Posted on

257. “Magnifica Humanitas”. The Chart of Roman Catholic Humanism and Its Theological Problems

It is not a written rule, but a recognizable pattern: the first encyclical of a Pope sets the tone of the whole pontificate and Pope Leo XIV’s “Magnifica Humanitas” (MH) – released after one year since his election – does exactly that. The document will probably shape the future papal teaching as its overarching framework. As the subtitle indicates, the Pope’s concern is “on safeguarding the human person in the time of artificial intelligence.” This is going to be the main concern of his reign as Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
The choice of the name Leo had already indicated his desire to develop the legacy of Leo XIII, the Pope who at the end of the 19th century gave rise to the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church (SDC). With his encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (1891), Leo XIII voiced the growing preoccupations of the Church of Rome for the poor condition of workers and the exploitation of labor, thus expanding the range of her interests from internal ecclesiastical matters to the wider social issues of the day. “Rerum Novarum” was a turning point in the long tradition of the Roman Church, making it more “catholic” (having a universal look at the world), but no less “Roman” (claiming its prerogatives over the world).
 
Since becoming Leo XIV, Pope Prevost hinted at his desire to build on his predecessor’s legacy by updating the Social Doctrine of the Church on the pressing concern of today: how to deal with the challenges and opportunities of AI without succumbing the human person to it. No surprise was the date when MH was signed and launched: May 15, the same date than “Rerum Novarum” in 1891. As the latter signaled Rome’s desire to speak into the social problems then, so MH reflects its vision on how to address the pressing dilemma now. Full circle.
 
MH is a rich and dense 40,000-word document. The concentration of themes and issues is impressive. In this article, I will try to summarize its main diagnosis of what is at stake with AI and the suggested way forward with the values of SDC. Then I will make some remarks on the flawed theological framework it comes from, if seen from an Evangelical viewpoint.

The “Technocratic Paradigm” and the Remedy of the Social Doctrine of the Church
After describing the theological rationale of SDC (ch. 1), MH provides a summary of its principles as they have been developed in the last 145 years, i.e. the dignity of the person, the value of work, the universal destination of goods, solidarity and subsidiarity, care for creation and the centrality of peace and fraternity (ch. 2), then moves on how to deal with the promises and threats of AI to humanity (ch. 3), the necessary safeguards to protect humanity with special reference to truth, work and freedom, to finally conclude with the alternative set before us between the culture of power and the civilization of love (ch. 5). Being Leo XIV an Augustinian Pope, particularly in the last chapter, one can spot the Augustinian theme of the two cities (city of man, city of God) being transmuted in today’s tensed interplay between power and love.[1]
 
MH is not an ecclesiastical document addressed to Roman Catholics only. As is the case with modern magisterial documents, Leo XIV wants to speak to “all the Catholic faithful, to all Christians and to all men and women of goodwill” (16). So, it is meant to be read widely regardless the different religious, ideological, and cultural allegiances.
 
The starting point in the analysis of the contemporary world is not new. MS refers to the “technocratic paradigm” (92) that was already used by Pope Francis in his 2015 encyclical “Laudato si’”. The technocratic paradigm is “the tendency to let the logic of efficiency, control and profit alone shape personal, social and economic decisions” (92). The growing development and use of AI has only further intensified and exacerbated the problem.[2]
 
AI is “valuable tool that requires vigilance” (100-101). As tool, “we must avoid the misconception of equating this type of ‘intelligence’ with that of human beings” (99). While the use of technology is never morally neutral (9), it presents a sever challenge when it fosters an “anti-human vision”, i.e. when “the fullness of life is equated with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control” (112).
 
Instead of respecting the humanity in “all its grandeur and woundedness” (126) and help human beings to flourish, the “technocratic paradigm” aims at “dominating humanity” (110) and ultimately paves the way to an “enhanced human being” (trans-humanism) or a “human-machine hybrid” (post-humanism) (115). Both prospects are ultimately anti-human. What is at stake with technological progress is not technology as such, but the “anthropological vision that guides it and the ends it pursues” (94).
 
The Roman Church approaches these challenges with the criteria offered by “the noble principles of Social Doctrine: the inalienable dignity of the human person, the common good, the universal destination of goods, subsidiarity, solidarity and social justice” (96). Building on these principles and elaborating these criteria in more political terms, MH advocates for “robust legal frameworks, independent oversight, informed users and a political system that does not abdicate its responsibility” (106) that will put checks and balances and a set of moral constraints over technological progress. If adequate measures are not implemented at all levels (e.g. individuals, local communities, States, international organizations), the technocratic thinking will impose rules “shaped by those who control data, infrastructure and computing power” (106).
 
More specifically, MH suggests five practical steps toward daily and public responsibility: “the need to disarm words, building peace through justice, adopting the perspective of victims, cultivating a healthy realism and reviving dialogue and multilateralism” (213).
 
The Pope’s Voice in International and Inter-faith Conversations
What to say of these critical remarks about the de-humanizing threats of AI and the possible way forward in order to safeguard the human person? On the one hand, at the level of guidelines and policies, in MH there is nothing radically different than what can be found in parallel documents by secular agencies (e.g. UNESCO, the European Union, OECD, and others) and faith communities, including Evangelical bodies such as the World Evangelical Alliance[3] and the Lausanne Movement.[4] The de-humanizing danger of the technological power is broadly perceived among important sectors of civil society and the ways to handle it is shared across the institutional and religious spectrum. The Papal document is just the last of many voices participating in this global debate with its own nuances and accents. It encourages international action to establish guidelines and to implement them.
 
Biblically speaking, common grace is at work in making different people (be they Christian and non-Christian) sensitive to the need for AI to be developed and used within shared parameters and ethical limits, even adopting measures that Pope Leo echoes and suggests in MH. In this sense, even non-Catholics can appreciate some of the indications coming from his encyclical urging for accountability, transparency, and responsibility in the use of AI.
 
Having said that, in terms of assessing MH, this is only one side of the coin. According to MH, the key threat of AI is not technological per se, but essentially anthropological. This being the issue, MH presents the gist of Roman Catholic humanism as the best suited remedy against the real and potential de-humanizing tendencies of AI. For this reason, it is important to evaluate the theological vision that undergirds MH.
 
The Roman Catholic Humanism, and the Fall?
As one would expect, for all the commonalities that can be found in the use of terms and categories, MH is a distinctly Roman Catholic theological document. It stems from a particular view of humanity and its relationship to God held by a historic institution. It is grounded on an account of reality that Rome has been endorsing and promoting for centuries.
 
Here are samples on how the Roman Catholic theological framework of MH works, followed by brief comments:
 
“Building a city founded on the common good implies, first and foremost, building on a firm relationship with God” (11).
 
Yes, but the implication is that all men and women are already in a viable relationship with God: According to MH, that relationship only needs to be deepened or expanded by doing what is good for humanity. There is no sense of the consequences of the Fall in sin having broken that relationship; no sense of that relationship being in need to be restored by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ for sin and the need for faith and repentance on our part.
 
“Building for the common good means accepting the limits and weakness of humanity without considering them an error to be corrected” (12).
 
Yes, but more than that, biblically speaking, our humanity is not only limited and weak: it is sinful and rebellious against God and in need of salvation. Limitation and weakness do not describe what is most central in the human condition.
 
“The Church reminds us, with a firm yet humble voice, that true fulfilment is not achieved by eliminating weakness but through harmonious growth” (12).
 
Yes, but again there is no mention of sin and the brokenness it caused. Our fulfilment does not have to deal with weakness only but needs repentance and faith in Jesus to see the beginnings of harmonious growth.
 
“Ours is the pressing duty to remain profoundly human” (15).
 
Yes, but from a Christian perspective an even more pressing duty is to be regenerated by Christ in our humanity. The pressing need is not to remain more fully “in Adam” (our sinful humanity), but to be given new life in Christ, “the last Adam”. In this vein, MH can speak of “the humanizing power of the Gospel” (22) as if the Good News only makes us better human beings rather than new creations in Christ.
 
The Nature-Grace Interdependence
At the core of the theological vision of MH is the Roman Catholic account of the nature-grace motif. Roman Catholicism’s starting point is the relationship between “nature” and “grace” into which is engrafted the idea of the Church as the extension of the Incarnation of the Son of God.[5] This basic orientation explains why MH has little sense of the tragedy of sin, tends to encourage an optimistic view of humanity’s abilities, sees the gospel as a process in which nature is made more perfect and justifies the Church’s role as a mediator between man and God.
 
The spheres of nature and grace are thus in irreversible theological continuity, as “nature” in Roman Catholicism incorporates both creation and sin, in contrast to the Evangelical distinction between creation, sin, and redemption. Although nature has been touched by sin, it is still programmatically open to be infused, elevated, and supplemented by grace.
 
The Roman Catholic “mild” view of the Fall and of sin makes it possible for MH to hold a view of human nature and society at large that is tainted by sin but not depraved, obscured but not blinded, wounded but not alienated, morally disordered but not spiritually dead, inclined to evil but still holding on to what is true, good and beautiful.[6] After Vatican II, more recent interpretations of the nature-grace interdependence go as far as arguing that nature is always graced from within.[7] If traditional Roman Catholicism maintained that grace was added to nature, present-day Rome, as it is reflected in MH, prefers to talk about grace as being an infrastructure of nature. In spite of the differences between the two versions, the interdependence is nonetheless underlined.
 
Hope From Within Through Elevation?
The nature-grace interdependence, in all its various forms and degrees, is the reason why MH nurtures an optimism in humanity’s ability to know and to follow God’s will and to co-operate with his grace. Humanity has “wounds” (21), experience limits such as “vulnerability, suffering and failure” (122), but has resources to be healed from within through the grace that is already in it. In fact, “The Church stands alongside the world without overpowering it, so that the promise of justice and peace that the Holy Spirit continues to sustain in the heart of humanity may come to fruition in every human endeavor (20).
 
For the Pope, the heart of humanity is the place where the Holy Spirit (grace) brings about justice and peace. Again, the underestimation of the impact of sin has wide-ranging consequences on the theological vision of MH, whereby grace is already at work and only needs to be further unleashed. In Leo XIV’s words: “Even these painful expressions of our limitations leave openings for the good. Even when persons dehumanize themselves and bring about tragedy, a small light continues to shine within humanity, one that can be rekindled, with God’s grace, along paths of conversion and reconciliation” (121). In other words, hope is to be found in the “small light” that continues to shine and that sin has only obfuscated but not obliterated: “it remains possible to enter into the heart of that inexhaustible life, even as we journey through the limitations of this world” (127). Conversion and reconciliation are possible as grace elevates nature, rather than regenerating it as the Gospel indicates: for MH, the hope for humanity is to be “elevated by the inexhaustible grace of God” (128).
 
The biblical words of conversion and reconciliation are used but understood within the framework of the nature-grace interdependence whereby sin only limits humanity’s capacity. If the Christian hope comes from within through elevation, is this gospel hope or is it a humanistic and religious wishful thinking?
 
Christ the One Who Frees, but What about the Atonement?
After envisaging the hope for our wounded humanity in divine grace that can elevate it, MH also highlights the way in which Jesus Christ offers it. The incarnation of the Son of God is seen as the act of God’s condescension. In Christ “the living God descends into our history in order to free us from all forms of slavery. He takes upon himself our weakness and transforms it into a setting for salvation” (232). Jesus is told to have taken our weakness. But what about His death on the cross? In MH the cross is only mentioned once (232) in a quotation from a 19th century French theologian Pierre de Bérulle who wrote: “According to the teaching of our faith, we have and adore, in our mysteries, a God who is born in a manger, a God who lives and travels in Judea, a God who dies on the cross, a dead God who lies in the tomb”. The cross is generically referred to as part of the mysteries of faith, but no indication is given as to its atoning significance.
 
Given the example of Christ in his incarnation, MH moves on to say: “The future of humanity, therefore, finds its standard in the ability to welcome this divine way of drawing near, of sharing the burden of the world, of transforming relationships from within” (232). What is clear here is that Christ drew near and shared the burden: yes, but without the atoning work of the cross whereby He paid the price of sin, the biblical gospel is not told, and the message that is given is no Good News at all.
 
The conclusion suggested by Pope Leo is the following: “What saves humanity is the divine love that descends into the most fragile point of our history and renews it from within” (232). All the threads that have already been detected are here interwoven: the incarnation as Jesus’s descent into our fragility (no sin is indicated; no atonement is referred to) and salvation as a renewal movement from within (grace is always at work in us). The language is certainly borrowed from the Christian vocabulary, but is it the biblical message?
 
Babel and Nehemiah: A Viable Use of the Bible?
The narrative infrastructure of MH makes extensive use of two evocative Bible images, i.e. the tower of Babel and Nehemiah’s rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem (e.g. 90, 129, 130, 184, 241). They are the two biblical icons that guide the Pope’s reflection on the opposition between the culture of power and the civilization of love. In setting the tone of the document, he writes: “the primary choice is not between a “yes” or “no” to technology, but rather between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem” (9).
 
On the one hand, “Babel reveals the limits of any effort that, however grandiose, arises from self-affirmation, sacrifices human dignity for efficiency and aspires to reach heaven without God’s blessing” (7). Therefore, following Babel means being infected by the “Babel syndrome,” namely “the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language — even a digital one — can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance” (10). In order to safeguard the human person in the time of AI, Babel is the bad image to be warned against and the evil pattern to avoid.
 
On the other hand, the first chapters of Nehemiah talk about “the possibility of building together, of transforming diversity into a resource and of making listening and dialogue the common ground upon which to cultivate justice and fraternity” (10). MH takes them as the alternative biblical image to draw inspiration from. In an emphatic and exhortatory tone, Pope Leo urges: “let us choose the ‘way of Nehemiah,’ which highlights the importance of working together to make the City of God a safe place for returning exiles” (10).
 
While the reference to biblical images and stories is commendable, there are two problems with their use in the argument of the encyclical.
 
Babel’s sin was first and foremost the rejection of God and an attempt to become one’s own god(s). The negative consequences that stemmed out of this sin were the confusion of languages and the dispersion of the people. In order to overcome the sin of Babel, a conversion must take place whereby our lives are re-oriented toward Him. No reverse of the evil consequences of sin is to be expected if God is not recognized and obeyed to as God.

In the Pope’s use of the image of Babel, however, while spiritual conversion is evoked, there is no expectation that all readers of MH would turn to Christ in repentance and faith as the condition to undo the effects of Babel. What lies at the heart of his message is that humanity as a whole should work together to cultivate justice and fraternity. He wants more of the fruit than the re-planting of the root.
 
Here is how he puts it: “the task of building in our time must place our relationship with God at its center. Our rule must be the acceptance of human limitations as a natural and positive reality, and should be characterized by shared responsibility and a language characterized by the Gospel” (236).
 
Again, no reference to sin is mentioned here, but another question arises: who is he talking to? Is the Pope talking to Catholics? No, the encyclical is addressed to all men and women of goodwill. Now, if all need to place our relationship with God at the center, there should be a call extended to all to come to faith in Jesus Christ. Otherwise, biblically speaking, that relationship is still characterized by Babel’s sinful anti-God ideology. That call is missing in MH.
 
At the very end, there is another appeal by the Pope, i.e. “a call to overcome our divisions and to work together — for this is the way of Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and forever” (242). Is he writing this to Christians? No. In the spirit of MH, he calls humanity to overcome divisions and to work together, not having urged all man and women to profess faith in Christ first.
 
He uses the language of “God at the center” and “the way of Jesus Christ” to motivate shared responsibility and work together among men and women of all religions or of no religion, without inviting them to believe the biblical Gospel. How is this ambiguity possible?
 
The other biblical image, i.e. Nehemiah’s rebuilding of Jerusalem’s wall, sheds other light on the question. In the Bible, Nehemiah calls the covenant people of God to work together to re-build the walls. Clearly, the book speaks of the responsibility of the people of God, not humanity in general. And yet, in its application to our time, MH uses Nehemiah’s story to encourage co-operation among men and women of good will, missing the point that it addresses the church.
 
The ambiguity can be explained in the Roman Catholic view of the church that is endorsed in MH. Using the words of Vatican II, the church is considered as “a sacrament… of communion with God and of the unity of the entire human race” (2, quoting Lumen Gentium 1). MH explains this doctrinal point in the following way: “she (the church) embraces the entire human family yet is also immersed in the concrete situations of peoples and cultures” (26). The Roman Church is both the community of the Catholic faithful and a sign and instrument of the entire human race. She is both the Roman Catholic Church canonically defined whose members are the baptized and the communicant people and – sacramentally – the expansive representative of the whole of humanity. This explains why in MH the Pope can use Christian language and applies it to all. The boundaries between the Roman (the believing and practicing Catholics) and the Catholic Church (the entire human race) are fluid and mysterious.
 
Ultimately, the reference to the two Biblical images of Babel and Nehemiah, as brilliant as it appears to be, is an instance of a misapplication of Scripture. They are referred to by MH to reinforce the claims of Rome’s catholicity whereby Christian language is used without it being governed by biblical principles and applied consistently.
 
Concluding Remarks
“Magnifica Humanitas” is a programmatic document by Pope Leo XIV that will set the tone of his future magisterium on the challenges brought about by AI. It will certainly become a landmark of SDC. In it, the humanistic wisdom of the Roman Catholic Church is in full display. Many of the insights and proposals on how to preserve and promote human dignity in times when the technocratic paradigm seems prevailing are already shared across cultural, institutional and religious lines, thanks to common grace. The voice of the Pope adds new strength to the choir of those who don’t want to succumb to the technocracy of AI and should be heard by all those who share this concern.
 
Having said that, the theological vision of MH is embedded in the Roman Catholic account of the nature-grace interdependence. The nature-grace motif is not the biblical message whereby all was created by God, sin disrupted all, and in Christ (incarnation and atonement) there is the only hope of redemption. On the contrary, although acknowledged by MH, sin has only weakened humanity’s capacity to co-operate with grace to be elevated by it. Human goodness, as wounded as it is, is still what marks all men and women and forms the background of the encyclical’s appeal to work together toward justice and peace.
 
The language used is Christian as far as the use of words is concerned, but the meaning is Roman Catholic rather than biblical. This results in doctrinal ambiguity at best, in not theological wrong-headedness. If one is looking for biblical wisdom to navigate the challenges posed by AI, she needs to look elsewhere.[8]

[1] Although MH is signed by an Augustinian Pope, the Augustinian “just war” theory is considered outdated and in need to be overcome (192). An Augustinian against Augustine!

[2] Similar analyses were already outlined in the Note by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith – Dicastery for Culture and Education, Antiqua et Nova (2025).

[3] Quinting McGrath, Gretchen Huizinga, John Dyer, Mark Graves, “AI, Ethics, and Trust: A Biblically Grounded Christian Position” (2025). This paper was given at the WEA General Assembly in 2025.

[4] “AI Ethics and the Great Commission”, Lausanne Global Analysis (2025).

[5] Gregg Allison has helpfully named them, the “nature-grace interdependence” and the “Christ-Church interconnection”: Roman Catholic Theology and Practice. An Evangelical Assessment (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014) pp. 42-67.

[6] The Roman Catholic teaching on sin can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), nn. 1849-1875. In terms of the indication of the human problem, MH talks about the evil brought about by “structures of sin” (36, 79), i.e. “mechanisms and economic and cultural systems that produce inequality almost automatically”, but makes no reference to personal sin.

[7] Stephen J. Duffy, The Grace Horizon. Nature and Grace in Modern Catholic Thought (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992). Roman Catholic theology does not distinguish between “common grace” and “special grace”.

[8] See notes 2 and 3 for suggested evangelical resources.

Posted on

255. A Year with Pope Leo. Evangelical Impressions

A gentle yet tough pope? A pope all about peace and dialogue? It is still too early to settle on a definitive assessment of Pope Leo XIV’s papacy. One year after his election (8th May 2025), however, it is possible to discern some key themes that confirm what was already evident at the start of his pontificate.

The global geopolitical landscape
Over the past year, the American pope has assumed a prominent “political” role on the global stage. It was predictable that the clash with Trump would erupt sooner or later, given the president’s combative temperament. And so it did. Preceded by Leo’s criticism of the handling of the deportation of undocumented migrants, the conflict with the U.S. administration erupted over the war in Iran. Trump has repeatedly criticized the pope, and the pope has responded in kind.

From someone like Trump, this was to be expected; less predictable was Leo’s decision not to rely on the soft-spoken ways of Vatican diplomacy, but to use direct communication to respond blow for blow. A talkative and casual pope like Francis used to make “free-wheeling” and sometimes unrestrained comments on current events; the surprise was that Pope Leo, too—despite his reserved and controlled nature—chose the unfiltered, “open-mic” approach to speak his mind.

In fact, for months now, the Trump vs Leo dynamic has dominated the global political narrative, casting the pope as Trump’s ultimate opponent in the name of “peace.” The gain in popularity, even among secular audiences, has been evident: in a world at war, who is against peace?

Meanwhile, with his trips to Turkey, Lebanon, and Africa, Pope Leo has confirmed contemporary Catholicism’s focus on the Global South, where the Roman Catholic Church is grappling with Islam and with growing evangelical churches. Following in Francis’s footsteps, he confirmed the offer of “dialogue” to the former and highlighted the bizzarre nature of the latter, while simultaneously emphasizing “Catholic” superiority.

The internal peacemaking line
Even within the Roman Catholic Church, Leo has acted in line with the reasons that led the conclave to elect him pope. Francis had left behind a church rife with internal conflicts and with the issue of “synodality” left confusingly unresolved. In this first year of his pontificate, Leo has not fanned the flames of division, but has sought to tone down the rhetoric, calm tempers, and maneuver in search of compromises.

With Catholic Germany calling for changes regarding the recognition of same-sex unions, he has maintained a firm stance without breaking with the more progressive factions. On the subject of synodality, he has tempered the zeal of the most ardent supporters, but has not dampened their enthusiasm. Regarding appointments to top positions in the Church, he has not yet made any radical or groundbreaking decisions, preferring to let the situation settle.

In short, on the domestic front, Leo has proven himself to be a seasoned and experienced political figure; a bridge-builder seeking to preserve the “integrity” of Roman Catholicism in the face of tensions, rather than a “prophet” heralding change or a “defender” of the status quo.

The ecumenical approach and relations with Evangelicals
In his first year of pontificate, Leo placed great importance on the ecumenical significance of the celebrations of the Council of Nicaea. He paid particular attention to the world of Eastern Orthodoxy and the Oriental Churches, with which the Pope’s Catholicism feels a growing affinity. Beyond institutional courtesy, he has been more reserved toward the liberal and ecumenical Protestant world. Proof of this is the bureaucratic reception he gave the Archbishop of Canterbury during her visit to Rome. The impression is that Leo’s ecumenical agenda looks more to the East (Orthodoxy) and to the South (Islam) than to the West (the traditional ecumenical world).

And what about the Evangelicals? They do not seem to be on Pope Leo’s radar, aside from a few indirect critical remarks between the lines of his speeches in Cameroon and Angola. Even during his previous tenure as bishop in Peru, he showed no particular interest in the Evangelicals. On the other hand, evangelicals around the world do not yet seem to have taken the measure of him. Unlike Francis, who boasted many evangelical friends in Argentina and beyond, Leo has not cultivated such relationships, with the result that the evangelical world remains distant and remote to him.

Meanwhile, his thinking, as expressed in his daily addresses, weaves together Augustinian themes (peace, grace, the Catholic experience), profound Mariology, and traditional Catholic teachings. His theological framework appears to be a Catholic Augustinianism reimagined from a post-Vatican II perspective.

Posted on

251. Watch out 2033, the “Omega Point” of the Ecumenical Movement

February 1st, 2026

As expected, the highlight of the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea was the ecumenical prayer on November 28 presided over by Pope Leo XIV at the ruins of the church of St. Neophytus in Nicaea (today the name of the town is Isnik), where the Council meetings were held in 325 AD.

The ceremony was sober, but the language used was solemn. Above all, the symbolic meaning of the event was charged with “historical” significance, not only because of the reference to the important anniversary, but above all in view of further steps in the ecumenical journey.

The point reached in that celebration had been long in preparation: it was a question of using the centenary of Nicaea to enhance the “common faith” expressed in the Nicene Creed and to consolidate the idea that all Christians are united because they recite the words of that ancient text together. From an ecumenical perspective, differences are seen, if anything, as subsequent interpretations of secondary aspects that do not undermine the common basis. The risk is clearly to exploit Nicaea and use it as a pretext for purposes other than a deeper understanding of its contents.

The question that was not asked (but its positive answer only assumed) is: In what sense the Nicene creed is the basis for ecumenism? The reality is that while different poeple can affirm – and even recite – the words of the Nicene Creed together (e.g. remission of sin, Mary, church), they mean different things according to their different theological frameworks and church’s allegiances.[1] Evangelicals want their faith to be not only loosley attached to Scripture, but under God’s Word and always open to be corrected by it.

Of course, on November 28 the Roman pope was symbolically at the center of the scene, the point of connection between everyone, flanked by the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew and other ecclesiastical dignitaries seated behind him in lesser roles. The only notable absentee was the Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill, at odds with the “good” ecumenical world for his support of the Russian war against Ukraine.

In any case, it was a theatrical representation of contemporary ecumenism: all united around the successor of Peter, the Roman Pope, the only dressed in white.

That said, what happened in Nicaea is, on the one hand, a point of arrival, but on the other, it is only one step in the ecumenical trajectory. The direction was indicated by Pope Leo himself during the flight to Lebanon, the second stop on his first international trip.
 
Speaking to journalists, Pope Prevost said of the meeting in Nicaea with ecumenical leaders:
 
“Yesterday morning we spoke about possible meetings in the future. One would be in the year 2033, two thousand years after Redemption, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which is obviously an event that all Christians would like to celebrate. The idea was well received. We have not yet made the invitation but there is a possibility of celebrating this great event of the Resurrection, for example in Jerusalem in 2033. We still have a few years to prepare for it.”
 
2033, precisely. This is the next strategic step in the journey imagined and planned by the ecumenical movement at large. Nicaea 2025 was only the rehearsal in preparation for Jerusalem 2033. The great evocative power of the celebration of the 2000th anniversary of Christ’s Resurrection and Pentecost will be put at the service of what could be the ecumenical movement’s final coup: having representatives of all Christian bodies gathered by and around the Roman Pontiff all celebrating their “unity” and having spiritually and theologically “reconciled” relationships.
 
The kind of unity that will be promoted in 2033 will also involve some kind of recognition of the global and transversal (albeit differentiated) role of the Roman Pope for all denominations and boides on the basis of a theology that considers the “solas” of the Protestant Reformation to be definitively overcome.
 
For those who participate in the initiatives planned for 2033, it will no longer be “Scripture Alone,” but Scripture elastically understood as to include tradition, even those traditions which run contrary to the biblical message (e.g. the Marian dogmas, the “imperial” papacy). No longer “Faith Alone,” but faith that is not sufficient to receive the gift of salvation and needs to be supplemented by human works and the sacraments administered by the church. No longer “Christ Alone,” but a Christ who is inclusive of the mediations of Mary and the saints and perhaps of other religious figures. All of this will be included in this version of ecumenically pacified but biblically deviant Christianity.

All these departures from the biblical “solas” of the Protestant Reformation mean that the unity that is going to be promoted in the ecumenical initiatives in 2033, as humanly attractive as they are, will be turns to “a different gospel” (Galatians 1:6-9) that was given “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

For sure, for Evangelical Christians the year 2033 will be an opportunity to celebrate the gospel truths of Christ’s passion, death, resurrection and ascension, plus the pouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Amen.
 
However, ecumenical celebrations of the same events will not be neutral and at no cost for evangelical fidelity. More than how 2025 has been, 2033 will be the “Omega Point”, i.e the goal of the Ecumenical Movement: all Christians (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Liberal Protestants, Evangelicals, …) will be finally united and seen by the world as “One”. Will it be the unity the Lord Jesus prayed for in John 17? Hardly so. Rather, it will be a decisive point scored for the absorption project that Roman Catholicism has been pursuing for centuries, i.e. integrating different bodies, leaders and beliefs under its umbrella.
 
2033 will be a test for Evangelicals, and the fundamental question will be: can the Evangelical faith be rethought and assimilated within the ecumenical embrace intentionally and primarily prepared by Roman Catholicism?

[1] As it is argued in Mark Gilbert – Leonardo De Chirico (edd.), The Nicene Creed. The Nature of Christian Unity and the Meaning of Gospel Words (Sydney: Matthias Press, 2025).

Posted on

249. Mary as “Co-redemptrix”: fresh clarity or further confusion?

Roma locuta, causa finita est (Rome has spoken, the issue is over). This phrase taken from Augustine (Sermo 131.10) has often been used to highlight the solidity of the Roman Catholic authority structure and the finality of its decision-making process. Well, forget it. After the Note of the Vatican Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith “Mater Populis Fidelis” (4 Nov), Rome has spoken (yes), but contradicting what was authoritativelty said earlier and making the issue an open-ended one.
 
We are talking about Mary being ascribed the title of “Co-redemptrix”, recognizing  the contribution of Mary to the redemption of the world accomplished by the Son. Over the centuries, the acceptance of this title has been brewing in popular piety, in the writings of some mystics, and more recently in official documents by Popes Pius X and Pius XI. Pope John Paul II was also fond of talking about Mary participating in redemption, thus being worthy of being called “Co-redemptrix”. After the 19th century Marian dogma of her Immaculate Conception (1854), and the 20th century dogma of her Bodily Assumption (1950), there has been some expectation in some Catholic circles that Rome would promulgate the fifth Marian dogma, i.e. Mary as “Co-redemptrix”, in the 21st century.
 
While these developments in Marian devotions were at work and growing, there were also pushbacks coming from high ecclesiastical quarters. For example, Cardinal Ratzinger (before becoming Pope Benedict XVI) argued that the title was subject to misunderstandings and not yet sufficiently clarified theologically; Pope Francis expressed similar reservations fearing ambiguities and confusions over the exact nature of Mary “co-redemption”.
 
This sofly critical trend was echoed in the Note of the Vatican Dicastery. The document basically repeats the Ratzinger-Francis cautious comments: Mary as “Co-redemptrix” has not yet been clarified theologically and the title is open to abuses if it is thought as paralleling Chirst’s redemption. The new element is that the reigning Pope, Leo XIV, shares these concerns and has approved the Note. For these reasons, for the time being, the Vatican is not to put in motion the promulgation of the fifth dogma, but will stick to a wait-and-see policy. It is more of a temporary stop of the process, than a definitive halt.

A few observations need to be made. First, Roman Catholic Mariology has always had maximalist and minimalist parties. The pendulum has been swinging in one direction or the other. The Note signals the fact that the latter is now prevalent over the other in the Vatican headquarters. The movement could change in the future, given the fact that Mariology, not being governed by Scripture Alone, is conceptually and practically open-ended.
 
Second, while the Note is cautious about new developments towards Mary’s title as “Co-redemptrix”, it unwaveringly reaffirms the traditional Roman Catholic Mariology made of unbiblical dogmas, practices and devotions. The document reiterates the view of Christ’s mediation as being “inclusive” and participatory, thus making room for Mary’s and the saints’ intercession and mediation of graces. There is no “Christ alone” theology in the Note!
 
Third, the main driver of Mariological development has always been the lex orandi (i.e. liturgy and spirituality) rather than the lex credendi (i.e. doctrine). The Vatican Note underlines a potential problem in the latter but warmly encourages the full expression of the former. In other words, the door for Mary’s co-redemption is not definitively closed, but only left ajar. Inspite of idealized views of Roman Catholicism, Rome is not the stable and coherent entity that pretends to be.
 
There is far truer and better way to honor Mary than that of the Vatican Note: imitate her faith and cherish her legacy according to Scripture while trusting in Jesus Christ alone for our salvation.  
 
 
(A version of this article was posted on Evangelicals Now, 6 November 2025)

Posted on

247. “If We Want to Be Christian, We Must Be Marian.” Two Remarks from the 26th International Mariological Marian Congress

It was Pope Paul VI who, in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, gave a homily in which he stated, “If we want to be Christian, we must be Marian” (Homily, 24th April 1970). He was not saying that in order to be Christian, one must believe what the Bible says about Mary, i.e. her involvement in the incarnation and earthly ministry of Jesus. His point was much deeper than that. 
 
What did “Marian” mean for him? Well, Vatican II had just ended, and the Council had dedicated the 8th chapter of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church “Lumen Gentium” to the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary, entitled “The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and the Church.” The theological grand scheme of “Lumen Gentium” wanted to relate Christ to the (Roman) Church organically. According to Rome, the latter is so interconnected with the former that it is one with him. Roman Catholic Mariology stems from the Christ-Church interconnection and is a further inner-connection with it. The “logic” of Vatican II is that if you have Christ, you have the Christ-Church, and if you have the Christ-Church, you must inevitably have Christ-Church-Mary. The three are embedded and implied in one another.  This is why Paul VI could say, “If we want to be Christian, we must be Marian.” 
 
A further remark needs to be made here. For Pope Paul VI, to be a Marian Christian was to embrace the fully orbed Roman Catholic Mariology, including the Marian dogmas (the 1854 dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary and the 1950 dogma of her bodily assumption) and the devotions dedicated to her (rosary, Marian titles, prayers, etc.). Roman Catholic Mariology always involves a thick doctrinal commitment to the full account of how Rome theologizes, celebrates, and venerates Mary. 

The statement by Pope Paul VI resounded clearly and loudly at the 26th International Mariological Marian Congress that took place in Rome (4-6 September) on the topic “Jubilee and Synodality: A Church with a Marian Face and Practice” and organized by the Pontifical International Marian Academy (PAMI). More than 600 Marian scholars from all over the world contributed to the program that included plenary sessions, language groups, and an audience with Pope Leo XIV.

“Mary Belongs to Catholic Dogmatics, not to Catholic devotions only”
The first day of the conference, fr. Stefano Cecchin OFM, PAMI’s chairman, was interviewed on the significance of this scholarly gathering. He voiced a growing concern in the academic Mariological world that Mariology is not given proper attention in the Catholic Church. Cecchin stressed the fundamental importance of Mariology for Catholic doctrine and practice, even in view of the “new evangelization.” For the Catholic scholar, Marianism lies at the core of the (Roman Catholic) Christian message and faith. 
 
In Cecchin’s words, “Mary Belongs to Catholic dogmatics, not to Catholic devotions only; she is the model of the Church,” and again, making implicit reference to the connection Christ-Church-Mary, “The face of Jesus is the face of Mary.” At this point, he recalled Paul VI’s statement: “If we want to be Christian, we must be Marian.” Always echoing the trajectory of Vatican II, Cecchin said that it is “Mary who is the key that opens for us the mystery of Christ and the Church.”
 
In another interview published on the Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano, Cecchin further argued that “Mary is the woman who has opened the way to God and entered a fundamental relationship with Him.” Here we see an important voice in present-day Roman Catholic Mariology re-affirming its dogmatic centrality in the Roman Catholic account of the Christian faith, i.e. a confirmation that when we deal with Roman Catholic Mariology we are dealing with Roman Catholic doctrines of God (Trinity), Christ (Christology), the Church (ecclesiology), salvation (soteriology), and the Christian life (spirituality). The Roman Mary is not located only in the latter segment, but is pervasively and decisively present on the whole spectrum of the Roman Catholic worldview.

No Less, but More Mariology
The participants at the congress were also honored with an audience with Pope Leo XIV. On this occasion, the Pope gave a speech that condensed some of the Mariological traits of the unfolding teaching of the beginning of his pontificate.
 
In his words, “A Church with a Marian heart always better preserves and understands the hierarchy of truths of faith, integrating mind and heart, body and soul, universal and local, person and community, humanity and cosmos.”

Here, the Pope speaks of the Church having a “Marian heart”: the fundamental organ, the center of life, the vital core of the Church has Mary in it. According to Leo, possessing it fosters theological clarity and integration. Without it, the church disintegrates. This is hardly compatible with the Bible-attested, Trinitarianly framed, and Christ-centered message of the biblical Gospel. If Mary is at the center, as she appears to be in the Pope’s view, she is not the biblical Mary: she is rather someone who has obscured, if not replaced, Christ.
 
Pope Leo again:
 
“As the perfect cooperator with the Holy Spirit, she never ceases to open doors, build bridges, break down walls and help humanity to live in peace and in the harmony of diversity.”
 
In this view, Mary has a providential role in humanity’s history and destiny. Is it really biblically sustainable that Mary is a “perfect cooperator” with the Spirit? It looks like an unduly inflated task for the biblical Mary. The Bible teaches nothing about her role after her presence among the early Christian community in Acts 2. The Father’s providence is in the hands of the Risen Son and applied by the Holy Spirit through living agents and multiple factors. Mary is among the myriad of Christians awaiting the resurrection, but has no providential role whatsoever. The Roman Catholic view is entirely based on non-biblical traditions accrued in time, having become central, and never reformed in the light of the Gospel.
 
Here is the most important thing underlined by Pope Leo:
 
“This is why the Church needs Mariology. It should be considered and promoted in academic centers, shrines and parish communities, associations and movements, institutes of consecrated life, as well as in places where contemporary cultures are forged, valuing the limitless inspiration offered by art, music and literature.”
 
In a word: according to the Augustinian Pope, the Church needs more Mariology, not less. For Rome, Mariology is central, and its supreme leader believes that she needs even more Mariology. This is the outcome of the Mariological congress with the papal stamp of approval, and it is not an evangelically promising prospect for the Roman Church. 

Posted on

246. John Henry Newman, “doctor” of the church. The most significant theological act by Leo XIV (so far)

The conferral of the title of “Doctor of the Church” on John Henry Newman (1801-1890) is one of the first theologically significant acts of Leo XIV’s papacy and has a symbolic value of some importance. For this reason, it must be noted. The title is a recognition of authority and an indication that the work of the “doctor” (who, before being declared as such, was recognized as a “saint”) is an important source of inspiration for Roman Catholicism.
 
The Roman Catholic Church recognizes 38 Doctors of the Church (including four women): from ancient and medieval fathers such as Augustine to Thomas Aquinas, from the anti-Protestant apologist Robert Bellarmine to the champion of Baroque Mariology, Alfonsus Liguori. The list of doctors reflects the catholicity of Rome: its desire to embrace the West and the East, theologians and mystics, antiquity and modernity. Roman Catholicism is a formidable religious aggregator, and its “doctors” are all pieces of its theological puzzle. The last doctor to be recognized was John Henry Newman. Why Newman?

Here are two possible reasons.

1. Newman was a “convert” from Anglicanism.
In his youth, he had been an Anglican with some evangelical leanings. Then, studying the development of dogmas in his own way (in his essay The Development of Christian Doctrine [1845]), Newman concluded that Roman Catholicism (including the Council of Trent and Marian dogmas) was apostolic Christianity and that the Church of Rome was the true church. He later became a priest, a revered Catholic theologian, and a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church. His famous phrase has become one of the mantras of converts from Protestantism to Catholicism: “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” It has to be said that Newman’s previous religious experience was never shaped around the two gospel pillars of the supreme authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone. Moreover, for all its apparent sophistication and subsequent success, his theory of the development of dogma assumes the infallibility of Rome rather than proving it.
 
Having said that, Newman’s biography embodies that of a convert to Roman Catholicism for whom Protestantism is theologically infantile and devoid of historical memory; Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, encompasses the fullness and richness of the faith. Many stories of conversion to Rome have found a model in Newman.
 
He is already considered the patron saint of Anglicans who became Roman Catholics. Now that he has been proclaimed a “doctor,” could it be because Leo XIV wants to present him as a model for Protestants of all sorts who are fascinated by the “great tradition” (e.g., the recent embrace of Anglicanism by theologian Matthew Barrett)?
 
Before Newman, Pope Francis had conferred the honorary title of “doctor” on Irenaeus of Lyon (b. 130). In doing so, Roman Catholicism appropriated a great Father of the church, also esteemed by evangelicals for his Trinitarian doctrine of creation. Now, with Newman as a “doctor,” Rome wants to point out the Roman Catholic way of reading the Fathers and delving into Tradition to those who flirt with it.
 
2. Newman is one of the main inspirations for the theology of Vatican II.
Newman laid the foundations for a dynamic understanding of Tradition by promoting the perspective of Roman Catholicism as an organic and living whole. If in the 19th century neo-Thomist Catholicism risked being stuck in a closed and doctrinaire system, focused entirely on the defense of “Roman” institutions and practices, Newman introduced the category of “development” into Roman Catholic theology. This is part of the grammar of “updating” (aggiornamento) adopted by John XXIII in convening the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) and then in the “renewal” that followed.
 
In fact, it is impossible to understand Roman Catholic theology today, pluralistic and changing, without referring (also) to Newman. Today, Roman Catholicism is not fixated on merely repeating the past, but has rediscovered the dynamic of inclusion, even of “reform,” while remaining committed to its unchanging nature. Because of his theology of “development,” Newman is unpopular with traditionalist Catholics (for example, the Society of St. Pius X).
 
However, he is not an exponent of “liberal” or “progressive” theology. It is no coincidence that it was Benedict XVI who beatified him in 2010, appreciating “his zeal for the renewal of ecclesial life in fidelity to the apostolic tradition.” For Newman, Roman Catholicism is the “authentic development” of Christianity, and it is this constant “development” that nourishes its life and activities.
 
By elevating Newman to “doctor” (among other things, it was Leo XIII who made him a cardinal), Leo XIV is fully in line with Vatican II, which updated the catholicity of the Church without losing sight of its Roman character.
 
For (at least) these two reasons, Leo XIV accomplished perhaps the most significant theological act of his early pontificate: in the wake of Vatican II, with an eye toward attracting non-Catholics, primarily restless Protestants, to Rome.

Posted on

244. The Puzzle of Pope Leo XIV. Towards a Geopolitics of the New Papacy

It is still too early to get an idea of ​​what Leo XIV’s papacy will be like. Only now are the first biographies starting to come out (e.g. Matthew Bunsun, Leo XIV. Portrait of the First American Pope, 2025; Christopher White, Pope Leo XIV. Inside the Conclave and the Dawn of a New Papacy, 2025; Antonio Preziosi, Leone XIV. La via disarmata e disarmante, 2025), generally with a hagiographic or journalistic tone. While Pope Prevost takes his first steps, many are starting to ask what his main directions and priorities will be.

For now, it is possible to move by clues and traces that need to be collected and interpreted. On the geopolitical front, the magazine Limes has tried to draw a conceptual map for what lies ahead for Pope Leo. The Roman Catholic Church, with the Vatican at its center, is also a player on the global chessboard; it represents 1.4 billion people (18% of the world’s population), has diplomatic relations with most countries, and has a say in the main documentation of global politics. It is not surprising that a geopolitical magazine dedicated an entire issue to it: The Puzzle of Pope Leo, Limes (5/2025).

The starting point is precisely the choice of the word “puzzle,” i.e. a picture to be guessed from the few available elements. Here are some suggestions from the various articles, many coming from political scientists, journalists, and (a few) theologians of moderate progressive culture, with the exception of R. Reno, editor of the conservative American magazine First Things.

First, the person of the pope is bearer of unusual traits: a “Latin Yankee,” a “Pan-American” man, a Euro-American, a personality with a “hybrid” cultural identity and a calm and determined character. A “lion” among other global lions (e.g. Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping). A son of the Fourth Rome (the USA) on the throne of the First Rome in a world where overall balances are being redefined in the presence of wars and threats of war. The initial impression is that, after the geopolitical shuffling of cards by Francis (who appeared hostile to Ukraine and Israel, subject of China, and emotionally distant from the US and Europe), Leo brings the boat of Peter to sail in the direction of the Atlanticism that was of John Paul II, slender towards the West and skeptical about the still “far” East (e.g. China). It is true that there would have been no Leo XIV without Francis, but the current pope is not a replica of the previous in the geopolitical positioning of the Church of Rome.

The choice of the name Leo is another clue that many observers focus on. Leo XIII, the predecessor in choosing the name, wrote the encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (1891), which opened the Catholic Church to the social question and living conditions of workers. Leo XIII inaugurated the era of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. The analysts of Limes read in Prevost’s choice to call himself Leo the commitment to address the social issue par excellence of this generation: artificial intelligence (AI). There are already signs in this direction, but many expect an encyclical (i.e. the highest authoritative document by a Pope) dedicated to AI, believing that the Roman Catholic Church is the only global moral agency able to subvert the exclusive interests of the war industry and the techno-globalist powers.

Another piece of the Leo puzzle is its relationship with the USA and North American Catholicism. As is well known, Francis was not loved by a consistent part of American Catholics, and financial support for Rome’s budget has decreased significantly over the years, also due to American disaffection with Pope Francis. Now, Leo is asked to sew up the tear and restart the donations that the Catholic Church desperately needs for its bleeding budgets. Then there is the relationship with the US Administration, especially with the “catholic” vice president, J.D. Vance, who interprets a conservative Catholicism but is not exactly deferential towards ecclesiastical authorities. Soon after his election, there has been no lack of opportunities for polemics between Vance and the Vatican on migration policy and also on the interpretation of the ordo amoris, i.e. the differentiated responsibilities of Roman Catholic action. Leo XIV faces the challenge of resetting and re-establishing relationships, keeping together the legacy of Francis and the American Catholic system.

A final consideration needs to address the relationship with Protestantism, although limited to the US context. Many of the geopolitical issues at stake involve “ecumenical” relations with the Orthodox patriarchates of Moscow and Kiev, or inter-religious relations such as those with the Jewish world. But what about Protestantism? Many observers (by the way, all Catholic, some practicing, most nominal) note the state of “crisis” of American Protestantism: polarized, jagged, angry, flattened with or against Trump, under the shadow cone of politics rather than living in its own light. The crisis also has to do with the nationalist culture that, for them, is a child of Protestant individualism. In their view, in the fractured context of North American society, Catholic communitarianism (i.e. the Catholic insistence that human life is life-in-community in the context of the Catholic Church) would be better equipped than Protestant individualism to offer a prospect not only of economic wealth but also of social welfare. In this sense, “Rome alone” would be able to build a third way between the woke culture of the left and the nationalism of individualistic conservatism. There is an expectation that Pope Leo will be able to exert an attraction from Protestantism towards Roman Catholicism in American society. Evangelicals should be aware of these trends and consider Rome as a spiritual competitor rather than an ally, due to her different account of the gospel from the biblical one.

These analyses are not theological and do not grasp central elements of the papacy as an ecclesiastical institution which is based on doctrinal commitments. In this sense, they only grasp the “political” side of Rome but not her theological vision. However, they can help start to put together the pieces of the beginning of this pontificate puzzle.

Posted on

243. The Bishop of Rome. What is the Future of the Papacy?

The recent death of Pope Francis and the subsequent election of Leo XIV to the papal throne have reignited media interest in the papacy. Beyond the attention given to the personalities of individual Popes, what is the office of the Pope? What are his prerogatives according to the Roman Catholic Church? How does this institution fit into the global world and in the ecumenical relationships outside of Rome?

These questions are all considered in the newly released study document by the Vatican Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity: “The Bishop of Rome. Primacy and Sinodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint” (2024; henceforth BoR). The 170 page text surveys the ongoing ecumenical dialogue concerning the role of the Pope and the exercise of the Petrine Ministry. Its remote context is the invitation made by Pope John Paul II exactly thirty years ago. In fact, in his 1995 encyclical “Ut Unum Sint,” the then Pope asked Church leaders and theologians “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation” (n. 95).

On the one hand, in John Paul II’s view, the papacy was to be maintained in its essentials; on the other, it was presented as open and willing to rethink itself in fresh and accepted ways. Almost twenty years later, Francis spoke of his desire to see a “pastoral conversion” of the papacy (The Joy of the Gospel, 2013, n. 32) that would make it at the service of the whole of Christianity, indeed the whole world. Among other things, his insistence on referring to himself as “the Bishop of Rome,” rather than with other titles claiming universal authority, was a way to encourage such a process of acceptance.

The document brings together the fruits of the ecumenical dialogues on the ministry of the Pope in response to the invitation by John Paul II. It is not a synthesis of Roman Catholic teaching on the papacy, but rather a summary of the discussion generated by Ut Unun Sint, as expressed in 30 official responses and 50 documents that reference it. Its goal is to seek a form of the exercise of the papacy that is shared by all churches that participate in the ecumenical movement with the Roman Catholic Church, e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Oriental, Anglican, and historic Protestant.

BoR provides a state-of-the-art document where one can find important indications of the evolution of the papacy, with some insights on possible future outlooks. Here are some interesting findings.[1]

Infallibility?
Since its definition, the 1870 Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility has been a stumbling block between Rome and the other churches, on both sides of the East-West divide. As it was formulated then, this prerogative of the Pope simply could not be accepted by non-Catholics. However, BR suggests a way forward.
 
As far as the hermeneutics of Vatican I is concerned, it has become an accepted ecumenical principle to interpret it in the light of Vatican II (nn. 61 and 66) and therefore placing infallibility in the wider context of Vatican II ecclesiology. The latter stressed the collegiality of bishops (the Pope being one of them and never to be considered in isolation from them) and recognized a more active role for the laity in the life of the church. Vatican II’s ecclesiology underlines “communion” and considers the Pope as part of it. The infallibility promulgated at Vatican I should be “re-received” (n. 145), i.e. re-interpreted, against the background of Vatican II.
 
Then, BoR distinguishes between the text of the dogma of infallibility and its intention. The former may seem overly juridical and authoritarian, but the intention was to protect and serve the indefectibility of the whole Church (n. 70). This is a concern that can be shared by all ecumenical Christians. If Vatican I can be interpreted in this way, even non-Catholics may be prepared “to acknowledge papacy as a legitimate expression of the Petrine ministry of unity” (n. 73).
 
A Ministry of Unity in A Reunited Church
“Is a primacy for the whole Church necessary?” is the question that opens paragraph 75. Many ecumenical dialogues have recognized the need for it for three reasons.
 
First, the apostolic tradition. From the 4th century and definitely so from the 7th century, the See of Rome was considered “the first in the hierarchy” (n. 76), although, as already noted in an earlier section, this primacy is due to political reasons and not biblical ones. Rome was the capital of the empire, and the bishop of Rome began to be seen as presiding over the others because of the importance of the city of Rome in the Roman Empire (n. 78).
 
Second, the ecclesiological argument. For those churches that have an episcopalian form of government (i.e. led by a bishop), it is obvious that what happens at the local level should happen at the universal level. In other words, if a bishop is given authority over a local diocese, it is appropriate that the world as a whole has a bishop ruling over it.
 
Third, a pragmatic argument. Many churches readily admit “the need for global instruments of communion” (n. 84) that are capable of resolving conflicts between local churches and representing them before the global world. Some dialogues have also argued that the ministry of unity granted by the papal office would also serve a reinvigorated, common mission (n. 86).
 
Looking back at the history of the development of the papacy, BoR recalls what Joseph Ratzinger wrote in 1982, i.e. “Rome must not require more of the East than was formulated and lived during the first millennium” (n. 91). This is in line with John Paul II’s openness to change without altering the essentials of the papacy. Moreover, in the first millennium, “communion” was lived out in primarily informal ways, rather than being carried out within “clear structures” (n. 93). The authority of the Roman Pope was mainly characterized by a “primacy of honour” (n. 94).
 
How to overcome the gap between the primacy of honour (ecumenically acceptable by the East) and the primacy of jurisdiction (as it was developed in the second millennium by the Roman Catholic Church) remains an open question (n. 98). The way forward is to see how the “communal” (all,i.e. Christians), collegial (some, i.e. the bishops) and personal (one, i.e. the Pope) dimensions of church life interplay (n. 116) and find ways that are compatible with the different traditions. What BoR bears witness to is the reality that all ecumenical partners are willing to engage the issue constructively.

Three Key Steps for the Ecumenical Future of the Papacy
After surveying the main contents of BoR, it is time to look at the document within the broader context of the present-day ecumenical setting and to try to become acquainted with its theological narrative. According to the fruits of the ecumenical dialogue gathered in the document, the Papacy will have a future as a world-wide, religious institution at the service of the reunited Church. None of the ecumenical partners questions this prospect. It is a matter of how and when, not if and why. Gone are the times when, from both East and West, the Roman Catholic Papacy was seen as a non-biblical, insurmountable stumbling block that needed to be removed. It seems that if one wants to be “ecumenical” today, she needs to come to terms with a slightly modified Papacy in terms of its attitudes and titles, but with no change as far as the theological substance is concerned.
 
In order to appraise what is at stake, one needs to appreciate the trajectory that the Roman Catholic Church has been able to influence over the last 60 years since the Second Ecumenical Council (1962-1965). Here are three important steps that have given shape to the ecumenical framework behind BoR:

1. “Complementary,” no longer “conflicting”
It was the 1964 Vatican II document on ecumenism that said: “these various theological expressions (e.g. those of the Eastern churches) are to be considered often as mutually complementary rather than conflicting” (Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, 1964, n. 17). The principle of complementarity and compatibility was extended to all doctrinal matters. Ecumenical theology sees all differences as belonging to the same reality that is accessible from various angles and interpreted as mutually enriching rather than mutually exclusive. This has become the premise of present-day ecumenism.

Among other things, this means that the evangelical recovery of the gospel captured in the “Christ alone,” “Scripture alone,” and “Faith alone” of the Protestant Reformation is now seen as an “emphasis” to be integrated in the Roman Catholic whole, rather expressing the Christian faith in opposition to the Roman Catholic flawed account of the gospel. The papacy is no longer seen as an institution at the center of a theological conflict, but as an essential part of the Church, in which complementary views are possible and accepted.

2. From “differentiated consensus” to “differentiated exercise”
In 1999, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” (JDDJ), one of the dividing doctrines in the 16th century. JDDJ claims that the document “encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it” (JDDJ, n. 14). This approach was later defined as “differentiated consensus”: Catholics and Lutherans can agree on the basics of justification and maintain their respective emphases as compatibile. The “differentiated consensus” was later used to foster ecumenical dialogue that would consider doctrines as made of modular units (some of which people can agree upon while disagreeing on others), instead of treating them as aspects of an integrated whole.

Now, BoR shows that the same approach is extended to the Papacy. It involves a “differentiated exercise of the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome” (n. 150), spanning from full jurisdiction (the Roman Catholic Church), to “primacy of honour” (Anglican, Oriental and Orthodox churches), to a global leadership role (historic Protestant churches). Ecumenical partners will have the possibility of accessing a “differentiated exercise” of it, picking the aspects they like and leaving aside those they are less happy with. The Papacy will remain for all, although it may look somewhat different from its Roman-second millennium outlook and perhaps closer to its first millennium shape.

3. Open to change, not renouncing the Roman Catholic “essentials”
Now we can see that the invitation given by John Paul II in 1995 was not out of context; on the contrary, it was a reflection of the ecumenical mindset already affirmed at Vatican II and a further development of it. The rules of the game suggested by John Paul II (i.e. open to minor changes, carrying on the essentials) were accepted and are now considered as the shared consensus of the ecumenical movement.
 
BoR stands on the shoulders of the post-Vatican II attempts made by Rome to call all Christians to be united, overcoming past divisions, seeing all traditions as complementary, and building this unity on differentiated consensus. The other side of the coin is that Rome will at the same time stick to the “essentials” as they are embedded in its doctrinal system – the Papacy being one of them.
 
The ecumenical unity envisaged by BoR will have the Roman Pope at the center: in a sense, the Roman Catholic business as usual, now updated and conformed to the ecumenical age. BoR is the latest example of the Catholic absorption of different ideas and former opponents, provided they accept that Rome will not change its foundational theological committments that are outside or against biblical teaching, and will instead further expand its synthesis that goes beyond gospel boundaries. Biblical Christianity is not an appeased sub-section of Roman Catholicism but a gospel alternative to a system that is not grounded on Scripture Alone as its ultimate authority and on Faith Alone as to how salvation is to be received. 

[1] Reference to sections of the document will appear in parentheses.

Posted on

241. The clever move of Leo XIV. Five factors of attraction

Not a castling move, and not a simple sidestep—but a knight’s move. In chess terms, that’s how we might describe Operation Leo XIV: unexpected, strategic, and game-changing.
 
Those who expected a castling move—the defensive, conservative strategy that retreats under pressure—have been caught off guard by the conclave’s decision. Prevost is not the embodiment of the traditionalist and restorative Catholicism that certain sectors of the Church of Rome were hoping for. Appointed cardinal by Pope Francis and entrusted with selecting bishops from around the world, Prevost is very much a product of the Bergoglian papacy and aligned with its vision. No rollback or U-turn reversal of the major reforms initiated by the Argentine pope is anticipated.
 
Those anticipating a lateral, diplomatic, wait-and-see approach were also surprised. Among the likely candidates, Cardinal Parolin personified that option: a seasoned diplomat and former Vatican Secretary of State, seen as the favorite to ease tensions, stabilize factions, and buy time for future decisions. His election would have signaled a pause—an effort to cool tempers and calm the chaos stirred by the Francis era.

But the choice of Leo XIV signals something else entirely. Prevost, still under 70, is a “young” pope with the possibility of a long pontificate. This was not a caretaker decision. The conclave didn’t choose a bridge—it chose direction.
 
In chess terms, the election of Leo XIV was a knight’s move: surprising, indirect, coming from the rear, and disrupting the board in ways that force everyone to rethink their position. The game has changed.
 
In the meantime, he is American. Until now, there seemed to be an unwritten rule: the Church of Rome would not elect a pope from a global economic superpower. But with this conclave, that unwritten rule has been broken. The election of Leo XIV shows a mindset liberated from 20th-century geopolitical categories. The majority of cardinals who voted for him came from the Global South—Asia and Africa—demonstrating that the College of Cardinals no longer sees the world through a strictly Western lens.
 
His American identity serves at least two strategic purposes:

  • First, it may seek to undermine the cultural leadership of Trump-style conservative Christianity, particularly in the battle against “woke” ideologies, by reasserting the Catholic Church as the guardian of civilization and moral order.
  • Second, it could serve as a magnet for disillusioned American evangelicals—those growing weary of consumeristic religious options—who see in Catholicism a more stable and historic alternative. In the fluid and competitive religious marketplace of the United States, an American pope could attract significant interest and credibility.

Then, he is an Augustinian. After Francis—a Jesuit marked by intellectual eclecticism and theological creativity—Leo XIV comes from a more grounded, millennia-old order. This background suggests a pope who is more theologically stable, more predictable, and, in a sense, more “traditional.” While not a scholar in the academic sense (though he has taught in Peru), Prevost thinks within a well-defined theological tradition. His approach lacks the originality of Francis, but offers reassurance to those in the Church seeking clarity. His Augustinian identity may be perceived as an olive branch to conservative Catholics, especially those disillusioned by the Francis era.
 
Then, he is an administrator. A canon law expert with a doctorate from the Angelicum, Prevost has served as prior general of the Augustinian Order, bishop in Peru, and more recently as prefect of the Vatican dicastery that selects bishops globally. In short, he’s not primarily a theologian, but a man of governance. After a pontificate marked by institutional confusion, the conclave appears to have chosen someone capable—at least on paper—of managing the complex machinery of the Roman Catholic Church.
 
That’s not all. Prevost is also a cosmopolitan figure. Fluent in five languages (English, Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese), he has wide-ranging pastoral and missionary experience across Latin America and within the Vatican bureaucracy. He is North American and Latin American. He bridges worlds—culturally, linguistically, and ecclesially. In many ways, he is a truly global leader.
 
Then there’s the name: Leo XIV. With thirteen popes before him bearing the name Leo, it’s hard to pinpoint exactly which one inspired him. Still, Leo XIII (1810–1903) stands out: the pope who united Thomistic orthodoxy with social engagement. Perhaps Leo XIV aspires to the same combination—socially engaged Catholicity with a firmer doctrinal framework.
 
For all these reasons, the election of Leo XIV was a knight’s move—unexpected, disruptive, and strategic. From a sense of institutional checkmate under Francis, the Church of Rome now attempts to reposition itself in its relationship with the world, with religions, and with humanity.
 
This new pope will undoubtedly attract interest from the evangelical world. Evangelicals in the Global South may see in him a missionary close to the poor. North American evangelicals may recognize an Augustinian voice who understands the language of tradition. In short, everyone may be tempted to see the pope they want to see.
 
But what must not be lacking is evangelical discernment. Leo XIV is the Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church, representing a religious system that remains distinct from—and ultimately opposed to—the gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether more or less traditional, more or less conservative, more or less open, these remain internal shifts within Roman Catholicism. With the election of Leo XIV, Rome has shown shrewdness and long-term vision. It is once again positioning itself to bring the whole world under the influence of its ecclesiastical structure.