The Pope's Behind-the-Scenes Role in America
Newly elected Pope Leo XIV's significance as leader of the Catholic Church is beyond dispute, but the papacy's role has historically extended far beyond the altar and pews.
For more than a century, the papacy has shaped American affairs—through spiritual and cultural guidance—but also by quietly influencing major geopolitical shifts and cultural developments.
From Cold War diplomacy to modern discussions on climate change and human rights, various popes have engaged with U.S. leaders behind the scenes, acting as mediators, moral voices and, at times, catalysts for historic change.
Some historians have suggested that the medieval papacy pioneered the concept of ambassadors, said Ben Wiedemann, lecturer at Cambridge University who specializes in the political role of the medieval papacy.
"Kings would keep semi-permanent 'proctors' at the papal court," he told Newsweek. "In the middle ages, the papal court was where international disagreements tended to be mediated."
Perhaps the most famous example of a pope's role in global affairs is Pope John Paul II's association with the fall of communism.
John Paul, a bishop from Poland who was head of the Catholic Church from 1978 to 2005, embarked on a 1979 pilgrimage to Poland when it was still under Soviet rule and officially an atheist country.
This is widely regarded as a pivotal moment in the Cold War, as his words are believed to have helped inspire the Polish Solidarity movement.
Historian John Lewis Gaddis wrote in his account of the Cold War: "When John Paul II kissed the ground at the Warsaw airport on June 2, 1979, he began the process by which communism in Poland – and ultimately everywhere – would come to an end."
Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who would capture his first term in the White House the following year, said at the time: "I have had a feeling, particularly in the pope's visit to Poland, that religion may turn out to be the Soviets' Achilles' heel."
A more recent example is Pope Francis' involvement in thawing relations between the U.S. and Cuba.
In 2014, he facilitated secret negotiations by sending personal letters to Presidents Barack Obama and Raúl Castro, urging them to restore diplomatic ties.
After finally agreeing on a deal, both leaders thanked Francis for the role he played. "His Holiness Pope Francis issued a personal appeal to me and to Cuba's president," Obama said at the time.
He called the deal some of the "most significant changes in our policy in more than 50 years."
"We will end an outdated approach that, for decades, has failed to advance our interests, and instead we will begin to normalize relations between our two countries," Obama said.
Grant Kaplan, professor of theology at Saint Louis University, explained why he thinks popes are able to play such a unique role in global politics.
"A lot of recent popes have actually been former diplomats," he told Newsweek, "and so this kind of network of diplomacy that the Catholic Church has is an advantage in the sense that they're not a state that has economic interests or is looking to expand its territory or something - they're naturally seen as like a Switzerland kind of place."
"You don't have to worry about their angle on things, so they can be more trusted," he added. "The Vatican is always sending people to intervene in the Middle East, in Ukraine - sometimes it's not very successful, but sometimes it's quite successful."
The pope also has a more direct role on everyday Americans, in the sense that he is the head of a church followed by 20 percent of the country. Some 53 million U.S. adults are Catholic, according to U.S. Census Bureau data from 2024.
"There's a lot of Catholics in the United States who take seriously what the pope says as part of their faith," Kaplan said. "So even if the pope isn't trying to speak to leaders, he can still influence the political wins by speaking to people as the leader of their faith community."
He cited John Paul's Theology of the Body, which taught that sexuality was more than a mere biological drive but rather a "sacrament"—a sign of God's love.
"It was basically insisting that the person can't be divorced from the body," Kaplan explained. "He famously said that 'the problem with pornography isn't that it reveals too much, it's that it reveals too little,' in the sense that it divorces the soul from the body as an object."
John Paul delivered 129 lectures on this from 1979 to 1984, during the years following America's sexual revolution of the 1960s and early '70s.
The theology "became very popular and was taught at parish levels and in schools," Kaplan said. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops incorporated it into its doctrine and family planning resources.
Kaplan argued that this kind of power wielded by the pope may actually be more potent than his strength pertaining to diplomacy.
"Cultural and spiritual impact matter more in the long term," he said. "One of the phrases that people use is that 'politics is downstream from culture' and I generally believe that's a good way to understand influence."
Related Articles
Pope Leo XIV in His Own Words: Immigration, Euthanasia, Abortion and MoreFirst American Pope Bridges Cultural, Political Divides | OpinionLGBTQ+ Catholics React to New Pope Leo XIVDoes the New Pope Root for the Chicago Cubs or White Sox? An Investigation
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
12 minutes ago
- The Hill
Texas Republican on deficit spending in GOP bill: ‘It's not a perfect world'
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) lamented the deficit spending in the GOP's 'big, beautiful' spending package, but framed the issue as a necessary compromise to avoid having to negotiate with Democrats. 'I don't want to have any deficit spending. But what I'm trying to suggest to you is that we are stuck in a paradigm where we have to pass this ourselves,' Sessions told CNN's John Berman in an interview Thursday morning. The Texas Republican said he conceded on demands from a handful of Republicans representing blue-leaning states who pushed to raise the cap on state and local tax (SALT) deductions, adding, 'It's a balance there.' 'What we're trying to do is balance out where the American people get jobs and job creation. We really don't want to see people just leave these blue states because of taxes that they can't afford their property,' Sessions said. 'So, it is not a perfect world, John.' He also pointed out that if the sprawling legislative agenda is not passed through the reconciliation process, then Republicans would have to turn to Democrats — which, Sessions argued, would not necessarily reduce deficit spending but would mean less of Trump's agenda could make it through Congress. 'The bottom line is, is that this has to come together as a piece of legislation. You see, John, if we do not pass our one big, beautiful bill, then we negotiate with Democrats, essentially nine Democrats, that simply raises spending to get us where we get the tax cuts that we save them, where they ought to be,' the GOP lawmaker said. 'So it is, no question about it, not a perfect battle for Republicans,' he added. The interview comes amid criticism from tech billionaire Elon Musk that has slowed momentum in the Senate on the bill. The Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday projected that the 1,116-page House passed bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade.


Forbes
12 minutes ago
- Forbes
Fusion Energy Is The Key To World Hegemony
What would it take for the United States to lose its hegemony to a rising power like China? Right now, America appears to be ahead economically and militarily. However, there is a stark difference between America's national strategy (insofar as one exists) and China's. The US under President Trump calls for regression. It seeks to restore a manufacturing economy that peaked in the 1950s—like an elderly man trying to restore hair where it hasn't grown for decades. It is doubling down on domestic oil, gas and coal. Through tariffs, disparagement of NATO and aggression towards allies like Canada and Denmark, the administration has alienated partners that long supported a US-led world order. Fusion will be a key element to become an energy superpower. (Wal van Lierop) China, meanwhile, has a tremendous lead in developing the economy of the future. It has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals, which are needed for electronics, renewable energy systems, defense technologies and more. China leads in solar, wind and batteries, the energy systems growing at the fastest rate. It is ahead in electric vehicles, industrial robotics and drones as well. It probably has achieved parity in artificial intelligence and may surpass the US soon. If China were to take Taiwan, it would control the global market for advanced chip manufacturing. In the background, but probably most importantly, China may be on track to commercialize fusion energy before the US or its disgruntled allies. Unlike the US, China has no domestic energy industry with vocal lobbyists (and purchasable politicians) to slow progress. It is funding fusion as a national strategy while private fusion companies in the West are at the mercy of investors that, for the most part, chase low risk and quick returns. Fusion promises cheap, plentiful, baseload energy without carbon emissions. AI, data centers and industrial robotics powered by fusion would produce goods and services at much lower costs than value chains dependent on fossil-fired electricity. Militaries built on swarms of small, cheap, electronic drones and robots—powered by small, distributed fusion facilities deep underground, safe from attack—would have an edge over competitors using large, expensive, petroleum-powered vehicles with vulnerable supply chains. I cannot overstate the ramifications of China developing fusion first. As an analogy, imagine if Japan and Germany had uncovered vast reserves of oil at home in the 1920s. American and Soviet oil gave the Allies a strategic advantage over the Axis powers. Had the situation been reversed, World War II could have ended differently. While private fusion companies in the West have raised about $8 billion total, China is investing at least $1.5 annually into fusion projects—double what the US government spends. Japanese and German investments in fusion don't even come close. Canada, for the record, has no fusion funding strategy. Moreover, the government of British Columbia, home of industry leader General Fusion, seems not to understand the value of this crown asset.* On all fronts nuclear, China is leaping ahead. In April, its scientists added fresh fuel to an operational thorium molten salt reactor—a first. The thorium reserves found in Inner Mongolia, an autonomous region of China, could theoretically meet Chinese energy demand for thousands of years. The kicker: this reactor design originated in the US. As project lead Xu Hongjie put it, 'The US left its research publicly available, waiting for the right successor. We were that successor." Moreover, in January, China's Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) sustained a fusion reaction for 1,066 seconds, setting a new record. Its Burning Plasma Experimental Superconducting Tokamak (BEST) fusion reactor could come online by 2027 and is expected to produce five times the amount of energy it consumes. When BEST announces this milestone, Western fusion companies may be announcing that they've run out of funding. To China, fusion is not a startup project—it's a matter of national interest and security. Its scientists are patenting more fusion-related technologies than any other single country and graduating more doctorates in fusion-related fields. And because China is the top refiner and exporter of the critical minerals needed in fusion reactors (e.g., for magnets), no external force is going to slow their progress. In the meantime, China has a cheap gas station next door—Russia—supplying all the fossil fuels China could need in exchange for support in its war with Ukraine. That support includes critical minerals needed by Russian arms manufacturers. Is fusion energy, along with other Chinese-dominated technologies, enough to end US hegemony? In 1988, historian Paul Kennedy published The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a book that tried to explain the relative success (and failure) of powerful states. According to Kennedy, their rise and fall '…shows a very significant correlation over the longer term between productive and revenue-raising capacities on the one hand and military strength on the other.' Essentially, states must balance economic prosperity with strategy. Technological breakthroughs are vital to both. Innovation creates wealth, which enables the state to invest in defense and win wars. While underinvestment in defense leaves the state vulnerable to other powers, overextension and overspending on defense can run an economy into the ground, leaving it unable to sustain a strong military. Now, picture a great power—China—with a military to rival the US and fusion reactors that provide virtually unlimited energy. Imagine the clout China would have in establishing ports, military bases and consumer markets around the world if it could license that fusion technology. A China that exceeds the US in energy, industry, intelligence, mobility and defense is positioned to usurp it. Of course, China could bungle its advantage. Authoritarian regimes have a habit of mismanaging internal dissent, falsifying reality and making preventable mistakes. The rise of China is inevitable, but the self-inflicted decline of the US and its allies isn't. Rather, it's a choice reflecting how societies invest their resources and envision their future. *Disclosure: The author is an investor in General Fusion and sits on its board of directors.

Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Chad responds to U.S. travel ban, suspends visas for American citizens
The government of Chad has announced the suspension of all visa issuance to American citizens, in a retaliatory move against the United States' decision to bar Chadian nationals from entering the country. The government of Chad has suspended visa issuance for American citizens in response to the U.S.' travel restrictions on Chadian nationals. President Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno called the U.S.' travel ban unjust and declared the suspension a matter of national pride and reciprocity. The African Union criticized the U.S. travel ban, and Chad's response may inspire similar actions from other affected nations. Chadian President Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno described U.S. President Donald Trump's travel ban as unjust and discriminatory, stating that Chad was compelled to respond in kind by introducing reciprocal visa restrictions on U.S. citizens. He framed the move as one of 'reciprocity' and a matter of national pride. In a statement posted on his official Facebook page (in French), President Déby declared: ' I instructed the government to act in accordance with the principles of reciprocity and suspend the issuance of visas to citizens of the United States of America.' 'Chad has no planes to offer, no billions of dollars to give but Chad has his dignity and pride.' The suspension reflects mounting frustration in the Central African nation over what it perceives as an arbitrary policy that unfairly targets Chadian citizens. While the practical impact on U.S. travelers may be limited, the symbolic weight of the decision signals a broader assertion of sovereignty and a demand for mutual respect in bilateral relations. US travel ban hits seven African nations The recent U.S. travel ban targets citizens from 12 countries, seven of them African, sparking criticism over its fairness and perceived political motivations. Among the African nations affected are Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia. In addition, a partial ban has been imposed on citizens from another group of countries—Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela—limiting entry under specific visa categories, particularly those related to temporary employment. Chad's swift and unequivocal response stands out as one of the most direct diplomatic pushbacks from the African continent. The country's suspension of visa issuance to American citizens signals rising frustration and could strain relations with Washington, especially in the area of regional counterterrorism cooperation, where Chad plays a pivotal role. While analysts note that the suspension is unlikely to significantly disrupt travel—given the relatively low number of U.S. visitors to Chad, the symbolic weight of the move is considerable. The African Union has also issued a formal statement rejecting President Donald Trump's decision to impose such sweeping restrictions on African countries.