Following the election of 69-year-old Robert Prevost as the 267th Pope of the Catholic Church, speculations quickly emerged regarding his approach to various global issues. Adopting the title Leo XIV, he succeeds a uniquely exceptional pope.
Pope Francis was one of the rare figures in the Vatican who actively translated theoretical ideas into practical action. Among the most significant of these was his engagement in the Middle East. His modern, liberal, and pluralistic approach to the region not only surprised many observers but also significantly raised expectations for future pontiffs.
This raises several questions: What will Leo XIV’s stance on the Middle East be? Will he follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, the late Pope Francis? Or, given the evolving dynamics of international relations and his convictions, will he adopt a different position? And finally, how might his approach affect political interactions in the region?
To answer these questions, two issues, the Catholic Church and the Middle East, must be examined in parallel. By analyzing them side by side, we may gain a clearer picture of what lies ahead.
A Weary Middle East
Over a century has passed since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire[1] and caliphate, yet the Middle East continues to suffer from its consequences. The fall of the Ottomans was not merely a military defeat, but rather the end of a long-standing epistemic and political order that had structured the lives of Muslims for generations. The disorientation caused by the dissolution of that order led to the rise of various groups and actors with diverse ideologies and aspirations. Unfortunately, this plurality often turned into bloody conflicts that persist to this day.
The political alignments in the Middle East have been shaped by several factors, leading to the emergence of two major socio-political cleavages. The first stems from the Cold War and the bipolar world system, giving rise to leftist and rightist tendencies. The second involves the tension between tradition and modernity, resulting in the dichotomy between traditionalists and modernists. The interaction of these forces has led to the formation of three main political camps in the region:
- The fusion of leftism and traditionalism: Political Islam
This category includes a wide spectrum of Islamist movements which, despite differences in discourse and method, share a common goal: a return to the early Islamic way of life and the establishment of a just government modeled on the pure truth instituted by the Prophet Muhammad. From religious intellectuals in Iran to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and jihadist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda—all fall under this broad umbrella.
- The fusion of right-wing politics and traditionalism: Authoritarian modernization
Governments in this category pursue forced modernization without regard for its social foundations, such as democracy or social liberalism. Backed by oil wealth and unrestrained capitalism, these regimes aim to create the appearance of modernity through luxury and relative welfare, while political power remains monopolized by kings and tribal sheikhs. Civic participation is systematically excluded. Arab monarchies, Persian Gulf sheikhdoms, and lifelong presidencies are typical examples. - The fusion of left, right, and modernist tendencies: Civil society and non-violent activism
This group consists of civil society actors and non-violent political activists who, for various reasons, have not yet succeeded in establishing a desirable governance model in the region. Although they rarely attain power, and their presence in government is limited, their influence on major political dynamics remains marginal. The “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement in Iran, the Arab Spring revolutionaries, and many intellectuals and artists fall within this category.
These three political forces have conflicted for decades. The role of global powers and external actors has a major influence on the region’s political dynamics. One such actor is the Catholic Church.
While the Vatican and the Pope do not possess economic or military power, the Pope’s status as one of the most influential religious leaders in the world grants him significant sway in cultural and social spheres. This moral authority enables him to shape public opinion among Christians—especially Catholics—thus influencing the policy decisions of Western governments.
The Catholic Church from Jesus to the Second Vatican Council: A Millennium-Long Journey in Politics and Faith
Jesus Christ, during his three-year ministry, never sought to establish a government or construct a political system. His teachings were primarily moral in nature. Nevertheless, both the Jews and the Romans, fearing a threat to the existing political order, crucified him. For three centuries after this event, Christ’s followers were compelled to keep their beliefs hidden. It was only after the Edict of Religious Tolerance in the early fourth century CE that Christians were able to act freely, gradually laying the foundation for a religion with political dimensions.
The City of God and Augustine’s Political Theory
Despite the growing practical influence of Christianity, it long suffered from a lack of political theory. The turning point came with Augustine’s composition of The City of God in the early fifth century. Drawing on the Gospels, Greek philosophy, and Cicero’s ideas, Augustine formulated a theory that juxtaposed the heavenly city with the earthly city. He believed that, following the Fall of Man, only those who receive divine grace could become citizens of the City of God — and the Church served as the vehicle for this belonging.
A key aspect of Augustine’s thought was that the Church was not the exclusive path to salvation. This openness later became the intellectual groundwork for the Reformation and inspired reconsiderations such as Martin Luther’s theological revolution.
Aquinas and the Union of Reason and Faith
In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas launched a new phase in the synthesis of religion and politics by drawing on Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology. He maintained that divine grace does not negate human nature, but rather perfects it. For Aquinas, reason and faith are complementary paths to discovering truth. He argued that Aristotle’s philosophy could guide humans toward worldly happiness, but only religion could lead them to eternal salvation.
Church Supremacy in the Medieval Era
The ideas of Augustine and Aquinas laid the theoretical foundations for the Church’s imperial authority. Though Roman emperors, feudal lords, and kings held power, none equaled the Church in influence over political and social life. The widespread belief that “outside the Church there is no salvation” firmly established its unrivaled authority.
The End of the Middle Ages and the Crisis of Legitimacy
The Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation dealt heavy blows to the Church’s authority. With the end of the Middle Ages came the decline of the Church’s millennium-long domination over politics. The Church was compelled to retreat from the political arena and adapt to survive in the modern world. This adaptation took various forms — from total rejection of modernity to shrewd engagement with it.
Three Modern Approaches of the Catholic Church to Survival
To preserve its spiritual life and religious relevance in the modern age, the Catholic Church adopted three key approaches:
- The Mystical-Augustinian Approach
- Neo-Thomism
- The Second Vatican Council (1962–1965)
First, these three approaches will be briefly introduced, and then the relationship of the last three popes of the Catholic Church to these approaches will be examined. Finally, we will see what political effects the new pope’s inclination towards each of these approaches will have on the Middle East.
- 1. The Mystical-Augustinian Approach
A mystical interpretation of Augustine’s works has shaped a response to modernity that emphasizes the preservation of religious values. This approach prioritizes inwardness, inner spiritual experience, and the primacy of divine grace over human reason. It relies more on intuition, mystery, and a personal relationship with God than on philosophical arguments or ecclesiastical bureaucracy.
- 2. Neo-Thomism
The rise and dominance of largely secular—and sometimes anti-religious—ideologies prompted Church authorities to reassert the place of Catholic teachings in this new intellectual landscape. In 1878, Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Aeterni Patris (“The Evils Affecting the Modern World”), declared that the surest safeguard against error and misleading philosophies was the study of “true philosophy.” By this, he meant the philosophy that had successfully harmonized faith and reason—namely, the teachings of Thomas Aquinas.
Thus began the revival of Scholasticism under the banner of Neo-Thomism. By the late 19th and into the 20th century, Neo-Thomism had become the dominant school in intellectual and theological discourse. Its mission was to engage with contemporary issues through the lens of Aquinas, just as he had earlier fused Christianity with Greek philosophy. The goal was to apply Thomist rationality to modern-day challenges and offer coherent Christian responses.
- 3. The Second Vatican Council (1962- 1965)
In the 1960s, the Catholic Church’s efforts to emerge from isolation and reengage with the political and cultural world culminated in the Second Vatican Council. This council marked a new chapter in the Church’s approach to modernity.
Pope John XXIII (reigned 1958–1963), having traveled widely and observed the progressive, modern world firsthand, initiated the Council. It opened the door for dialogue with other Christian churches, as well as with Judaism, Islam, and other faiths. The message of Christ was to be conveyed in a way suitable to the modern world, not through rejection but through understanding. The Church resolved to abandon its condemnatory language and suspicion toward the modern world.
The Second Vatican Council was a major turning point in the modern history of the Catholic Church. It emphasized the need for the Church to understand and engage with the contemporary world. While doctrinal fundamentals remained unchanged, the expression and presentation of these truths could adapt to modern contexts.
Comparing the Three Approaches
As is evident, these three approaches represent fundamentally different stances toward modernity:
- The Mystical-Augustinian approach seeks to ensure the Church’s relevance through spiritual intuition and inner experience.
- Neo-Thomists strive to interpret the modern world through Aquinas’s lens, preserving the Church’s role in political and social discourse.
- In contrast to both, the Second Vatican Council does not propose retreat from modernity or rigid frameworks for interpreting it. Instead, it envisions the Church as a modern institution actively present in contemporary life.
The Three Recent Popes and Their Intellectual Alignments
The following section will examine how each of the last three popes aligns with one or more of these approaches. It will also assess how their intellectual leanings affect the Catholic Church’s political engagement—particularly in the context of the Middle East.
Pope John Paul II (1978–2005)
A Synthesis of Neo-Thomism and Personalism in Confronting Modernity
John Paul II, the 264th pope of the Catholic Church, is regarded as one of the most influential leaders of the twentieth century, with a significant record of political engagement. Some consider him a key figure in the fall of communism in Poland. Although he exhibited personalist tendencies, he was also deeply versed in Thomistic tradition—particularly in moral theology and the defense of natural rights.
In his encyclical Fides et Ratio, he explicitly states:
“The Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology.” (Fides et Ratio, 43)[2]
Yet his Neo-Thomism was not dry or lifeless. He integrated its doctrines with personalist inclinations and a strong emphasis on human dignity, seeking greater relevance for the modern world.
John Paul II was also present at the Second Vatican Council and championed many of its ideals—such as religious freedom, human dignity, and interreligious dialogue. However, he adopted a conservative stance against some radical interpretations of the Council—especially those related to moral liberty or loose readings of tradition. Like many Catholic clerics, he repeatedly emphasized the “hermeneutic of continuity” as opposed to a “hermeneutic of rupture.” Still, he maintained:
“The Second Vatican Council was a providential event… opening the Church more fully to the Spirit and the world.”[3]
In this light, John Paul II can be seen as a mediating figure, leaning toward a renewed form of Neo-Thomism.
Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013)
A Return to Augustinian Tradition and Defense of Doctrinal Continuity
The 265th pope, Benedict XVI, was one of the most controversial figures in the modern Catholic Church. His conservative inclinations led many to view his papacy as a return to traditionalism. Though he had been a leading theological advisor during the Second Vatican Council, he later became a sharp critic of its liberal and deconstructive interpretations. He unequivocally declared:
“The true intention of the Council was to reform the Church in continuity with her tradition, not to make a new Church.” (Hermeneutic of Continuity, 2005)[4]
Although considered a traditionalist, Benedict was more aligned with Augustinian thought than strict Neo-Thomism. He was concerned about theology becoming overly formalistic:
“When theology becomes pure logic detached from the mystery of God, it loses its soul.” (Speech at Subiaco, 2005)
Thus, Benedict XVI may be seen as a follower of a mystical-Augustinian tradition, critical of liberal interpretations of the Second Vatican Council. His controversial speech in Regensburg (2006)[5] on Islam and his opposition to Turkey’s membership in the European Union—citing its Muslim majority—further illustrate his positions.
Pope Francis (2013–2025)
Breathing Life into the Spirit of Vatican II
In contrast to his predecessor, Pope Francis adopted a much more liberal approach to modern issues. He openly identifies himself not just as an inheritor of Vatican II, but as one who implements its spirit in practice:
“Vatican II was a reaping, a new orientation… It is time to bring about an evangelical renewal of the Church’s structures…”[6]
Rather than abstract doctrines, he focused on real people—their pains, poverty, and marginalization. His emphasis on a “field hospital Church” as opposed to a bureaucratic one is directly in line with the spirit of the Council. Dialogue with the world and other faiths—advocated by the Council—was central to his papacy, including outreach to Muslims, Jews, secularists, environmentalists, migrants, feminists, and even atheists.
Francis, like the Council, emphasized individual conscience—even when it conflicts with classical norms. This stance continues the Council’s discourse on human dignity and freedom of conscience. He revived and extended the goals of Vatican II more than any pope since.
At the same time, he distanced himself—though not in denial—from Neo-Thomism. He repeatedly warned that theology must not become a “laboratory” or merely “rational apologetics.” In Evangelii Gaudium, he insists:
“Reality is greater than ideas.”
This is a direct critique of traditional Neo-Thomism, which at times sacrificed human reality for philosophical systems. Classical Neo-Thomism was often confined to elites, distancing itself from ordinary believers. Francis sought to bring theology into the service of common people rather than as a rigid defense of doctrine. While he respected Aquinas and drew from his teachings—especially in defending human rights, the rationality of faith, and natural ethics—he moved away from abstract Neo-Thomism. Still, he never abandoned the spirit of Aquinas, where reason serves faith and mercy.
Based on the above discussion, the following chart can be drawn to illustrate the relationship of the three recent popes with the three major intellectual orientations: the mystical–Augustinian tradition, the Second Vatican Council, and Neo-Thomism.
The chart demonstrates that:
- John Paul II had the closest affinity with Neo-Thomism, while remaining faithful to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council, though he showed less inclination toward the mystical tradition.
- Benedict XVI leaned strongly toward the mystical–Augustinian heritage and maintained a conservative interpretation of the Council, while still making use of Thomistic ideas.
- Pope Francis aligned most deeply with the ideals of the Second Vatican Council, distanced himself from classical Neo-Thomism, and showed less interest in Augustinian mysticism.
Papal Orientations and Middle Eastern Categories
It is now time to examine how papal orientations—within the spectrum discussed earlier—interact with the political forces of the Middle East. Based on what has been outlined so far, it is evident that the Pope’s worldview significantly shapes the nature and consequences of his engagement with these forces.
The Pope and Islamism
As previously noted, Islamism encompasses a broad range of actors, from religious intellectuals to takfiri militants. Despite their divergent methods, their ultimate goal remains the same: the establishment of an authentic Islamic state modeled after the Prophet Muhammad’s governance. These political actors view modernity as an instrument to advance religious aims. In this respect, one may observe a partial convergence between this current and the Neo-Thomist trend within Catholicism, as both emphasize a synthesis of reason and faith. Thinkers affiliated with the Islamic Republic of Iran and members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt fall into this category. These actors welcome any discourse that reinforces their intellectual legitimacy and expands their doctrinal reach as tools for eliminating rivals and consolidating political power.
On the opposite end of the Islamist spectrum stand takfiri militants who categorically reject all forms of modernity. For these groups, the Pope’s theological orientation is irrelevant—they consider others as infidels, and regard the act of killing them as divine worship. However, the Pope’s stance may indirectly affect them by influencing the global powers that either constrain or empower such groups. Organizations like ISIS and al-Qaeda are prime examples of this category.
The Pope and Authoritarian Regimes
Following the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate, many Arab regimes consolidated political authority under centralized, often absolute rule. These governments not only suppress public political engagement, but also attempt to depoliticize religion and its institutions. Thanks to oil revenues, they have been able to offer a degree of material comfort in exchange for political apathy.
With the collapse of the caliphate, and aside from Islamists, religious figures have been largely excluded from politics. Consequently, these regimes prefer to limit international relations to economic and commercial domains. Cultural exchange, civic awareness, and the promotion of political agency are perceived as existential threats. From this perspective, a desirable pope is one who firmly separates religion from politics and maintains distance from both modernity and collective political consciousness. Such a pope is typically inclined toward mysticism and Augustinian theology and is skeptical of both Vatican II and Neo-Thomism.
The Pope and Pro-Democracy Movements
Pro-democracy movements in the Middle East have long been caught between the forces of Islamism and authoritarianism. The enemies of democracy are often traditionalists who either reject modernity altogether or manipulate it for their own ends. Although movements such as the Arab Spring succeeded in toppling some autocratic regimes, they ultimately paved the way for either Islamist ascendancy or military dictatorships. Egypt stands as a clear example, where the military and the Muslim Brotherhood remain the two dominant political poles.
For democracy advocates, the ideal pope is one who interprets Vatican II through a liberal and pluralistic lens—one who champions human rights, affirms human dignity, upholds ideological diversity, and defends the right to freedom. Such a pope is expected to speak out against the suppression of democratic movements and align the Church with the struggle for justice and freedom.
Leo XIV and the Middle East
Pope Leo XIV ascended to the papacy at a moment when the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 events had weakened Islamist movements, yet human rights and democratic conditions in the Middle East remained in deep crisis. Meanwhile, the return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, coupled with his transactional approach to Middle Eastern affairs, has emboldened authoritarian regimes. His explicit abandonment of global liberal democratic ideals has further isolated pro-democracy actors in the region.
In this context, a critical question arises: To what extent will the new Pope—an American citizen—be influenced by White House policies? Will he align himself with Trump’s vision? If so, one could expect him to lean toward a mystical–Augustinian orientation. Some have already speculated such a tendency based on his South American roots. However, many others argue that the trajectory set by Pope Francis is irreversible, and that Leo XIV will inevitably continue on that path, whether consciously or not.
[1]. Iran was independent from the Ottoman Empire, so this collapse did not affect Iran. However, the arrival of modernism in this country, the fundamental intellectual changes and developments, and the conflict between modernism and tradition had an equal impact on Iran.
[2]. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091998_fides-et-ratio.html
[3]. https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19941110_tertio-millennio-adveniente.html
[4]. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2005/december/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20051222_roman-curia.html
[5]. https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html
[6]. https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html
Amir Maghdoor Mashhood is a researcer focusing on the Middle East
GSPI does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of GSPI, its staff, or its trustees.
