Why is the Vatican so Passive About the War in Ukraine?

The Vatican's geopolitics.

Statements by Pope Francis such as "NATO is barking at Russia's door" or the Vatican’s questioning the sending of Western weapons to Ukraine have been a source of shock since the first days of Europe's biggest war in 80 years. Many ask why the Vatican, whose foundation should be the defence of human life, truth, and helping the victim, subscribes to the slogans promulgated by Russian propagandists. It turns out that the motives for such behavior by the Holy See are many and they all overlap. On a journey through interests, dogmas, schisms, and personal views, we’ll see what the Vatican's geopolitics look like in the 21st century.

Deafening Silence

The end of February 2022. A war has started. Shock has gripped many. First, the Ukrainians who were attacked. Second, the World. The Ukrainians are bravely defending themselves and at the same time, looking for expressions of support worldwide. It is clear that material support will not come immediately, but verbal support, an essential source of morale, can be provided immediately. Expressions of condemnation are pouring in from all over the world. Biden speaks of Russia's unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine and announces consequences the world has not yet seen. Similar statements are being made by officials from the European Union, Japan, and Australia. Kyiv gets the first confirmations that it will not be left alone.

However, Ukrainians are looking in one more direction: towards the Vatican. According to many, this is the world capital of peace. But, a deafening silence answers Ukrainian knocking. Apart from the Greek Catholic minority, most Ukrainians adhere to Orthodoxy and are, therefore not subject to the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope. Still, because of the Pope's position in the world and his work for peace, it seemed natural that Francis would be among the first to condemn the Russian invasion and Vladimir Putin. However, the silence coming from the Vatican walls was no coincidence and was to foreshadow the Vatican's policy in the following months.

Of course, deafening silence did not mean total shutdown, but the way Francis referred to the war, especially at its beginning. There were many problems with the statements made by the head of the Church and other senior Vatican hierarchs. In his first statements, Francis encouraged everyone to pray for peace, which the "diabolical senselessness of violence has destroyed." However, in the Pope's statements, no one could hear the fact that this was an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. Seven months would pass before the Pope called the Russian Federation the aggressor.

Statements not only by Francis but also by his closest subordinates were a cause for consternation. Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State of the Holy See, commenting on the subject of Western arms supplies to Ukraine in the early days of the war said: "It's terrible because it could cause an escalation."

The first month of the war was marked by the Vatican's lament about war without taking sides. In the second, the Pope kissed the Ukrainian flag but at the same time outraged the Ukrainians with the idea of a Russian and a Ukrainian woman carrying a cross together at the Stations of the Cross during Easter Mass. The Vatican applied symmetry, while the Ukrainians responded: "We cannot talk about reconciliation when they are killing us." In the following months, the Pope admired the "courageous" Ukraine, but at the same time, he says the war may have been provoked. Particular outrage was caused by an interview on 3 May for Corriere della Sera, in which the Pope said:

"NATO's barking at Russia's door may have raised alarm bells in the Kremlin about the Western European Alliance's intentions in Ukraine. I cannot say whether Russia's anger was provoked, but facilitated probably yes."

On 1 September, Francis finally speaks of the Russian Federation as the aggressor, speaking of "unacceptable aggression." Given that it took the Holy See seven months… few were encouraged by latent admission.

From where does the Vatican stance originate? Why does the Holy See remain so passive, not to say cynical, in the face of the biggest European war in 80 years? A war whose evidence of injustice and criminality is endless, leaving no doubt on which side the truth lies. As it turns out, the motives for such behaviour by the Vatican are several and overlapping.

Impartiality, the Hope of Mediation

Let us begin with the first doctrine. The first theory against which the Vatican interprets the events in Ukraine is the “just war” theory. The concept of just war was born in the texts of the main theologians of the Catholic Church, St Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. Its interpretation has changed over the centuries and has served to justify wars that have nothing to do with love. That is why nowadays, the Catechism of the Church is a little more precise on the subject and lists four conditions for a just war, it requires:

• That the harm caused by the aggressor to a nation or community of nations is long-lasting, serious and undeniable;
• That all other measures to put an end to it have proved unrealistic or ineffective;
• That there are reasonable conditions for success;
• That the use of arms does not entail even more serious evil and confusion than the evil to be removed.

The interpretation of the rules remains arbitrary, nevertheless, based on much evidence, it is unquestionable that the Ukrainian-Russian war is, according to Church doctrine, a just war, where the just side is Ukraine. The problem is that although the Pope offers indirect moral support to the Ukrainians, at the same time, he rejects the interpretation of just war by saying for example, that "war is always - always - the downfall of humanity, always!" The threefold repetition of always leaves no doubt that this also refers to just war and, therefore to Ukraine’s resistance.

The second doctrine followed by the Vatican is the concept of "permanent neutrality," which means not taking sides. The most glaring example of this policy was the attitude of the Holy See during the Second World War, but also later at the beginning of the Cold War. Paul Gallagher, Vatican Secretary for Relations with States, explains it as follows: "If you form an alliance with someone, you are at the same time standing against someone else. (...) we have to keep a certain amount of openness to each side when it comes to political and ecumenical dialogue.” We will return to his last words, ecumenical dialogue, as it is also important for the big picture. At the same time, the Briton stresses that "the Vatican is neutral but not ethically indifferent. It offers and has offered assistance to Ukraine."

Doctrinally we could end the topic here, but there is much more under the surface. The Vatican's peculiar stance sheds a lot of light on its motives and actions during the war.

The Geopolitics of the Vatican

The Vatican is a unique country. Although the world's smallest in terms of area, its has global reach and affects billions of people. However, this reach and influence are very uneven.

Europe, once a stronghold of Catholicism, and just 100 years ago it was home to 65% of the world’s Catholics. Although the number of Catholics in Europe has increased from nearly 190 million in 1910 to almost 260 million in 2010, the Old Continent now accounts for only 24% of all Catholics.

The number of Catholics has tripled over the last century, but now it’s Latin America that is the global stronghold of Catholicism with a 40% share. Massive growth is also attributed to Asia at 12% and Africa at 16%, which together outnumber Europe. Moreover, from the point of view of Petrine See, the prospects for evangelisation in these continents are exceptional, since in Europe, 35% of the inhabitants are Catholics, while in Asia and Africa it’s only 5%.

The breakdown by country is also interesting. European countries are nowhere at the forefront. Italy is fifth. While Poland, France and Spain are eighth, ninth and tenth, respectively.

The first three are countries that are thousands of kilometres from the Vatican: Brazil, Mexico and the Philippines. They account for over 300 million Catholic devotees, almost 30% of the world total. Additionally, we have countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Colombia, Argentina, Peru and Nigeria. So what is the conclusion?

For most of these countries, the war in Europe is a distant conflict and many of them did not take sides, this includes those crucial to the Vatican: Brazil and Mexico. Moreover, many of them have varying sympathy, but sympathy nonetheless, for Russia, which stems more from antipathy for the United States than outright admiration for Russia itself. Still, the invasion of Ukraine is often seen as a necessary response to the actions of the West.

And so: is the Vatican pragmatically adapting to the policies of States where most Catholics live? Perhaps it is, although it does not have to be a conscious choice. Francis has appointed many new cardinals, most of them from countries of the “global south.” Although diminishing, the Italians still have a disproportionately large share in the College of Cardinals and the attitude of most of them towards Russia is soft. In a word, despite being citizens of the Vatican, everyone has their own nationality, experiences, and opinions, including political ones. All of which directly influence Vatican policy. And the best example is Pope Francis himself.

Argentine Perspective

It is difficult to define Jorge Mario Bergoglio's political views clearly. Still, two things can be emphasised: he is an extreme pacifist, and he is not a fan of US politics.

Bergoglio grew up during the reign of the Argentine dictator Juan Peron when relations between Buenos Aires and Washington were extremely tense, and Argentines' opinions about America extremely negative. The end of Bergoglio’s childhood coincided with the overthrow of Peron in 1955, a time which was also the beginning of mass pacifist movements that called for disarmament. They were often directed against the actions of the United States due to its war in Vietnam. These disarmament movements, as it later revealed, were often sponsored by the Soviet Union.

Argentinian sympathies for America fluctuate greatly, but even recent history shows that in Latin America, Argentina is the country where the United States enjoys the least support.

Is the Pope one of the opponents of American hegemony? There are many indications of this. Apart from Russia, China, Turkey and Iran, also the Vatican is a proponent of a multipolar world and ending the unilateral moment of the USA. Such is also Pope Francis’ diplomacy. As Victor Gaetan writes in God's Diplomats, a book on Vatican diplomacy, Bergoglio does not regard Russian or Chinese imperialism as more dangerous than American imperialism. This symmetry is clear when we look at the actions and statements of St. Peter's successor, and not just during the war. Moreover, it seems that the Vatican, recognising the dominant position of the Americans, tries or had tried to balance Washington’s influence with a relaxed approach to Russia and China.

The Vatican led by Pope Francis, softened its position on Communist China recently. The Vatican extended the agreement on the consecration of Catholic bishops in China, according to which the communist regime designates candidates for bishops. The situation of Christians in China is difficult. The Chinese Catholics, as well as clergy, are subjected to repression and crosses are removed from many public spaces. This intensified with Xi Jinping's takeover. The Vatican is also silent on Beijing's military plans for Taiwan. Pope Francis defends his choices with the words, “When you face an impasse, you need to find a possible way out, not an ideal one.”

Of particular interest is the Vatican's position vis-a-vis the rivalry on the Washington-Moscow axis. In 2013, when Barack Obama was considering military intervention in Syria after Bashar al-Assad carried out a chemical attack on a school, Francis sent a complimentary letter to Vladimir Putin, who was about to host the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, asking him to mediate peace, thus recognising and strengthening Putin’s position in the region.

During the Francis pontificate, Putin was the most frequently invited European leader to the Holy See. Meetings were held despite the ongoing war in Ukraine. Even now, Francis constantly emphasises his desire to meet with Vladimir Putin. The Kremlin has been rejecting these offers. And while one can understand Pope Francis' hopes for a change in Russia's behavior after a face-to-face meeting with the Kremlin leader, it’s a utopian hope. Moreover, this way Pope Francis strikes the victim, Ukraine. For a long time the Pope did not want to agree to a visit to Kyiv with various reasons being behind this, including a knee injury. However now, he declares that "if he goes, it will only be to Moscow and Kyiv at one time, not to just one of these places." Since Moscow rejects the possibility of a visit, the Kremlin's decision also seals the fate of a papal visit to Kyiv. The Vatican's symmetry of the aggressor and victim is difficult to understand.

Finally - following Russian aggression - many NATO countries announced increases in military spending, which the Pope called a "madness" for which he is "ashamed." According to the Pope, behind the war in Ukraine wasn’t necessarily one specific state actor but "the old logic of force that dominates so-called geopolitics." The Pope goes on to add that "today we often talk about geopolitics, but unfortunately, the dominant logic is the strategy of the most powerful states that seek economic, ideological and military expansion." The Pope warns against a "simplistic" view of the conflict, in which there are the good guys and the bad guys. "It is a global conflict, and although Ukraine is the victim, it is also necessary to understand the factors that led to it (...). When the imperialists feel threatened and trapped, they react by thinking that the solution is to start a war to rebuild themselves and to sell and test weapons." Finally, we hear about 'NATO barking', which could provoke Moscow.

Thus, it can be said with high certainty that, despite his recent naming of Russia as the aggressor, Pope Francis primarily blames imperial rivalries. Therefore, in the Apostolic See’s eyes, the United States bears the main moral responsibility for the war alongside the Russian Federation. Once again, this is a view often found in countries of the global south.

While the Holy See's diagnosis can already be heavily disputed, there is another motive that reinforces others.

Schism in the Orthodox Church

Let us go back to the words of cardinal Paul Gallagher about 'ecumenical reconciliation.’ This phrase is almost always used when talking about Vatican neutrality. It is about a dialogue between different branches of Christianity and better mutual understanding. In this case, between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Here too, we observe a very high dynamic of events, which the See of Rome seems to be unable to keep up with. The Russian aggression against Crimea and Donbas, apart from political division, also caused a chain reaction in Orthodoxy.

The Orthodox Church is characterised by the principle of autocephaly, meaning that individual Churches are independent and, canonically, none of the Orthodox patriarchs may interfere in the activities of another patriarch. We have such churches in Russia, Romania, Greece, and others. The role of the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople is an exception because he has superiority over other patriarchs. Currently, this is Bartholomew I.

Orthodox followers worldwide number approx. 200 million. Until recently, the majority, just over 100 million, fell to the autocephalous Russian Orthodox Church. It reaches out to believers in Russia as well as in the former USSR, including Ukraine. The Russian Orthodox Church is formally under the spiritual authority of the Ecumenical Constantinopolitan Patriarchate.

However, on October 11, 2018, an epochal event took place. Constantinople, after 332 years, annulled its 1686 decision to transfer the Kyiv metropolis to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate and gave the green light to the establishment of the Kyiv Patriarchate. This enraged Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. He reacted by breaking off relations and eucharistic unity with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which de facto means a schism. Kirill's fury is not surprising. This was a major blow to the Russian Orthodox Church. In addition to the loss of massive revenues from Ukrainian parishes, the Kremlin lost an essential tool for influencing Ukrainian society.

In Ukraine, the Church has split into two sides.

• First: the new Orthodox Church of Ukraine of the Kyiv Patriarchate, which 52% of Ukraine's population, or some 20 million people, immediately joined.
• Second: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate also remained and continued to recognise Moscow's authority. Only 4% of the country's population have stayed with it.

However, the parish distribution in the country is still in Moscow’s favor: 12,000 parishes in Ukraine still fall under Moscow’s Patriarchate, while only 7,000 under Kyiv’s.

That said, the full-scale invasion in February of this year led Ukrainians who remained under the Moscow Patriarchate, including the leading hierarchs of the Moscow faction, to also begin to question the status quo. Moreover, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate was threatened with partial or total banning by the political authorities in Kyiv who see it as a tool of Moscow's influence and a threat to internal security. Two bills were submitted to the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada in March to ban its activities and confiscate its property. All this paves the way for the unification of one Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Now, why this long-winded introduction to the subject? Because in such a situation, the United Ukrainian Church would become the largest autocephalous Orthodox church in the world. Out of more than 30,000 parishes, hitherto the largest Russian church, 19,000 belonged to Ukraine. Therefore, from this pragmatic perspective, which the Vatican now seems to adhere to, the most critical direction in the search for ecumenical reconciliation should not be Moscow but Kyiv. Russia still remains the place where the largest number of people declare the Orthodox faith. In practice however, Russian society is heavily secularized. More than half of Russians declare Orthodox church membership, but only one in ten believers practice regularly.

But this is only a pragmatic view. There are many more moral reasons as evidenced by the multiple pro-war, nationalist, gospel-denying speeches of Kirill and other Russian clerics.

Chaos in the Vatican

As the months of war continued, Moscow made it increasingly difficult for the Vatican to maintain its neutral stance. After some time, the Vatical declared Russia the aggressor and Vladimir Putin, the leader of the aggression. Although Vatican criticism is well-founded, one should not go too far. Its condemnation of Russia is relatively mild, but it does not support the Kremlin's activities. The Vatican sends humanitarian aid to Ukraine all the time. As with words of support for Ukraine. Among other things, the Pope said "sometimes when I think of Ukraine, it seems to me that it is a country born to suffer. You have just come out from under Stalinism, and just when things started to develop, war came."

Recently, the Pope has even compared Operation Reinhardt, carried out by the Germans during the Second World War, to the war in Ukraine. It was aimed at exterminating the Jewish population of what is now eastern Poland. "History is repeating itself," he said. These are perhaps Francis' strongest words, as he directly compared the Russians to the Nazis. Similarly, the Pope compared the war with Holodomor - the Soviet-caused mass starvation in Ukraine in the 1930s.

Nevertheless, after such strong words came another controversy when Francis stated that the Russians are not mainly responsible for the atrocities in Ukraine, but the minorites inside the Russian Federation, Buryats or Chechens. Francis thus divides the aggressors into “civilised” Russians and “uncivilised” minorities. Aside from the immorality of generalisation, it should be recalled that in the 1990s it was the Russians, who killed 25% of the Chechen population, then numbering 1.5 million people, including 42,000 children.

Francis' statements are, in effect, a chaotic mix of utopian pacifism, contempt for imperialism - primarily US policy - and expressions of support for Ukraine. By talking about avoiding a 'simplistic' approach to the causes of the war, the Pope is buying into the Kremlin narrative, offering Putin an alibi while creating his own version of a shallow narrative. Talk of US hypocrisy is justified. The United States proclaims and identifies with values that are often incompatible with its actions. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be examples of this. However, putting an equal sign between Washington's actions and Moscow's policies contradicts the logic and moral interpretation that Francis should follow.

It is also wrong to believe that a multipolar world is safer than a unipolar one. And this is the view of Francis. We witnessed the latter, for the first time in history, from 1990 to 2020 which was the most peaceful period in human history. Now, on the other hand, we’re at the gateways to the multipolar world and we are witnessing many outbreaks of imperialism and nationalism worldwide, which Francis, after all, wants to combat. Yes, in a unipolar world, one state is disproportionately powerful compared to the rest. But as long as that state professes and serves good values, and the world order based on it is built on transparent principles, then the hegemon pays a dividend of its power to the rest of the states in the system. How? For example, by enabling free trade and the exchange of people, ideas, and technology. By serving as a security guarantor, thus preventing large-scale wars. And it should be held accountable for these responsibilities. It is only when security and freedom are broken that we begin to realise how crucial they are to our daily lives.

The motives for the Vatican's behaviour towards the war in Ukraine are many. These range from a doctrinal desire to remain impartial to pragmatically aligning itself with the policies of countries important to the Vatican and seeking ecumenical dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church to the personal experiences and views of the Pope and cardinals. Emphasis should probably be placed on the last. National traits and views formed in youth can completely define a given pontificate. Faced with a different geopolitical situation but with the same adversary, Pope John Paul II played an active role in supporting the Church in communist states during the Cold War. For a Pole who had experiences with two totalitarianisms, Nazism and Communism, the choice was obvious. The Argentinian's perspective is different. The Vatican did not overthrow communism; there were many more reasons for its collapse. However, Karol Wojtyla added a lot by temporarily breaking with the doctrine of permanent neutrality.

At present, even with extensive involvement, Pope Francis' direct influence on the events of the war would not be significant. Two Orthodox nations are involved in the war and the Holy See's reach is limited. Yet, changing the Vatican narrative could pose a major problem for Russian propaganda in many places where it still enjoys a following. Most notably in Latin America and Africa. The Pope's voice could change the perceptions and attitudes towards the war of millions of the faithful, for whom the successor of St Peter is still the highest authority. And the voice of millions could be followed by the actions of politicians seeking domestic support, which would result in a change of policy towards Russia. This is, therefore, a very relevant issue.

In the end, there always remains a moral dilemma. Does the Vatican's attitude represent values in line with the gospel, does it bring people closer to God by its actions? Pope Francis, as in the case of China, hides behind the necessity of compromises for the sake of progress. But do such compromises not destroy the foundations on which the Catholic Church was built?

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JUDywyyG34
https://ine.org.pl/papiez-franciszek-odwiedzi-ukraine-watykan-a-wojna-przystanek-europa-24/
https://international.la-croix.com/news/signs-of-the-times/the-holy-see-and-the-war-in-ukraine/15792
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2022/09/invasion-of-ukraine-was-barbaric-but-war-is-complicated-pope-tells-jesuits
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/pope-condemns-latest-missile-attacks-ukraine-urges-averting-escalation-2022-11-16/
https://www.rp.pl/plus-minus/art35989891-watykan-wobec-wojny-bolesny-sprawdzian-dla-franciszka
https://www.rp.pl/plus-minus/art36087831-tomasz-p-terlikowski-watykan-i-wojna-zla-dyplomacja-bledna-etyka
https://tvn24.pl/premium/papiez-franciszek-o-wojnie-w-ukrainie-tomasz-terlikowski-komentuje-5697172
https://tvn24.pl/premium/papiez-franciszek-postawa-papieza-wobec-wojny-i-niechec-wobec-stanow-zjednoczonych-skad-sie-bierze-analiza-tomasza-terlikowskiego-6111280
https://www.rp.pl/plus-minus/art37349571-tomasz-terlikowski-dwa-oblicza-czczenia-bozkow
https://wiadomosci.wp.pl/watykan-o-wojnie-w-ukrainie-gotow-zapewnic-miejsce-do-negocjacji-6838522762185408a
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2022/11/28/pope-francis-interview-america-244225
https://www.ansa.it/english/news/2022/12/07/pope-compares-ukraine-war-to-nazi-murder-of-jews_f375ffc0-7873-4f98-9a6b-6f482d7135d4.html
https://twitter.com/polidemitolog/status/1597314660197601282
https://twitter.com/MrKovalenko/status/1600649590386364416
https://twitter.com/0xdeni/status/1597422556252090369
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/interview/how-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-ended-vatican-citys-multilateral-foreign-policy/
vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2022-11/gallagher-peace-can-be-attained-only-through-dialogue.html
https://catholicoutlook.org/a-shifting-world-and-the-political-loyalties-of-a-globalized-vatican/
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/252267/the-geopolitics-of-pope-francis-trip-to-kazakhstan
https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-pope-hopes-china-deal-bishops-will-be-renewed-soon-2022-07-05/
https://www.reuters.com/world/exclusive-pope-hopes-china-deal-bishops-will-be-renewed-soon-2022-07-05/
https://international.la-croix.com/news/religion/francis-calls-natos-military-spending-increase-madness/15849
https://international.la-croix.com/news/signs-of-the-times/the-holy-sees-dealings-with-russia-and-china-the-legacy-of-ostpolitik-and-the-change-of-epoch/16137
https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/behind-frontlines-vaticans-ukraine-russia-strategy
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/02/1126454129/russia-ukraine-pope-francis-plea-peace
https://worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/pope-francis-on-ukraine
https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Kremlin-We-welcome-Vatican-offer-to-mediate-but-Ukraine-s-stance-prevents-it--42417600/
https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/Kremlin-We-welcome-Vatican-offer-to-mediate-but-Ukraine-s-stance-prevents-it--42417600/