francis’s activism, Leo’s paradigm of engagement seems to be that of building consensus.
This approach reflects the nature of Leo’s elevation to the papacy. Observers noted the surprising consensus that developed around Cardinal Prevost as the next pope during the conclave. Some of this consensus was attributed to his manner of engagement. As some participants noted, he “did not campaign” but instead “analyzed.” This seemed to overcome divisions over the late Francis.
As pope, Leo has applied this same approach. This explains his move on the traditional Mass, even as he continued Francis’s progressive focus. Based on his personal experience and Francis’s model, Leo wanted the church to continue to prioritize care for the poor. But he also knew conservatives needed to feel included in the church.
It can also be seen in his outreach to the Anglican Communion. There are unresolved issues in the history of the Church of England and its relations with Rome, but it is clearly important for two of the largest Christian churches to engage with each other.
In place of Francis’s activism, Leo’s paradigm of engagement seems to be that of building consensus.
Both of these moves likely frustrated people on both sides of intra-Christian divisions. There are growing concerns about the spread of “traditionalist” Roman Catholic beliefs in the United States, as exemplified by the vice president’s mentor Peter Thiel, who said he prefers the “church of Constantine” to that of Mother Theresa. Pope Leo did not address these critiques directly when allowing the traditional Mass.
The Anglican Communion has moved in a more progressive direction than the Roman Catholic Church, especially with the recent election of the first female Archbishop of Canterbury. Pope Leo did not seem interested in reconciling the churches’ different stances or clarifying if he would continue Francis’s apparent acceptance of LGBTQ faithful.
Leo’s initiatives have not resolved lingering intra-Catholic or ecumenical tensions. And I suspect Pope Leo is okay with that. Rather than trying to force a resolution of the underlying conflict or provide a solution, he is creating the conditions for a consensus to emerge, just as he did during the conclave.
This, I suspect, is the logic undergirding his peacebuilding.
Whatever prompted his step back from active peace mediation, it indicates that he will put the Holy See firmly on the side of peace, but that he will not expend effort in implementing it. Similarly, his hesitation to clearly lay out a violator and remedy for tensions in Israel, Russia, and Venezuela indicates he will support peacebuilders but not be the driving force in such efforts.
Under Pope Leo, the Holy See may still be visible in international peace efforts, but its efforts will constitute rhetorical support and moral reminders. For those engaging in peacebuilding, Pope Leo will likely champion them. When world leaders forget the imperative to push for peace, he will likely remind them.
The question, however, is how effective this will be.
Pope Francis’s activism rankled some observers, but he produced tangible results. His peace vigils over Syria likely deterred some states away from military intervention. His interfaith efforts and compassion for migrants brought those issues to the world’s attention.
For Pope Leo, the hope seems to be that his quieter, consensus-based model to international peacebuilding can still be effective without attracting as much criticism. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be working for intra-Catholic relations. Conservative critics of the pope argue that his apparent outreach to them was a sham to cover up his “woke” tendencies. We may see similar pushback on international affairs. It is very possible, then, that the new approach to Vatican diplomacy Pope Leo has adopted will fail to make progress on peace but also fail to satisfy his critics.