Leo XIV in Metz
After reviewing press coverage of the Pope’s visit to France, let’s take a closer look at the speech on Europe delivered in Metz by Pope Leo XIV at the end of his trip to France. Leo XIV shares a vision and has his own method: to this end, he employs a unique rhetorical strategy that consists of criticizing leaders such as Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump without ever mentioning their names. We will attempt to decipher how the Supreme Pontiff defends international law and multilateralism in the face of rising global barbarism. Finally, it is clear that the contrast between the opposing visions of two major American figures—the head of the Church and the head of state—is striking.
Why this method, specifically, and why now?

One might see this as a basic diplomatic choice—a head of state of the Holy See who must continue to speak to everyone, including those with whom he disagrees, has no interest in slamming doors by naming his targets. But that would be to reduce Leo XIV to a mere exercise in prudence, whereas the approach also has theological coherence: criticizing the act without excommunicating the person, naming the sin without judging the sinner, always leaving the door open to repentance rather than to a rupture. This is an old tradition of the Church, one that this American pope seems to have fully incorporated into his style, whereas others before him sometimes succumbed to invective.

Not everyone, however, sees it the same way. Fabienne Keller, a Renaissance member of the European Parliament, praises the speech but refuses to accept part of it: “I don’t think we are currently in an [arms race]. Rather, we are in a situation where we need to catch up. […] Europe must regain sufficient defense capabilities to guarantee its sovereignty.” She also defends France’s nuclear deterrent, contrary to the pope’s position. This is a useful reminder: the “Leo XIV” approach, however skillful it may be, does not necessarily win support on the substance—even among the most committed Europeans.

There may be a third interpretation, one that is more uncomfortable for his European readers: by naming no one, the Pope also refuses to take sides between Washington and Moscow, which is not the same as refusing to pass judgment. The right he invokes, the lie he denounces, the barbarity he observes: these are criteria, not proper names, and that is perhaps precisely what makes them applicable to both equally, without distinction of degree. This interpretation will do little to satisfy those in Europe who would like him to issue a clearer condemnation of one side over the other.

Still, the message was heard on both sides: a White House protesting a single sentence about the instrumentalization of God, a columnist for Le Figaro who himself names what the pope is suggesting. In short, no one needed to have the target pointed out to them.