John Allen provides a helpful perspective on Pope Francis’ upcoming visit to Vladimir Putin. Folks who associate Roman Catholicism with western civilization should take note:
During the long period when Christendom was coextensive with the West, papal diplomats thought largely in terms of which European dynasty offered the best bet for protecting the church’s interests. Later, when economic and cultural change began to knit the world together, the Vatican looked to major European powers as their natural allies. After World War II, Rome put most of its eggs in the basket of the nascent European Union.
Under John Paul II, much of that natural affinity shifted to the United States, in part because of the conviction that church/state separation in America is more congenial to religion, in part because of trends within the EU toward runaway secularism. That pro-American stance, however, was to some extent a marriage of convenience, since many in the Vatican regard the libertarian streak in American culture and the congregationalist impulse in American religion as poor fits for Catholic social ethics and ecclesiology.
With Francis, the Vatican may be positioned to step outside the Western box altogether, crafting partnerships and alliances à la carte based on the dynamics of specific situations.
To date, the most pointed political move by Francis on the global stage was his outspoken opposition to a military intervention in Syria, expressed among other things in the global day of prayer and fasting for peace he called Sept. 7. In that effort, Francis was on the same side as Putin, squaring off against the White House, the Palais de l’Élysée in France, and other symbols of Western power.
To be sure, nobody in Rome, least of all Francis, is likely to confuse Putin with a sort of Orthodox Robert Schuman, meaning a statesman whose policies are primarily shaped by Christian values. The shortcomings of his “managed democracy” vis-à-vis Catholic understandings of subsidiarity and human rights are all too clear.
Yet the point is that when Putin and other world figures look at Francis, they’re less inclined to see a Western leader, but rather the head of a global church with a predominantly non-Western following. When Francis looks at Putin, he’s not automatically inclined to suspicion because he’s not from the historic crucible of Christendom — because, of course, neither is the pope.
Old Life 
Well, according to my Roman friends, it’s just a matter of time before East and West are once again joined. Or, rather, the Orthodox admit their error during the Great Schism (which, for some reason, wasn’t as awful as the Reformation, surprise surprise) and “pledge fealty to Rome.”
Which sends my Russian Orthodox friends into a tizzy. Why would they “pledge fealty” to Rome, when they are the 3rd Rome (or the 4th Jerusalem, and the 5th Ur, if you’re counting).
LikeLike
Wait, my history-fu is weak. What’s the “2nd Rome”? (or 3rd Jerusalem, etc)
LikeLike
Seth, why would any Christian profess fealty to Rome. It was the Italians who killed Christ.
LikeLike
RubeRad, the 2nd Rome is Constantinople, at least according to the Russian Orthodox to whom I’ve spoken.
DGH, because Pope Peter was Italian, of course.
LikeLike
For the record, it should be known that writer John Allen and the National Catholic Reporter are only slightly more sympathetic to Catholic orthodoxy than is DG Hart or say, The New York Times.
Also for the record, the name of the church is the “Catholic Church.” “Roman” Catholic actually came into common use in the English language in the 1600s as a Protestant rhetorical tactic to delegitimize it.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2013/11/those-bloody-papists-even-term-roman.html
As we see, the polite form of Protestant address for Catholics is “bloody papists.”
____________________________
Yet the point is that when Putin and other world figures look at Francis, they’re less inclined to see a Western leader, but rather the head of a global church with a predominantly non-Western following.
Ah, a “global” church. I believe that’s how the Catholic Church conceives of itself, as opposed to a church of Scotland or England or the USA, etc., or “Greek,” Coptic,” Russian, Dutch, African, “Southern, ” whatnot.
To the ecclesiastical point, Darryl, this rather touches on Peter Leithart’s recent argument, that like the Eastern Orthodox who are in full communion with “the Romish,” “Protestants” can consider themselves part of the same catholic/global/universal church.
If the Bishop of Rome wants to think he’s in charge, hell, let him. Talk him down off the infallibility trip. Because like it or not, he holds the reins of the only true global church of over a billion souls. Deny he’s a “pope,” but you can’t deny he’s the biggest bishop. 500 years of the Reformation has not taken over the reins–nor will it ever, since Protestants battle each other almost as much as they disdain Rome.
[Even his friends would rather lock Darryl G. Hart in a room with Calvinist tiger Tim Bayly than Catholic pussycat Pope Francis, let’s face it.]
So the irony here–or as the Catholic Church would argue, to judge it by its fruits–is that as Christianity meets the 21st century and becomes more than just Europe’s religion, it’s the “Roman” church that’s once again the one that’s truly global, universal.
To close the circle on your post here, D, Catholic watchers are aware of the Marian prophesy to pray for the conversion of Russia per Fatima, which Francis appears to have recently embraced. Not a Marianist meself, but to decree that Fatima was mere delusion is a certain claim to infallibility itself…
LikeLike
Ruberad,
The idea is, after the first Rome fell to the barbarians, Constantinople became the center of the [Eastern Orthodox] Church. After Constantinople fell to the Turks, Moscow became the center of the [Russian Orthodox] Church. It’s a little Russo-centric, but if you’re looking for an Eastern-Orthodox Empire, Russia’s certainly the best candidate since 1453.
LikeLike
Oh come on Tom. You’re being way too modest. You’re the truly global one here.
LikeLike
@Tom
Depending on how you count we are 1 or 2 generations away from Pentecostals being larger than Roman Catholics. They are also just as global. So yes Protestants are pretty close to taking the reins.
Francis is running a church with a deeply disgruntled membership that in huge numbers is refusing even the minimal participation of having their children baptized in the church. The last few popes have been of the right and didn’t care (meaningfully) about the degree of anger from the peons. Francis does and Francis is trying to fix it. Even if he is successful though the die may already be cast. Demographics is destiny.
LikeLike
Thx, Seth/Eric. Always good to get a little history lesson.
LikeLike
Just an observation: Maybe the Greeks would be willing to embrace a Marian prophecy, but to say the Russian Orthodox would, let alone a Marian visitation from the Iberian peninsula? Spain or Portugal, many Russian Orthodox associate the Iberian peninsula with the Inquisition. Think The Grand Inquisitor from The Brothers Karamazov.
Plus, the Russians may be a little more picky than Rome regarding practice of liturgy, given that the biggest controversy in Russian Orthodoxy was based around whether to cross themselves with three fingers or two…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Believers
LikeLike
I commend him for his stance on the Syria situation.
LikeLike
I commend him for his stance on the Syria situation. At least someone is sticking up for Christians.
LikeLike