Habemus Papam: What Consequences for International Relations?

Page header image: L’Osservatore Romano

Last May 8, white smoke slipped out of the chimney of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, signaling the election of the new head of the Catholic Church replacing the late Pope Francis. The wave of hope brought about by the appointment of Leo XIV contrasts with the conflicts rising from the ashes of unsolved tensions all over the world. In his inaugural address delivered at the loggia of Saint-Peter’s Basilica, Leo XIV called for “a disarmed peace, a disarming peace”. Robert Francis Prevost is the first North American pope, while also holding Peruvian citizenship for preaching there for decades. As the polyglot new head of the Vatican rooted his first papal address in the topical geopolitical context, his multicultural background has the world wondering about how he is going to influence international relations.

For starters, are popes actually entitled to any diplomatic function? In fact, they are. The Vatican maintains diplomatic relations with 183 countries thanks to apostolic nuncios serving as diplomats in nunciatures, the embassies of the Holy See. Besides, the Vatican is also part of multilateral organizations, as a permanent observer at the United Nations and the Council of Europe, for example. In this framework, the pope has a major role to play on the international scene, by committing to causes and goals influencing not only the governance of the Catholic Church but also international cooperation.

During his pontificate, Pope Francis led important foreign policy achievements. For instance, the US and Cuba entitled him to mediate and normalize their diplomatic relations. The success of this mission paved the way for the Vatican’s new purpose of bridge-builder “between persons, groups and nations” as announced by the Vatican Secretary of State Pietro Parolin at the time.

Pope Francis also took action for causes by advocating Catholic values framed as political stances linked to the broader international community. Indeed, his papacy was shaped by liberation theology, a movement in Christian philosophy that defends the marginalized by challenging structural inequalities and political oppression. For example, Pope Francis denounced climate change as a global moral issue due to its disproportionate impact on developing countries.

Although he did not directly condemn Russian invasion in Ukraine and relied more on calls for peace than international law, he sent prelate Zuppi on peace missions on the ground. Committed to defending migrants, he wrote in February 2025 a letter to bishops denouncing the xenophobic rhetoric and mass deportation policy of Trump’s administration. Back in 2016, during Trump’s first presidential term, he had already called the building of the wall at the Mexican border anti-Christian.

Although newly elected Pope Leo XIV is considered more measured than Francis, he also holds topical political stances. As a cardinal, he criticized Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele and Donald Trump for deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a US resident accused of being a gang member without evidence. It is thus likely that Leo XIV is going to use his platform to voice political stances and influence geopolitics, but how?

Firstly, Leo XIV emphasized peace as his priority in his inaugural address following his election. He shared his goal to consolidate “a Church that builds bridges, dialogue” while paying tribute to Pope Francis, which may signal the perpetuation of his predecessor’s legacy. As proof of his commitment to concrete advocacy, he promoted “meetings” as a tool to consolidate peace and showed his universalism and diplomatic skills by speaking both Italian and Spanish in his address. His role as a peace-making ombudsman is even embraced by world leaders, like Keir Starmer and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who are counting on the pope’s support.

Considered a strong pillar of moderation and dialogue, Leo XIV still criticized Trump and J. D. Vance, by confronting the newly-converted vice-president’s interpretation of Christian love with his stance on immigration. The appointment of the American pope shows an interesting shift from fear of US soft power to hope for opposition to the current administration.

Indeed, the College of Cardinals had historically been wary about electing an American pope, feared as a Trojan horse for American influence. However, as Robert F. Prevost’s criticism shows, he may reveal a dissenting voice regarding Trump’s policies. In addition, his choice of papal name underscores his loyalty to Leo XIII, who ruled the Holy See from 1878 to 1903. Leo XIII’s pontificate defended social justice, the working class and the poors’ rights, through his famous encyclical “Rerum Novarum”. Today, such a stance has never been more topical, especially regarding the pitfalls of American capitalism. Leo XIII also opposed extreme nationalism undermining supranational religion and the instrumentalization of faith to serve national interests.

Such views are particularly relevant in the context of rising nationalism in the US, where religion has been politicized by Trump to mobilize and radicalize voters. For instance, he framed the survival of his assassination attempt during the presidential campaign as evidence that he had been chosen by God, which he emphasized during his inauguration speech. In contrast, the election of an American pope may act as a wake-up call for American believers to return to the original Christian message, all the more so since Leo XIV is an Augustinian advocating the quest for the truth and brotherly love. Besides, if Leo XIV succeeds to rally Catholics around a powerful supranational Church, he may foster American believers’ empathy and solidarity towards alterity, away from an inward-looking xenophobic religion.

In fact, what seems to be lacking for opposition to grow in the US is strong guiding figures. Then, what better option than Catholics’ shepherd to mobilize citizens growing skeptical about Trump’s administration and reassure them in their path to dissent? From converted Republicans who were attracted to his populist rhetoric—like the white working class—to traditional Republican voters opposing the authoritarian drift of the Grand Old Party, large segments of voters are traditionally Christian and may be influenced by Leo XIV.

Lastly, not only will the new pope’s diplomacy matter for international relations, but so will the internal governance of the Catholic Church. He indeed emphasized the need to debate between Catholic leaders to build a religious doctrine cohesive with cultural differences worldwide. If he perpetuates Leo XIII’s primacy of the Church over national interests while maintaining Pope Francis’s progressive agenda, he may usher in a global wave of change in moral and cultural practices—for example in Africa, where homosexuality is criminalized, which he condemns.

Facing an increasingly diverse and divided Church, Leo XIV is confronted with the challenge to translate Augustinian ideals of community and fraternity into practical governance amidst topical conflicts. His emphasis on dialogue reflects political leaders’ need to preserve cooperation and unity on the international scene, showing that the Catholic Church is gradually shifting from a disconnected entre-soi to a mirror and driver of contemporary politics.