What can Pope Francis do to stop Putin?

Oct 14, 2022

Pope Francis made an unprecedented appeal to the Russian president on October 2 and condemned Moscow’s annexation of four Ukrainian regions. “After seven months of hostilities, let us use all diplomatic means,” he said, while urging “all the protagonists of international life” to take “initiatives for dialogue” against the “madness” of war.

Francis is in line with his predecessors
What will be the effect of the Pope’s efforts to bring an end to the war in Ukraine? Loup Besmond de Senneville, La Croix's permanent correspondent at the Vatican, put that question to Rome-based historian Laura Pettinaroli.

The Pope’s recent intervention is, to some extent, in line with the interventions of his predecessors during acute conflicts. It has been compared by some to that of John XXIII in October 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis. At that time, as this past Sunday, it was a spoken intervention addressing a serious crisis in progress. The Soviet Union was involved, and the nuclear issue was also a central concern. John XXIII denounced, as did the Pope during his angelus, the horrors of war. Francis denounced war as a “horror”, with its “rivers of blood”, but also an “error” and “madness”, the consequences of which affect the most fragile, especially children.
The point, which involves explicit words to dramatise the violence of war, was also central to Benedict XV (1914-1922) and Pius XII (1939-1958). It is meant to recall the fundamental horizon of the unity and solidarity of the human race. Moreover, in denouncing the Russian actions that run counter to the principles of international law, Francis was following a tradition of Vatican diplomacy that was affirmed in the 1960s, when the papacy really entered the UN game, ensuring a presence at the UN General Assembly by strongly promoting multilateralism, as well as the rights of minorities. This is an old legal platform, but one that the Catholic Church has increasingly embraced over the past 60 years.

A third aspect is that by asking the Russian and Ukrainian presidents, as well as the world’s political leaders, to stop the war through diplomatic channels not yet used, Francis is implicitly reiterating his offer to mediate.

Since the beginning of this war, the Vatican has regularly taken this position, as did Leo XIII (1878-1903) and Benedict XV in their time. As for the spiritual dimension, it is not absent either, since Francis refers to the shrine of Our Lady of the Rosary of Pompeii, which is dedicated to peace. It was consecrated in 1901 by Leo XIII, a pope who had at heart the development of mediations led by the Holy See. Whether Pope Francis’ appeal will be effective is difficult to assess.

In 1962, John XXIII’s appeal had a real effect, both on public opinion and as a driving force for a relative détente between the Holy See, the Soviet Union and the Russian Orthodox Church. As for Benedict XV many consider that his appeal for peace during the First World War was ineffective. This was the case in the very short term for the summer of 1917. But the arguments the Pope put forward were taken up in 1918 by US President Woodrow Wilson in his 14 points necessary to obtain peace.

Laura Pettinaroli is an historian of religions and director of studies for the modern and contemporary eras at the French School of Rome.

The Pope’s diplomacy is as impotent as that of other states
For another view, La Croix’s Marguerite de Lasa got this response from François Mabille, a political scientist who specialises in religious affairs.

The Pope’s statement on Sunday (Oct 2) has two essential meanings. For Catholics, especially those in Ukraine, he puts himself forth as a mediator, speaking, for the first time, very strongly against Vladimir Putin. This declaration contributes to rebalancing his previous positions on the war in Ukraine, by allowing him to get out of the errors of analysis that he has committed since the beginning of the conflict. The positions he has taken since February show a misunderstanding of the reality of the Russian regime and the role played by the Moscow patriarchate as its ideological support.

At the beginning of the conflict, Francis also failed to name the aggressor. Here, the major difference with his previous statements is that Francis finally refers to international law and condemns Moscow’s annexation of four Ukrainian regions. He adopts a classic papal position, calling for peace, mediation and an end to the conflict, addressing both protagonists directly. But I don’t think his statement will have any impact on the conflict itself.

The Pope is once again presenting himself as a mediator and a man of dialogue, but, as with politicians, this is extremely difficult.

From the moment that Russia invaded Ukraine, Vatican diplomacy became as powerless and constrained as state diplomacy.

The Pope once again calls — perhaps in a somewhat desperate way — for dialogue and peace, emphasising the risks of nuclear escalation. However, in this context, this stance is interesting insofar as we do not hear any proposal for a way out of the crisis from the political leaders, who confine themselves to military responses.

This raises questions about what kind of position the Holy See is taking. Are we expecting a religious or a political word from the Pope? Should the Church take a geopolitical stance, or should it remain a humanitarian response? Since the beginning of the conflict, Francis has oscillated between these stances.

It would be interesting to understand here how the Pope’s positions are elaborated, between what comes from his personal convictions and what comes from the Secretariat of State, or from other networks, such as Jesuits for example.

Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher, secretary for relations with states, took a different position from the Pope in May, stating that Ukraine has the right to defend itself within certain limits.

The personal convictions of Francis, who wants to be a man of peace, have undoubtedly dominated his statements to the detriment of the position of the Secretariat of State. The latter is much more diplomatic, professional and in line with the Church’s position on armed self-defence. --LCI, (https:// international.la-croix.com/)