Religion, power, and diplomacy: What influence can faith have in a world at war?

In today’s world, we are witnessing the escalation of armed conflicts, the growth of nationalist rhetoric, and the erosion of dialogue between world powers. Consequently, religion is once again taking a central role in the reflection on international peace and balance. Far beyond the spiritual dimension, religious traditions continue to influence collective values, national identities, and even political decisions. But to what extent can this influence be mobilized as a force for reconciliation? And when does it transform into a factor of division?

These questions are particularly timely given the Vatican’s role on the international stage and the growing tension between Pope Leo XIV and political figures like Donald Trump. To understand this complex relationship between faith, power, and conflict, Milénio Stadium spoke with Lucian Turcescu, a professor at Concordia University in Montreal. Turcescu is a widely recognized scholar for his work in the fields of theology, religion and politics, religious nationalism, Christian identity in the public sphere, and Church-State relations.

Throughout his career, Turcescu has dedicated himself to studying the role of religions in the contemporary political sphere, with particular attention to how religious discourse can influence social dynamics, ideological conflicts, and democratic construction processes. In this interview, he analyzes the role of religion as a promoter of peace, the moral authority of the Pope in times of war, and the risks that emerge when the Vatican enters into tension with one of the world’s greatest powers.

Milénio Stadium: From a theological perspective, what role can religion play in promoting peace and balance in an increasingly divided world?

Lucian Turcescu: From a theological standpoint, religion can function simultaneously as a resource and a risk in an increasingly fragmented world. Most religions possess interpretive frameworks that recommend peace over conflict. At its best, religion offers a moral code centered on human dignity, forgiveness, and reconciliation—principles deeply rooted in traditions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

Concepts like imago Dei, found in the Book of Genesis, sustain the idea that every person is created in the image of God and therefore possesses intrinsic value. This vision can serve as the basis for ethical commitments to peace, restraint, and respect for others.

At the same time, when religion becomes intertwined with nationalism or political power, it can reinforce divisions instead of healing them. A clear example is so-called Christian nationalism in the United States, where certain evangelical groups support Donald Trump almost unconditionally, viewing him as a sort of providential figure for the current times.

The great challenge, therefore, lies in a critical and reflective religiosity capable of resisting political instrumentalization and cultivating dialogue across cultural and ideological borders. Here, I recall Paul Rowe’s analysis, which identifies four ways religion engages in conflict resolution: as an interested observer, as a peace promoter, as a direct protagonist in negotiations, and as a culture of peace.

MS: How should we interpret the role of the Pope as a spiritual leader and international moral voice in times of war and geopolitical crisis?

LT: As the Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church, the Pope occupies a unique position that grants him a dual responsibility: to lead a global community of faith and, simultaneously, to articulate moral concerns on the international stage.

There is also a third dimension: the Pope is the head of a sovereign state, the Vatican, which provides him with a political and diplomatic component. Unlike political leaders who rely on so-called “hard power” (military or economic), the Pope primarily exercises a form of moral authority—what we might call “soft power.”

Throughout the last century, Popes have used this platform to advocate for peace, human rights, and the protection of the most vulnerable, intervening symbolically in moments of crisis. We have the example of Pope John Paul II in Poland during the 1980s, when he intervened in the conflict between the communist regime and the Solidarity trade union movement. While the communist authorities resorted to repression, the Pope and the members of Solidarity insisted on non-violent resistance and dialogue, contributing to the regime’s loss of power and, later, to the democratic transition in much of Eastern Europe. In times of war, the Pope’s voice can function as a counterpoint to the logic of military escalation, reminding leaders of the ethical limits that should frame political decisions.

MS: What influence can Pope Leo XIV exert over political leaders who support or promote military actions?

LT: The Pope’s influence is, inevitably, indirect. As I mentioned before, this influence is exerted through “soft power”: moral persuasion, public pressure, and the mobilization of Catholic communities and other religious groups worldwide.

In practice, this influence is uneven. Leaders already predisposed toward moderation or restraint may find reinforcement in the Pope’s appeals. On the other hand, those strongly committed to military objectives are unlikely to change their stance based solely on these interventions. Even so, papal interventions can be extremely relevant. They can legitimize dissent, encourage diplomatic alternatives, and shape how history will judge these conflicts. Their effectiveness lies less in the immediate change of policies and more in defining the ethical framework in which those decisions are made. I recall, by the way, that Pope Francis’s attempts to dialogue with Vladimir Putin or Patriarch Kirill, in the context of the war in Ukraine, did not have the desired impact. Similarly, Pope Leo’s appeals to Donald Trump and his supporters have been met, so far, with verbal attacks.

MS: How do you evaluate Pope Leo XIV’s current position regarding Donald Trump?

LT: To evaluate this relationship, it is essential to consider the structural tension between universalist religious ethics and nationalist political rhetoric.

Papal teaching in recent decades has emphasized solidarity, the welcoming of migrants, and the need to avoid unnecessary conflicts. On the other hand, the Trump administration promotes a more isolationist, sovereigntist policy that is frequently critical of globalization.

Since Catholicism is a global religion that has historically benefited from the circulation of ideas and people, these two visions naturally clash. Even so, the relationship is not entirely linear. There are areas of convergence, for example, on certain social issues like abortion or the critique of some forms of secular liberalism. But the most important thing is to realize that the Pope’s criticism is not partisan—it is a principled critique that seeks to hold all political actors accountable to a moral vision that transcends national interest.

MS: What risks can arise when relations between the Vatican and a major world power deteriorate?

LT: When relations between the Vatican and a major power become strained, significant risks arise.

At a diplomatic level, the Holy See’s ability to mediate conflicts or influence global debates may be reduced. On the ground, Catholic communities in those countries may face greater political or ideological pressure. From a theological point of view, there is also the risk that the Church’s moral voice becomes too silent or, conversely, excessively confrontational.

During the Cold War, for example, these tensions impacted not only international diplomacy but also the internal life of the Church itself. The great challenge is to maintain moral clarity without closing the doors to dialogue—something that requires prudence, courage, and historical vision.

Madalena Balça/MS