Giuseppe Sacco

In the history of the Catholic Church, there have been, to date, 266 Pontiffs. Of these, 217 – four out of five – were born in what is now the Italian Republic. In particular, all the Popes during the 455 years between the pontificate of Adrian VI (1522–1523), originally from the Netherlands, and that of the Polish John Paul II (1978–2005), were Italian. But how can this extraordinary predominance be explained in the most universal institution in human history?

It can be explained by the gradual formation, beginning at the end of the Middle Ages and then decisively strengthened in the aftermath of the Peace of Westphalia, of national political entities and the ruling families within them. In their constant rivalries, these powers understood well that having one of their own at the head of the Church would grant their nation unmatched prestige and influence. This inevitably provoked rivalry and opposition from other secular centers of power, all aspiring to the unparalleled authority and prestige of the Throne of Peter.

Italy, a country in which the national state struggled and was slow to assert itself, and which long maintained a multiplicity of regional political entities - often small states - and ruling houses distinguished less by military or political strength than by commercial and financial skills, as well as by their patronage of the artists who filled their courts, offered a valuable alternative: an Italian Pontiff. And therefore one not overtly partisan within the framework of international power struggles from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, with the Protestant fragmentation and later by Masonic influences.

Constitutio vestfalica

This political-diplomatic rule – so deeply rooted and widely accepted as to be sometimes referred to as the Constitutio vestfalica – naturally extended, in the twentieth century, to the power that emerged as dominant after the Second World War: the United States of America. Which, indeed, had to wait until a conclave held after the end of the second Christian millennium, in2025, before it could take pride in having produced a Pontiff born in Chicago.

It is worth noting that none other than Cardinal Prevost himself - the same religious figure who would later become Pope Leo XIV – had, in an interview just over a year earlier, dismissed the likelihood of his own elevation to the papacy. He even stated his conviction that in his time there would never be an American Pope –one who would too explicitly replicate in the Vatican the global military dominance of the United States.

Unless, of course, the United States were to lose that status as a globally hegemonic power which it still believes it holds, at least in military terms. In other words – as another prominent American cardinal has suggested – unless the United States were to enter “a phase of decline.” An eventuality that, for several months now – since global public opinion has become familiar with the unusual personality of Donald Trump – has come to be seen by observers, both secular and religious, as more than a mere possibility: in fact, as something quite evident.

This, however, does not confirm what the overly talkative President Trump claimed when he described the election of an American Pope as a consequence of his return to the White House for a second term. That return appears rather pathetic, considering that he promptly decided to demolish an entire wing of the presidential residence – built to symbolize unity between the nation’s two great components, the slaveholding and the industrial – so as to create a gaudy ballroom.

The election ofCardinal Prevost to the highest office of Christianity appears instead to be a consequence of the universal discredit that now surrounds the President of the United States, due to his constant antics, reversals, and impulsive, ill-considered statements and initiatives. Above all, it reflects the evident subordination of Washington’s political authorities to the influence and ultimate wishes of another country that is not Christian at all. A countrywhose so-called “defense forces,” after years of indiscriminate slaughtering both Muslims and Christians in Gaza and the West Bank, have subsequently turned to smashing crucifixes and statues of Jesus in Lebanon – a country they have bombed and invaded.

One may therefore conclude that it was precisely the growing and now universal discredit faced by the United States during the two Trump presidencies that made the election of an American Pope possible. This has placed him in a singular position, whereby his name could paradoxically be added – at least in terms of international political profile – to the long list of the 217 Italian Pontiffs, often chosen because the weakness of their states of origin worked in their favor. This weakness characterized pre-Risorgimento Italy and ensured their independence from the emerging national states born out of the gradual disintegration of the medieval empire.

A Very Demanding Legacy

Cardinal Prevost was elected in the wake of the pontificate of Pope Francis - a succession that it would be reductive to describe merely as demanding. It follows a pontificate widely recognized as extremely courageous, though also described as “tumultuous.”

The latter term is clearly inappropriate. It is not the pontificate that is in turmoil, but the entire world, following the tragic agony of the previous century, marked simultaneously by the triumph of globalism and by a “great geopolitical tragedy.” Pope Francis was elected precisely because of the evident need for Christianity to respond appropriately to this era. He was a Vicar who never allowed himself to be intimidated either by brute force or by the vulgarity of money.

A Pontiff “from the ends of the earth,” before whom Leo XIV initially appeared, in the firstweeks of his pontificate, as too cautious to embody a bold continuity. Heseemed a Pope who invoked pacification too frequently, and in terms too general, in the face of the ferocity of those advocating total and perpetual war – a pacification that risked sanctifying the surrender of the weaker to the stronger.

The choice of Cardinal Robert Prevost thus long appeared to reflect an American Church too divided between a radically conservative faction, often lacking in discernment, and a multitude of groups and individuals striving to interpret the message of Christ to the best of their human abilities. In a twenty-first century that, compared to the preceding two and a half centuries, cannot but appear truly tragic to anyone with even minimal social awareness.

More recently, these interpretations have been challenged by the crude arrogance of those in the Western world who believed they could discipline the virtue of compassion—the very virtue that most distinguishes Christianity from other religions in the contemporary world.

An Increasingly Explicit Disagreement

An increasingly explicit disagreement has marked the Pope’s stance during the first year of the forty-seventh President of the United States, particularly in response to the vile and brutal operations carried out by ICE against undocumented immigrants - the weakest among the weak. However, as even the most detached observer has noted, open conflict erupted only in the second week of April, just days before the anniversary of Pope Francis’s death.

It erupted when the Pontiff strongly condemned the Israeli attack on Iran, with Americans reduced almost to the role of auxiliary troops. From the heights of what has been aptly defined as his delusional ignorance – and unable to accept that this Pope is the most important American figure presently on the global stage – Trump described Pope Leo as “weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy,” urging him to “focus on being a great Pope, not a politician.” Meanwhile, his loyal associate J. D. Vance warned the Pontiff to “be careful” when addressing theological matters.

“Poor fellows”, one might be tempted to say. And yet, as often happens, fools can serve a useful function. The most conservative faction of American Catholics did not tolerate this intrusion, and it brought them - perhaps only temporarily - closer to the majority that increasingly identifies with Pope Leo. This has helped restore a degree of unity within the fragmented American Catholic community and has freed much of the new Pontiff’s moral leadership potential. For his part, indeed, he recently did not hesitate to declare that Donald Trump “does not frighten him in the least.”

Peace and negotiation

This, however, does not mean that all substantial differences have disappeared  between Pope Francis and Leo. On some important ethical points, frequently crucial ones, divergent approaches still survive. Namely, when they are confronted to issues such as war and genocide. It is indeed no secret that while Leo still calls for an unspecified peace, Pope Francis used to call and operate for negotiations ; two radically different concepts. Contrary to mere peaces, that leave unchanged the inequalities and injustices that are normally at the origin of wars, and frequently just prepare the ground for new conflicts in the future, negotiations - when conducted in good faith by the opposite parties – can create the conditions for true and durable peace, and in the longer term for friendship among peoples and nations. 

In other words, Pope Francis’ approach used to inspire and encourage the Church to act not only for stopping or preventing the violence of combat, but as an agent of change as well. As a force of  improvement and of progress, by pushing for the common research of  more stable and equitable solutions to the ever-recurring problems that interfere with human progress, with social equity and eventually with the search of relationships among humans based on common or balanced interests.

At present – one year after his elevation to the Throne of Peter – Pope Leo  appears acloser then previously heir to Pope Francis. Who passed away a few days over ayear ago, but whose presence still feels close among us. A presence that enables us to recognise without hesitation human conflicts between human adversaries, and distinguish them from wars triggered by racists, by newly converted fanatics, and by forever enemies of peace, who believe that among nations only brute force should apply. Against whom we must stand with all the firmness that has inspired martyrs and their memory throughout the centuries.