Is the Pontiff Qualified for Politics?

 by Marinela P

The Pope: the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, believed by Catholics to be the direct successor of St Peter, a source of inspiration and the image of an ideal catholic. Of the many accolades bestowed upon the pope, political partisanship is not one of them. With Pope Francis seeming to lack neutrality when commenting on the conflict in Ukraine, it brings to light the question as to whether the papacy has a role in politics?

Recently, Pope Francis has brought into question the papacy’s role in politics with a comment made on the conflict in Ukraine. In an interview, the Pope made the claim that Ukraine should have “the courage to raise the White flag” and negotiate an end to the war with Russia. A statement that unsurprisingly caused outrage, with many seeing the comment as siding with Russia. It is not wrong for the Pope to comment on political matters and the moral issues surrounding them. The Pope has drawn attention to climate change in his encyclical on the environment Laudato Si, the chronic refugee crisis and global economic injustice. Recommendations to Christians world wide on how best to deal with these pressing, often highly politicised issues is not wrong, in fact some will argue that it is the role of the Pope to offer guidance. The place of the papacy in politics is a contentious matter, with strong arguments on both sides. Should the papacy be politically involved? Does politics concern faith and therefore intervention is necessary?

The papacy, regardless of comments made by the Pope, is politically involved. The Holy See has an established position in politics globally, with the Vatican sending their equivalent to diplomats (apostolic nuncios) to different countries in order to maintain a relationship between the church and state. As well as being able to send and host ambassadors, the Pope also has the ability to sign international treaties. This indicates great political power held by the Pope, but it does not justify the Pope's political partisanship.

The Bible itself was somewhat a religious text. Brazilian Archbishop, Helder Camara said, “when people tell me that religion and politics don’t mix, I ask them which Bible they read?”. Through this he was referring to the Gospels, which portray a number of conflicts that Jesus had with his antagonists which were political in nature: healings on the sabbath, claims of authority, differences over opinion as to ritual requirements and interpretations of the law. So where does this leave the papacy, because the gospels had moments of political tension. Does this justify the current Pope in seeming to back a country in a major conflict?

Absolutely not, the papacy have historically misaligned themselves during times of conflict, with WW2 not covering the Holy See with glory. The papacy has such a great and yielding influence across the globe. A vital figure in Christianity generally cannot be seen to have a stance so divisive.

Society in the 21st century has veered away from religion, some may argue that the Pope’s words are inconsequential. However the Pope’s words are incredibly relevant and dangerous. With the Vatican appearing to toe the line with Russia it seems that the Pope is supporting what Putin has been preaching over the past two years. The words of the Pope are not fostering hopes for peace in the Vatican, nor does it inspire hope for the war more generally, providing now moral ammunition for a country that arguably can do without.

With that in mind, it is safe to conclude that the Pope should not be preaching politics, not only does the papacy fail to reflect the popular view of Europe, as well as the world more generally, its spiritual authority does not permit the Pope to have public political biases, deepening rifts and giving justification to aggressors in war.