Anatolii Babynskyi, religious scholar: New Pope should clearly name Russia as aggressor

Takeaways

• What is the legacy of Pope Francis?

• How is his death perceived in the Catholic community and beyond?

• What role does the Catholic Church play in the modern world?

• How does its diplomacy work?

• Can the new Pope express a clearer position on the Russian-Ukrainian war?

The death of Pope Francis became a real shock for more than a billion Catholics around the world. But even beyond the Catholic world, this is undoubtedly a landmark event, as Francis led the largest and oldest continuously operating institution on a global scale.

However, Ukrainians remember the Pope more for his controversial statements regarding Russian aggression. In March 2024, in an interview with Swiss television, he stated that "the stronger one will be the one who dares to raise the white flag and negotiate." Earlier, Francis had said that he did not believe in the cruelty of the Russians but rather considered them a great people and admired Russian humanism.

Yet harsher statements also came from him. For example, in a speech to the diplomatic corps in January 2024, he directly called Russia the aggressor. Such a position of Francis was partly related to his personal views. But not only that.

"The Pope, every time he speaks, must weigh that his voice is heard immediately in two registers — as the voice of the shepherd of the Christian Catholic Church, but also as the voice of a figure heading a certain subject of international relations," — says religious scholar and church historian Anatolii Babynskyi in an interview with RBC-Ukraine.

At the same time, the new Pope, whoever he may be, will have room to maneuver to still express a clearer position on Russian aggression.

Anatolii Babynskyi (photo: ucu.edu.ua)

— What is Francis remembered for?

— It is a unique pontificate in many ways. Starting from the fact that no Jesuit had ever been Pope before. This is the first time in history. This is the first Pope from the Global South. That is, until then, the Popes were mainly Europeans or from the Middle East.

This is also a Pope who, to a large extent, turned the Church toward the ordinary person. Previously, Popes were distinct, but the last two — to put it this way — were academic scholars. Pope Francis is a pastor. That is, even leading the Universal Church, which numbers one billion two hundred million people, he remained such a "village parish priest." That is, he tried to be attentive to everyone who approached him, to pay attention to the most needy, to migrants, to those who most needed help.

— What are Pope Francis' greatest achievements?

— He radically changed the composition of the conclave, that is, the College of Cardinals, which will now elect his successor. He appointed about 110 new cardinals, and a total of 135 will be voting. That is the majority of those now gathering in Rome and preparing for the election were appointed by Pope Francis. And this will be the most international conclave in the entire history of the Church.

Pope Francis sought to change how the Roman Curia works. He did not succeed in everything; he did not manage to do everything. However, he implemented a very significant reform — for the first time, women were appointed to high positions within the Vatican.

He also very actively advocated for disarmament to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world. In this direction, he was less successful, or his opinion was not listened to at all. His voice sometimes seemed like the voice of one crying in the wilderness because this world is much more cynical and brutal than his ideals.

This pontificate was not without controversies. We, as Ukrainians, also know this very well from our own experience, but this applies not only to Ukraine. Some of his statements provoked sharp discussions, as it was not always clear what he meant. Then there were some clarifications. Some of his statements sparked various ideological debates within the Church. Therefore, this pontificate, to some extent, not only solved certain problems but also created some new ones that the next Popes and the Church will have to live with.

Here, the point is that we are all human, and Pope Francis, I think, clearly understood that in some moments, he also made mistakes. But he was not afraid to make mistakes.

— How was his death perceived, in particular, by the Catholic community and beyond in the world?

— In principle, even if someone did not love the Pope — and there were such people — the death of the head of the Catholic Church is always a tragic event. Usually, all recollections that I have to hear, read, or talk about with someone — everyone remembers his person with warmth, especially those who met him.

Likewise, beyond the Catholic Church, I see that there is sympathy, because Pope Francis was a Pope of dialogue, he did not like confrontation. We know that during this period, dialogue with the Constantinople Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church greatly intensified. Primarily, there were very intensive talks about establishing a single date for Easter. And it is very symbolic that he died the day after the joint Easter of Orthodox and Catholics. It was not yet full unity, but at least they celebrated on the same day — it happened so.

Believers pay respects to the body of Pope Francis in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome (photo: Getty images)

The Pope wanted this to become established as a tradition and to continue in subsequent years. Unfortunately, this dialogue did not bear fruit, but here, the ball was no longer on the field of the Catholic Church and Pope Francis since, within the Orthodox Church itself, there is no unity regarding the idea of a single date for Easter.

But all these moods are, to some extent, even bright because, in general, in the Church, death in such a bright week, at the level of popular theology, is perceived as a special grace of God to a person. That they died in such a joyful period of the liturgical year.

— How would you assess the role of the Pope today in the modern world, particularly as a spiritual figure?

— The papacy of the 20th century differs significantly from the papacy and the Catholic Church of previous centuries. This doesn't mean that the earlier figures were worse people. It's about a shift in circumstances and the positioning of the Bishop of Rome within the international community.

Until almost the end of the 19th century, the Papal States existed. Although not very technologically developed, they occupied a large part of central Italy. When the popes acted as full-fledged "presidents" of this state, they were sometimes forced, and sometimes even interested, in becoming players in various global political processes. They had to form alliances and make political compromises to preserve their state, among other things.

When modern Italy emerged in the 1870s, the popes lost their temporal state. For a long time, they struggled to come to terms with this loss. Eventually, a solution was found through the creation of the tiny Vatican State. When the popes lost their earthly power, they gained greater moral authority in the world. This was particularly evident during World War I when Benedict XV tried to mediate peace among European nations and stop the war. Although he was unsuccessful — as were later popes, including Pope Francis — they earned significant moral authority.

At the same time, the popes remained secular rulers of a small enclave — the Vatican. This state was created to ensure that the popes would not be subject to any worldly political power. Its establishment protected the leadership of the Catholic Church from political influence. It also obligated them to maintain neutrality — another consequence of this arrangement. But this gave popes freedom on the international stage.

— What about political influence?

— It is twofold. On the one hand, there is a grassroots level, because the Catholic Church is spread across the whole world, and every Catholic is a citizen of their own state. If a Catholic deeply studies social doctrine, they will likely advocate for those values in their country and vote for politicians who uphold the values protected by the Catholic Church.

These values are very simple and well-known: the protection of human dignity, the principle of solidarity, subsidiarity, and the common good. These are the same basic principles on which the European Union was eventually built.

The papacy undoubtedly influences various political processes. For example, the wave of democratization in Latin America would have been impossible without the influence of the Catholic Church. Similarly, the Solidarity movement in Poland during the 1980s would not have happened without the Church’s support.

At a higher level, there is papal diplomacy. There are nunciatures (Vatican embassies) in various countries around the world. These act as ambassadors of the Holy See. The Holy See also has representatives at all major international organizations, where it usually holds observer status. Through speeches, petitions, and statements, it tries to influence international relations and processes.

Thus, every time the pope speaks, he must weigh his words carefully, knowing they are heard in two registers: as the voice of the shepherd of the Catholic Church and as the voice of the head of an international entity. This double responsibility can sometimes even tie the pontiff’s hands.

— Am I right in understanding that he can be a moral authority even beyond the Catholic Church?

— Outside the Catholic Church, his authority is not as strong as within it. Nevertheless, he is likely the most influential religious leader in the world. No other religious figure has under their pastoral care approximately 17% of the world’s population. So, there is no doubt that he is a major figure.

— There are a few individuals in the world who attract attention even at the level of mass culture: the King of England, the Dalai Lama (mostly in Asia), and the Pope. Why does the figure of the pontiff spark interest even among people outside the Church?

— You see, despite technological progress, people remain deeply drawn to things from antiquity to rituals. These aspects of human nature are unchanged. I think the interest in the papacy can be partly attributed to this — the Catholic Church is the oldest continuously functioning institution today, with a history spanning two thousand years.

It’s a matter of individual taste. Some are fascinated by the rituals and symbolism, others appreciate the pope’s addresses on universal human issues. Catholics, of course, are interested in matters of faith, morality, and so on. I believe there are many different reasons why people remain interested and continue to pay attention.

— How is a new pope chosen? What stages await the Church now?

— The procedure is fairly straightforward. Since the funeral will take place on Saturday, cardinals are already beginning to arrive in Rome. They will serve as the Church's leadership during this time, as in the period of Sede Vacante (vacant seat), the College of Cardinals assumes authority over the most serious matters. Of course, the Curia continues its work, but strategic decisions are made only by the College of Cardinals.

The conclave to elect the next pontiff must convene no later than the 20th day after death — typically around the 15th day. Before voting, the cardinals hold various consultations, including discussions with those over the age of 80 who cannot vote but can participate in pre-conclave meetings. They gather, discuss, and get to know each other better.

As I mentioned, this conclave will be very international. Many cardinals don’t know each other personally, as they were appointed from very diverse corners of the world. They must familiarize themselves with each other's views before voting.

The conclave will begin with a Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, after which they will move to the Sistine Chapel, where voting takes place behind closed doors. In the 20th century, conclaves never lasted longer than five days. They vote four times a day — twice in the morning, twice in the afternoon. This can go on for 34 cycles, about a week, and a bit.

The elected pope must receive two-thirds of the votes. If no one reaches that after all the rounds, the procedure simplifies: between the two candidates with the most votes, a simple majority is sufficient. The elected individual can refuse. If he accepts, the cardinals pledge their respect and obedience.

The new pope then goes to a special room where he finds three sets of garments in different sizes, along with shoes. He dresses, and then the Dean of the College of Cardinals announces on St. Peter’s Square: Habemus Papam! — "We have a pope!" He names the elected person and the papal name he has chosen. A pope always selects a name — either from predecessors (with a numeral) or, like Pope Francis, a completely new one.

Meanwhile, the famous smoke signals are used — white smoke if a pope is elected, black if not. The ballots are burned with specific chemicals to produce the correct smoke color.

— Is it possible that the new pope could take a clearer and more direct stance on Russian aggression?

— This is a very difficult question because not everything depends on the personal views of the pope. There is a certain inertia and tradition in how the Holy See acts in cases of war between states, even when the aggressor is clearly evident.

On the one hand, there is the obligation under the Lateran Treaties with Italy, requiring the Vatican to maintain neutrality, given that it is an enclave within another country. On the other hand, since World War I, the Holy See has maintained a policy of so-called impartiality — issuing moral judgments without explicitly naming countries or aggressors.

This practice is highly questionable. It faces growing criticism, not only from Ukrainians but also from theologians worldwide who question whether it still serves its purpose. It raises the issue: how far can neutrality go without betraying the core values of human dignity, justice, and life protection?

The Holy See adopts this position because it sees itself as a potential mediator in any conflict. Whether this role is justified — or whether a firmer stance naming aggressors could better help stop conflicts — remains a topic of ongoing discussion. The war in Ukraine has particularly fueled this debate within the Catholic Church.

If we look closely at the statements of the late pope, we will find much that may have displeased us. Still, no previous pope has come as close to naming the aggressor as he did.

It is worth recalling his speech to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See on January 8, 2024, in which he clearly stated that Russia is the aggressor in this war. It may not have been in St. Peter's Square for the whole world to hear, but those who follow this heard it, they knew it, they saw it. So, here, too, Pope Francis went further than he could have gone in many respects. Whether his successor will do the same, well, it depends on who he is.

— How does the Catholic Church in Ukraine interact with the Vatican?

— Two churches represent the Catholic community of Ukraine. One is the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC). This is an Eastern Catholic Church, meaning it is in unity with the Pope of Rome, but it belongs to the family of churches of the Byzantine Rite. Likewise, there are Catholics of the Western tradition, represented by the Roman Catholic Church in Ukraine, or the Latin Church, as it is sometimes called, which is currently a smaller community.

There are approximately 4.5 million Ukrainian Greek Catholics, this is not only in Ukraine — they are also scattered all over the world — and today it is about 10% of the population of Ukraine. Roman Catholics make up 1%, a maximum of up to 2%. That is, Catholics in Ukraine are a minority but a rather influential one due to their activity and a certain historical tradition — Catholics did not appear in Ukraine just yesterday.

Head of the UGCC Sviatoslav and Pope Francis (photo: ugcc.ua)

During the war, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church sometimes had complicated relations with the Roman Apostolic See because, on the one hand, it is historically very strongly connected with Ukrainian identity and the struggle for its preservation. On the other hand, it is part of universal Catholicism.

Throughout these three years of full-scale invasion, bishops, priests, and faithful tried to convey to the Vatican what is actually happening here, what the real motives of this aggression from Russia are. And the Greek Catholic Church did not always find understanding from some representatives of the Roman Apostolic See. Even the Pope did not always understand what was being discussed.

The Roman Catholic Church of Ukraine has always been more loyal because the Pope is their direct head. He, apart from being the head of all Catholics, directly leads the Latin Church. But this war forced them as well to look somewhat critically at the position of the Roman Apostolic See, mainly concerning Russia and Russian aggression. Therefore, they also constantly joined information campaigns in order to inform Rome about what is really happening here.

The Greek Catholic Church has long awaited the recognition of patriarchal status by the Roman Apostolic See. And it is an open secret that the reason for this has always been the position of Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate. And in the light of this war, paying attention to what they think in Russia about how Ukrainian Greek Catholics should live looks, to put it mildly, absurd. Therefore, in the UGCC, they expect that this war will radically change the approaches of the Apostolic See towards Eastern Europe in general. Russia and the Russian Church have instrumentalized religion, called the war holy.

However, I believe that the end of Pope Francis's pontificate is still marked by certain shifts. This especially happened after the synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, which was in Rome in 2023 when bishops could meet with the Pope, talk to him, and convey to him their views and positions.

— Francis was called several times to come to Ukraine, even before the Great War, but he never came. Why did this happen?

— Pope Francis repeatedly said that he was ready to come to Ukraine, but at the same time he also wanted to come to Russia. To this day, it is difficult for us to understand why he chose exactly this logic. Why he wanted to visit two countries simultaneously, and not just come to Ukraine and see, as his envoys who visited Bucha, Borodianka, actually these tragic places of our war, did.

Perhaps he still harbored hope that he could become a mediator between Putin and Ukraine. We must admit that he did not fully understand what was going on here. And that Putin, in principle, does not care what Pope Francis thinks. This will remain a certain aftertaste for Ukrainians, unfortunately, but I think it is fair.

— What would you like to hear from the new Pope, as a Ukrainian?

— I would like to hear the condemnation of Russian aggression. I am convinced that such an open, direct condemnation would contribute to peace more than silent diplomacy. Because this aggressor must be exposed and brought to light, Russia precisely relies on such behind-the-scenes diplomacy, they are masters at this.

We see that the silent diplomacy of the Holy See is ineffective because it gives Russia space to present silence as support for its actions and position. Overall, in Ukraine, the Pope is perceived not as a diplomat but precisely as a moral leader of the world, and they want to hear clear moral judgments from him.

Moreover, I think if the new pope said that he was ready to come to Ukraine, it would also encourage all of us exhausted by the fourth year of this war. We know that popes were ready to go even to countries with hostilities. In particular, John Paul II visited Lebanon when there was a war with Syria. Thus, there are no obstacles that cannot be overcome. After all, many world leaders visit our state during the war.