Over the centuries, theological debates and conflicts within the Catholic Church have often had political implications of general interest. The pressure being exerted on Pope Leo to reinstate the option of celebrating the Catholic liturgy according to the rite that preceded that of the Second Vatican Council poses a significant challenge to the Catholic Church’s global role on both the geopolitical and religious fronts.
In the current geopolitical context and at this historic moment, what is truly at stake with the pressing demand from conservative and traditionalist Catholic sectors directed at Pope Leo XIV to readmit the liturgy that preceded the one developed by Vatican II? The stakes are much higher than those supporting this demand are willing to admit publicly.
At the heart of it all is the question of the papacy’s role in a time of global crisis and turmoil. Any concession would lend political weight within the Church to the significant portion of Catholicism—not only in the United States—that identifies with the concept of a “new Christianity” promoted by Trump. The ability to influence the pope on an issue as important to the Catholic Church as the liturgy would mean having greater influence within the American president’s inner circle.
In this way, the Trump administration could limit Pope Leo’s global influence, which currently represents the only credible alternative to the administration, from within the dynamics and balance of power of the Catholic Church. The result would be a diminished pontificate absorbed into managing the crisis that would follow such a decision. This would be a papacy forced to deal solely with ecclesiastical matters, however important they may be for the faith, with only residual energy left to contribute to building a world order not determined solely by military power and the vagaries of mutual blackmail.
Second, calling for the restoration of the lawfulness and ecclesial legitimacy of the pre-Vatican II liturgy would be a significant step towards the “deworlding ” of the Catholic Church, a concept dear to Pope Benedict XVI/Ratzinger. Not only would this force Leo XIV into a pontificate constantly measured against that of the German pope, it would also mean setting aside the Catholic Church envisioned by Pope Francis once and for all. Allowing the Tridentine liturgy to flourish today, as Benedict XVI sought to do, would effectively invalidate one of Pope Francis’s most significant decisions concerning the essence of the Catholic Church.
This would not only discredit Francis’s entire pontificate, but also declare the Catholic Church—which with Pope Leo is taking shape in accordance with his magisterium—de facto heretical. This would be a Church that confronts worldly powers head-on and speaks the truth about the global reality of injustice and violence that oppresses the world’s poorest and most exploited regions and peoples.
Trump sought a confrontation with Pope Leo to test his own strength and assert his dominance, but it backfired because it presented the current pontiff as the only true alternative to the chaotic global system to which the United States aspires today. Pope Leo’s calmness and kindness in response to Trump’s attacks affirmed his commitment to the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the guiding political standard of the Catholic Church. It is a standard from which Pope Leo has no intention of deviating.
This approach to managing U.S. relations with the Holy See has put Catholics in top positions in the Trump administration in a difficult spot. Sometimes, it has forced them to make embarrassing statements in an attempt to show the world their devotion to the president. In doing so, they have ended up subordinating the pope’s guidance to Trump’s political agenda.
Ultimately, the current Trump administration’s policy toward the first American pope has led to a dead end. The dispute over liturgy, driven by Catholic bishops and the faithful (not by politicians) aligned with the administration, serves as an exit from this political fiasco. It places Pope Leo in the difficult position of choosing between the Catholic Church of Benedict XVI/Ratzinger and that of Pope Francis. The American pope has been in this position from the beginning, but he has managed it with caution, intelligence, and originality. However, it is clear that the pressure he is under regarding the internal matter of liturgy has the power to shift his focus.
Nevertheless, Pope Leo does not seem to be neglecting the urgent global issues awaiting a response from the Catholic Church or the Holy See’s efforts to establish global diplomacy aimed at building a world order not based on the principle of “might makes right.” Evidence of this can be seen in the restoration of the Vatican Secretariat of State’s central administrative role, achieved through the collaboration of Pope Leo and Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin. This enables the Catholic Church to address both internal matters and geopolitical issues in an orderly and rational manner, striking a good balance.
Therefore, all the conditions are set to address the liturgical crisis without undermining the Catholic Church’s geopolitical and diplomatic activities on a global level. The governing style of Leo XIV, when addressing issues that could divide the Catholic Church, must also be considered. In fact, the American pope has chosen not to decide these matters alone by virtue of his absolute jurisdictional power. Instead, he has chosen to convene and involve global Catholicism and the local Churches scattered throughout the world in the decision-making process.
The Roman Pontiff’s decision not to act alone, despite his constitutional power, but rather to collaborate with various representatives of global Catholicism, indicates a concrete step toward a shared and collective exercise of power. This indicates a willingness to follow through on Pope Francis’s call for a synodal transformation of the Catholic Church, albeit in a manner characteristic of Leo XIV and in light of the current global geopolitical situation.
One could debate whether this marks the beginning of a democratization of power within the Catholic Church. However, it sends a clear message to the Nation birthplace of democracy: No matter how “supreme” a power is, if it wishes to remain faithful to the original democratic ideal, it requires genuine, critical, and shared participation and decision-making from all sides. Only in this way can a power struggle between sides be prevented, as well as submission to the will of the “strongest.”
