"Pontifexit": the Roman papacy and the West
The geopolitical orphans of a globalized papacy that has further taken shape under Pope Francis
Early in his pontificate, Benedict XVI eliminated "Patriarch of the West" from the list of titles that historically have been ascribed to the Roman Pontiff.
Beginning in 2006, this title no longer appears in the Annuario Pontificio, the Vatican's annual directory.
At the time of its removal, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPCU) explained the pope's decision as "an act of historical and theological realism" that "could help ecumenical dialogue."
"Currently the meaning of the term 'West' recalls a cultural context that does not refer only to Western Europe but extends from the United States of America to Australia and New Zealand, thus differentiating itself from other cultural contexts," said the PCPCU communique (which is still available only in French and Italian).
"Obviously, this meaning of the term 'West' does not intend to describe an ecclesiastical territory nor can it be used as a definition of a patriarchal territory. If we want to give the term 'West' a meaning applicable to ecclesial juridical language, it could be understood only with reference to the Latin Church," it said.
The conclusion was straightforward:
"Therefore, the title 'Patriarch of the West' would describe the special relationship of the Bishop of Rome to the latter and could express the particular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Latin Church.
"As a result, the title 'Patriarch of the West', unclear from the beginning, became obsolete and practically no longer usable as history evolved. It therefore seems pointless to insist on dragging it along."
Catholicism's identity and Europe
The decision raised eyebrows among some theologians and created different interpretations about its meaning and Benedict's intentions.
What is important to note now, more than 15 years later, is that Pope Francis has made clear that the relationship between the Roman papacy and "the West" is going through a transition even bigger than the one envisaged by Benedict XVI.
And it's not just because the Jesuit pope has modified the Annuario Pontificio, choosing to list himself first by the basic title "Bishop of Rome".
On the one hand, there is a clear difference between Benedict and Francis. Different from Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Joseph Ratzinger has always seen the theological and cultural identity of Catholicism as essentially and unchangeably linked to European and Western history.
This explains, in good part, the tensions unleashed by the change of pontificate in 2013 with the election of the first Latin American pope.
A Church leaving behind its identity with the West
On the other hand, Francis has completed Benedict's 2006 decision with something that we could call "Pontifexit".
Just as "Brexit" was the portmanteau for Britain's exit from the European Union, so "Pontifexit" denotes how the papacy is leaving behind its identification with the West.
Francis has done this from an ecclesiastical and theological point of view with his emphasis on decentralization, inculturation, and "the peripheries". But he has also done this from a geopolitical point of view, and this has been very visible from the beginning of his "liminal papacy".
In the last few weeks this has become even more evident from his assessment of the roots of the war in Ukraine also as part of the unsolved, ongoing struggle for global supremacy between the United States (with NATO) and Russia.
What is happening is a massive and complicated shift in the self-understanding of the Catholic Church and of the papacy. It's something that commenced with John XXIII.
In his final encyclical, Pacem in terris (April 11, 1963), Pope John highlighted the Church's role in promoting peace. He rejected the idea of nuclear war as something "irrational".
By doing so, he was distancing the papacy from being the "chaplain of the West", a role which the Western powers assigned it during the Cold War. The political elites and diplomats of the "free world" were shocked and dismayed by John's position; they felt a sense of abandonment.
A pope pressured by the rise of social media
This is similar to what has happened in the last few weeks, only on a larger scale and with a few important differences.
Back in 1963, John XXIII was perceived by the Western political elites as an exception, a mistake, who did not have long to live. In fact, he died less than two months after the publication of Pacem in terris.
There was the expectation that the Church would return to normal after his death. But John launched the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and the pre-conciliar Church never came back fully. Francis' pontificate provides daily evidence of that.
Furthermore, in 1963 statesmen, diplomats, and Church leaders were not on social media, and the pope never gave interviews. Pronouncements of the popes and diplomacy (including papal diplomacy) were less exposed to public pressure for daily statements and news bits.
This pressure has made the relationship between the prophetic and diplomatic aspects of papal ministry more complicated. It has also complicated the work of the Church in general.
Furthermore, it must be noted that Francis' geopolitical view of the war in Ukraine is not just his.
It is also typical of many Catholics from Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Unlike many Europeans, they do not see the Russian invasion of Ukraine as potentially genocidal and decisive for the survival of democracy.
In light of their dealing with the consequences of the United States exerting its power in the last century, many Catholics from the "global south" see the war in Ukraine as a war between the US and Russia.
And they believe the Vatican does well to distance itself as much as possible from Europe and the West.
Feeling orphaned by the papacy
In the most serious security crisis in European history since 1945, Francis' pontificate has signaled that the papacy and the Catholic Church are redefining their relations with the West – its political system, economic interests, and strategic concerns.
With Francis, this de-Occidentalizing effectively and clearly means that the pope is no longer "Patriarch of the West" -- neither theologically nor politically.
This is happening in the context of a war in a key part of Europe. Russian Orthodox and state propaganda is very aware of this, probably more than in the West.
Important components of the Western establishments now feel geopolitically orphaned by the papacy.
This comes at a time when "the West" -- from Europe to the Americas to Australia and New Zealand -- cannot rely on anything unifying such as economic interests, a sense of common destiny, and certainly not religion.
From the perspective of religious history, it's a West internally separated by a common pre-Vatican II Christendom and very different ways to dispose of it (and some disturbing attempts to go back to it).
In Europe, "the West" feels also orphaned by the new United States where anything European is considered old, tainted by ideologies of white supremacy, the opposite of diversity and inclusion.
Globalized Catholicism and the Church's lack of a master geopolitical narrative
The undoing of the West also means that Europe looks at the US today in dismay: the unilateral "solution" of the Afghan war, the military alliance with the UK and Australia, a Trumpian party poised to win the midterm elections in November 2022, and so on.
This "Pontifexit" is a very complicated transition: from a papacy shaped by the geopolitics of Rome located in the heart of the West, to a global papacy for a global Catholic Church.
For Catholicism, Rome is still Rome, as Francis' recent reform of the Roman Curia demonstrates. But the center of gravity has shifted significantly, especially since the pontificate of Benedict XVI.
This is in some sense one of the fruits of 9/11, which made Benedict's geopolitics gravitate evidently towards Europe and North America.
Now, under Francis, there is no longer a master geopolitical narrative where the role of Catholicism is predefined. Exceptions have become the rule. And it's not just a matter of different national perspectives.
Among Catholics in the same country, and even among those in the Vatican, there are different perspectives about the geopolitical alignment of the papacy.
Thanks to mass migration, global Catholicism is everywhere: you do not need to fly south of the Mediterranean to see it.
The global papacy and its evolving relationship with world powers
Many experts on the history of Russia and Ukraine see Putin's war in Ukraine as a colonial war.
Francis' geopolitical reading of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, seen more as the byproduct of NATO and less of Russian imperialism, explains how "being global" is no guarantee of being alert to the colonial.
The differences in the Catholic perspectives on the war in Ukraine has made us realize that around the world there are vastly different ways to look at global events -- such as the Holocaust, World War II, the Cold War, the Cuban revolution, the attacks of September 11, 2001 and the wars in the Middle East.
The differing perspectives have helped shape modern theological and doctrinal developments on a range of issues. This is also true for what is going on in Ukraine and for whatever might come next, for example between China and Taiwan.
The question is no longer whether Catholicism and the papacy will become less European and more global. This is already happening and it is irreversible.
The question is how the global papacy will relate to a multiplicity of world powers and their conflicting, political-religious legitimizing narratives.
Follow me on Twitter @MassimoFaggioli
