Pope Francis died on Easter Monday, 21 April 2025, at the age of 88, leaving behind a complex legacy regarding his stance on Russia’s war against Ukraine.
From his early reluctance to name Russia as the aggressor, to suggesting in 2022 that “NATO’s barking at Russia’s door” may have provoked the invasion, to praising “the great Russia of Peter I and Catherine II” when addressing Russian youth in 2023, to calling for “peace” negotiations while failing to call on Russia to withdraw its troops, Francis’s public messaging frequently frustrated Ukrainians seeking unambiguous condemnation of Russian aggression.
At the same time, his pontificate was marked by humanitarian efforts, including Vatican involvement in prisoner exchanges, Cardinal Krajewski’s dangerous missions to Ukraine’s frontlines, and Francis’s own emotional displays—kissing the Ukrainian flag, meeting with children displaced by war, and describing Mariupol as a “martyred city.”
This contradictory approach reflected Francis’s attempt to balance Vatican diplomatic tradition—shaped during the Cold War when the Holy See sought to maintain communication channels with the Soviet Union—with his genuine empathy for Ukrainian suffering.
While he occasionally broke from diplomatic protocol, most notably by labeling Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill as “Putin’s altar boy,” Francis largely adhered to the Vatican’s long-established practice of condemning violence and human rights violations without directly naming perpetrators.
This tension between private compassion and public ambiguity defined his legacy as a pontiff who, in the words of Orthodox theologian Father Cyril Hovorun, was “on the right side of history” yet “not explicitly pro-Ukraine always in the way that we want him to be.”
Euromaidan Press: Pope Francis has ended his journey on this earth, and it’s time to rethink his legacy regarding Ukraine. Though he led initiatives behind the scenes to help Ukraine, in his official statements, he avoided naming Russia as the aggressor for a long time, which felt like a betrayal to many Ukrainians. What were the real reasons behind this reluctance?
Cyril Hovorun: It will take a long time to properly evaluate his figure, his actions, and inactions. We can see how Ukrainians are reacting to his death right now – the reactions are mixed.
- On one hand, Pope Francis clearly solidarized himself with the Ukrainian people and was one of the few global religious leaders outspoken about the war and clear about who the victim was.
- AT the same time, he wasn’t as clear about who was the aggressor, which Ukrainians didn’t appreciate.
His ambivalent standpoint reflects Vatican diplomatic tradition, which condemns violence and human rights violations but hesitates to name perpetrators. This tradition is, in my view, ambiguous and doesn’t align with the Church’s prophetic calling.
The Church should have prophetic voices, and we know from the Old Testament that the prophets not just stood with the victims—they also condemned explicitly the perpetrators. In this sense, Vatican diplomacy is not prophetic at all, and the late Pope concurred with this line of Vatican diplomacy, with some exceptions, though.
Vatican diplomacy is not prophetic at all, and the late Pope concurred with this line.
Pope Francis occasionally stepped outside this tradition — like when he called Patriarch Kirill “Putin’s altar boy,” which was ultimately undiplomatic and deeply upset the Russian patriarch. That’s why I’ve seen words of condolences coming from President Putin, but I haven’t seen condolences from Patriarch Kirill yet.
Russian Patriarch Kirill is really upset because of that phrase from Pope Francis, which will probably stay with the Patriarch after his death, if not for centuries.
So while he generally followed diplomatic traditions, he sometimes went beyond them. He was undoubtedly pro-Ukrainian and on the right side of history, even if not explicitly so in the way Ukrainians wanted.
So Pope Francis concurred with diplomatic traditions, but at the same time, sometimes went beyond them. He was indeed a complicated and, for some, controversial figure. In the words of Apostle Paul, who “tried to be everything for everyone to save at least someone,” Pope Francis tried to be everything for everyone. Not everyone was happy about that.
Ukrainians were not particularly happy about Pope Francis not naming the perpetrator, but at the same time, I believe he was on the Ukrainian side. He was on the right side of history. He was undoubtedly pro-Ukrainian, even though he was not always explicitly pro-Ukraine in the way that we would want him to be.
EP: What about the Vatican’s approach to diplomacy in cases of blatant aggression? Is it outdated?
Cyril Hovorun: I personally find this approach unevangelical, unchristian, and unprophetic.
Its roots trace to the Cold War when the Vatican avoided confronting the Soviet Union. Even earlier, the Holy See tried to establish relationships, even a concordat with the Soviet Union during the worst persecutions against the Church in the 1930s.
We see similar policies toward China today [which is rife with religious persecution, e.g., against Catholics, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong practitioners, and suppression in Hong Kong – ed.]. There, Pope Francis faced criticism from the Cardinal of Hong Kong for dealing with a government hostile to Catholics.
In this sense, Pope Francis was quite consistent with Vatican diplomacy, although in contrast to China, where he did not condemn or judge the government, he sometimes ridiculed the Russian authorities.
Frankly, I believe this approach is outdated and simply wrong, but it is what it is. Pope Francis was a part of this machinery, but worked within the system while trying to reform it, and to some extent, he succeeded in reforming the central administration of the Catholic Church. He reshaped the Roman Curia and enhanced “synodality” – an Orthodox concept where decisions are taken collegially rather than unilaterally.
Frankly, Vatican diplomacy is outdated and simply wrong. Pope Francis was a part of this machinery, although he tried to reform it.
Despite being Pope with unilateral authority, he preferred consulting various ecclesial bodies, bringing bishops from around the world to Rome each October to discuss Church issues. This important reform deserves recognition.
EP: You mentioned how the Vatican’s diplomacy was shaped by the 20th century and interactions in the Cold War. Are there historical examples showing how the Vatican could respond to one-sided aggression?
Cyril Hovorun: Yes, especially during both World Wars.
In World War I , the Vatican led an aggressive ideological campaign against what they called “liberalism.” The Catholic Church pursued a clearly political agenda, and from the perspective of our times, that was an impermissible politicization.
In World War II , the Vatican was condemned for silence about the Holocaust despite knowing about Nazi atrocities.
We now know from documents that have been made public that the Vatican was well aware of them, yet they kept silent when they could have spoken, with only a few exceptions when some church hierarchs hinted at or implied the Nazi atrocities without explicitly speaking about them. The Catholic Church, to a great extent, was complicit in many wrong deeds of that time.
The Vatican was well aware of the Holocaust and Nazi atrocities, yet they kept silent when they could have spoken.
The Holy See is also accused for collaborating with fascist regimes, signing the so-called Lateran Treaty with Mussolini and supporting right-wing dictatorships across Europe, particularly in Croatia and Hungary.
The 20th century is full of such bad examples of wrong cooperation between the Catholic Church and states.
After Vatican II (1965), policies changed dramatically, though not completely. The Church was still accused of collaborating with Latin American dictatorships and complicity in Rwanda’s genocide.
Pope Francis himself could be complicit in the disappearance of Catholic priests during the “dirty war” in Argentina. Then, the Church, on the one hand, collaborated with the right-wing dictatorship of Perón and, on the other hand, turned a blind eye to some of the regime’s crimes. Pope Francis was active in Argentina at that time, and that is one of the blind spots in his biography.
Yet as Pope, he reconciled with these mistakes, publicly apologizing for the Church’s role in Rwanda’s genocide, and other things that happened in the Catholic Church’s recent past. Under his pontificate, the Church underwent a catharsis, a repentance for past mistakes – something I wish Orthodox churches, especially the Russian Church, would emulate.
Under Pope Francis, the Catholic Church underwent a kind of catharsis, a repetance past mistakes.
Pope Francis has set a very good example for future church leaders on how to acknowledge the mistakes of their own churches, and I hope this example will be followed.
EP: Are there any positive examples of the Church reacting to evil political regimes?
Cyril Hovorun: Beyond acknowledging past mistakes, a recent example is the Holy See’s reaction to the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The Holy See published a letter explicitly warning about some extremes of these policies, and unofficially, I think the reactions were even stronger.
I’m certain that when President Vance visited recently, they discussed US immigration policies. This shows how the Church can be a prophetic voice against governmental wrongdoing.
EP: Pope Francis fell short of suggesting that Ukrainians turn the other cheek to Russian aggression, but many in Ukraine viewed statements like his comment about “raising the white flag” as synonymous. What should the proper Christian response to evil be in our world today?
Cyril Hovorun: Turning the cheek was Jesus’s commandment, not the Pope’s invention. I think empathy was Francis’s strength and also his limitation, because empathy has its limits. When you don’t suffer yourself, your understanding differs from firsthand experience.
No one except Ukrainians can truly understand what they’re experiencing. Western statements of solidarity have limitations – but that’s better than no empathy at all. Some US officials have suggested empathy itself is like a plague in Western civilization, which is far more concerning than the limited empathy Pope Francis demonstrated.
While we Ukrainians have experienced what others haven’t, we should understand others’ limitations and not demand what they can’t give simply because they haven’t walked in our shoes.
“Capitulation is not peace”: Stoltenberg counters Pope’s remarks; more leaders critique Pontiff’s call for Ukraine’s surrender (updated)
EP: What approach will Francis’s successor likely take?
Cyril Hovorun: It depends entirely on who succeeds him. There’s a saying: “whoever enters the Sistine Chapel as a Pope exits it as a cardinal,” so predictions are just speculation.
All potential candidates share empathy for Ukrainians and understand their suffering – I don’t see anyone comparable to Elon Musk regarding Ukraine among them. After all, they are Christians, and they have this common denominator of sympathizing with the victims of war and aggression.
There will be variations – some might lean more toward Russia, others toward the US, others might follow Francis’s focus on the Global South, because Pope Francis came from the Global South, understood it, and aligned his policies with it.
There will be nuances regarding Ukraine, but the variations will not be terrible for Ukraine, I believe, because the common denominator will be more or less in line, not very far from Pope Francis’s position.
But regarding Ukraine, the differences won’t be dramatic, as the common denominator won’t stray far from Francis’s position.
EP: What would you like to wish the next Pontiff, whoever he may be?
Cyril Hovorun: Well, who am I to wish? To follow not the calculations of policies or diplomacy, but the commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the most basic thing. That was what Pope Francis tried to implement and incarnate in his life and words, and I think if the next Pontiff continues this line, it will be a blessing for everyone.
Euromaidan Press: Thank you, Father Cyril.
