Pope Leo XIV Leads First Easter Mass, Calls for End to Indifference Toward War

On Easter Sunday, Pope Leo XIV stood before more than 50,000 people in St. Peter's Square and delivered a message aimed at a world he said was "growing accustomed to violence, resigning ourselves to it and becoming indifferent" [1]. The first American-born pope quoted his predecessor's dying words, called on those with the power to start wars to choose peace instead, and conspicuously declined to name any of the conflicts he was addressing [2]. The speech raises a question that the Vatican has struggled with for decades: when moral authority meets geopolitical reality, does papal rhetoric change anything — and for whom?

What Leo XIV Said

In his first Easter Urbi et Orbi blessing — the traditional papal address "to the city and to the world" — Leo XIV called on the faithful to "abandon every desire for conflict, domination and power" and implored "the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars and marked by a hatred and indifference that make us feel powerless in the face of evil" [1].

The Pope quoted directly from Pope Francis' final public remarks, delivered from the same balcony roughly a year earlier: "What a great thirst for death, for killing, we witness each day in the many conflicts raging in different parts of the world!" [3]. He invoked Francis' phrase about a "globalization of indifference" — a term the late pope had used since 2013 to describe a world that watches suffering on screens without acting [4].

Leo's central demand was direct: "Let those who have weapons lay them down. Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace. Not a peace imposed by force, but through dialogue. Not with the desire to dominate others, but to encounter them" [1].

What he did not do was name any specific conflict. This marked a departure from his own Christmas Urbi et Orbi, which had listed conflicts by name, and from the established pattern under Francis and Benedict XVI [2]. The Vatican offered no immediate explanation for the shift.

Invoking a Predecessor's Dying Words

Leo XIV's decision to quote Francis' last public remarks so prominently — less than a year into his own papacy — is unusual. Popes regularly cite predecessors in encyclicals and formal documents. But weaving a recently deceased pope's final words into a major liturgical address functions differently: it borrows emotional weight, signals continuity, and constrains the speaker's room to maneuver.

Robert Francis Prevost, a Chicago-born Augustinian who spent decades ministering in Peru before becoming Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, was elected on May 8, 2025, on the fourth ballot [5]. He chose the name Leo XIV — a name associated with the 19th-century pope who issued Rerum Novarum, the foundational Catholic social teaching document. By pairing that lineage with Francis' language about indifference, Leo positions himself within a specific doctrinal tradition: one that emphasizes social justice and the structural causes of suffering.

Whether this constrains his independence remains to be seen. Ukrainian Catholic leaders, who clashed with Francis over his reluctance to name Russia as an aggressor, have expressed cautious optimism about Leo. Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church has said the new pope "gave us hope" by more clearly identifying "who is the victim, who is the aggressor" in earlier statements [6]. Whether Easter's conspicuous lack of named conflicts represents a reversal or a contextual choice is an open question.

A World at War

The backdrop to Leo's address is a global conflict landscape at levels not seen in decades. As of March 2026, conflict monitors track 46 active armed conflicts worldwide [7]. The ICRC reports operational engagement in more than 100 armed conflicts [8]. ACLED recorded over 204,000 conflict events and more than 240,000 deaths in the year through November 2025 [7].

Source: SIPRI

Data as of Mar 1, 2026CSV

The number of concurrent state-based armed conflicts has risen sharply since 2020, driven by the wars in Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, and the Middle East regional conflict involving Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and now Iran — where U.S. and Israeli forces launched operations on February 28, 2026 [7]. The deadliest ongoing conflicts include the Myanmar Civil War, the Sudan Civil War, the wars in the DRC, the Sahel insurgency, and the Russo-Ukrainian War [7].

This human toll is reflected in refugee numbers. UNHCR data shows Syria, Ukraine, and Afghanistan each producing over 4.7 million refugees, with Sudan at 2.5 million and South Sudan at 2.4 million [9].

Source: Uppsala Conflict Data Program / ICRC

Data as of Mar 1, 2026CSV

Easter in Three Cities: Rome, Jerusalem, Tehran

Leo's call for universal peace lands differently depending on where a Christian heard it.

Jerusalem: Israeli authorities barred Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, from entering the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for Palm Sunday Mass — the first such incident "in centuries," according to church officials [10]. Israeli police cited security concerns related to the ongoing war with Iran, stating the Old City's narrow streets posed evacuation risks [11]. After international backlash — Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni called the incident "an offense not only against believers but against every community that recognizes religious freedom" — a limited agreement was reached to allow small groups and broadcast ceremonies for Easter [12]. Cardinal Pizzaballa had said "all the celebrations" had been cancelled in the preceding month to comply with military restrictions [10]. The Christian Quarter was largely deserted, with businesses shuttered [13].

Gaza: Palestinian Christians reported a measure of relief following a ceasefire after nearly three years of conflict, though their community has been devastated. Christianity Today reported that Palestinian Christians were preparing for Easter amid continuing settler violence in the West Bank [14].

Tehran: At the Armenian St. Sarkis Cathedral, families embraced and children exchanged painted Easter eggs five weeks into a war that has brought daily airstrikes to Iran's capital [15]. Iran is home to approximately 300,000 Christians, mostly ethnic Armenians [15]. Their worship continued under conditions no Roman congregation faces.

The contrast illustrates the gap between a universal peace message delivered from a balcony in Rome and the specific political conditions that determine whether Christians can physically access their own holy sites.

The Vatican's Material Response: Beyond Rhetoric

The Catholic Church's engagement with war extends beyond papal speeches, though the scale of that engagement relative to the scope of global conflict is a subject of debate.

Peter's Pence: The Vatican's main charitable fund collected €58 million in 2024, a €6 million increase over 2023. Of €75.4 million in expenditures, €13.3 million went to 239 aid projects for populations affected by poverty and war, while €61.2 million supported Vatican institutional operations [16]. The fund has faced scrutiny for decades over the gap between donors' expectations — that their money goes to the poor — and the reality that most funds cover the Holy See's operating budget [17].

Catholic Relief Services: CRS, the U.S. bishops' overseas aid agency, entered 2025 with a $1.5 billion budget, roughly half funded by USAID. It reached 198 million people in 134 countries in fiscal year 2024 [18]. But the Trump administration's cuts to foreign aid have reduced CRS funding by an estimated 62% as of March 2025, forcing staff layoffs and program cuts in conflict zones including Ukraine, where CRS had directed €14.1 million through Caritas Ukraine in 2022 [19].

Investment policy: In July 2022, the Vatican formally banned its offices from investing in the defense and weapons industry, part of broader ethical investment reforms under Francis. Pope Francis called investing in arms manufacturing "madness" in January 2025 [20]. Before those reforms, the Vatican had reportedly invested in companies whose products conflicted with Catholic teaching [21]. The current policy is administered through the Administration of the Patrimony of the Apostolic See (APSA), with oversight by an Investment Committee chaired by Cardinal Kevin Farrell [21].

The Vatican has not, however, called for weapons embargoes or sanctions against specific belligerents. Its appeals have remained at the level of general exhortation rather than targeted policy demands.

The Arms Trade Behind the Indifference

When Leo XIV denounces "indifference" to war, the structural backdrop complicates the framing. Global arms transfers rose 9.2% between 2016-2020 and 2021-2025, according to SIPRI [22]. The United States accounted for 42% of all international arms transfers in 2021-2025, up from 36% in the previous five-year period — a 27% increase in total volume [22]. European states tripled their arms imports, making Europe the largest recipient region [22].

The U.S. defense budget for 2025-2026 stands at approximately $886 billion [22]. Russia's defense spending has risen to an estimated $110-120 billion amid its war in Ukraine [22]. These figures represent policy choices driven by security alliances, energy dependencies, domestic defense industry employment, and threat perceptions — forces that do not respond to moral exhortation regardless of its source.

This is the structural reality that Leo's framing of "indifference" can obscure. The countries selling weapons are not indifferent to war; many are actively invested in it. The arms industry employs millions of workers in politically significant districts across the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK. Security treaties like NATO create binding mutual defense obligations. Energy dependencies — particularly Europe's relationship with Russian gas, now partly severed — shape which conflicts states can afford to oppose and which they cannot.

The Pope's framing targets a moral failure of will. Critics argue the problem is better described as a structural alignment of incentives that makes continued arms production and selective military engagement rational for the states involved, regardless of their citizens' moral sentiments.

The Aggressor-Defender Problem

The sharpest critique of papal peace messaging comes from those who argue that calling for peace without distinguishing between aggressor and defender functionally benefits the party committing territorial conquest.

This argument was made most forcefully by Ukrainian Catholic leaders during Francis' papacy. Major Archbishop Sviatoslav stated that "the truth, which is essential for reconciliation or stopping the war, is that Ukraine is a victim of this aggression and the Russian occupier is a criminal, and that it is impossible to put and protect their interests on the same level" [6]. When Francis suggested in 2024 that Ukraine should have the "courage" to negotiate, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church responded that Ukrainians "cannot stop defending themselves, because capitulation means their death" [23].

The underlying logic is straightforward: if a ceasefire freezes current battle lines, the aggressor keeps conquered territory. A blanket call for peace, absent any demand for withdrawal or restitution, effectively endorses the status quo ante — which, in Ukraine's case, means Russia retaining occupied land.

Leo XIV has shown signs of departing from Francis' approach. Ukrainian religious leaders have said the new pope more clearly identifies victims and aggressors [6]. But his Easter message reverted to the general — no named conflicts, no named aggressors, no distinction between the parties to any war. Whether this reflects diplomatic caution, theological principle, or the constraints of addressing multiple conflicts simultaneously is a matter of interpretation.

The steelman case for the Vatican's generalized approach: naming specific aggressors transforms the pope from a universal moral voice into a geopolitical actor, potentially closing off diplomatic channels and alienating Catholic populations within aggressor states. The Catholic Church has roughly 4.7 million members in Russia and millions more in China and other states the West considers adversaries. Explicit condemnation risks those communities' safety. The counterargument: moral neutrality in the face of clear aggression is itself a political act, and one that historically has served the stronger party.

Historical Effectiveness of Papal Peace Appeals

The Vatican's track record in influencing conflict outcomes through public appeals is mixed at best.

Pope John Paul II opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. The invasion proceeded. Francis called the Ukraine war "absurd and cruel" and dispatched Cardinal Matteo Zuppi as a special peace envoy [24]. The war continued into its fourth year. Francis made a pastoral visit to Iraq in 2021 — the country subsequently established a National Day of Peace — but the sectarian and militia violence that followed the U.S. invasion had long since reshaped the country [25].

The Holy See's diplomatic influence operates less through direct impact on state behavior and more through what scholars describe as "humanizing conflicts and offering moral incentives for dialogue" [25]. The Vatican maintains diplomatic relations with 183 states and permanent observer status at the United Nations. It has historically played mediation roles — notably in the 1978 Beagle Channel dispute between Argentina and Chile, and in the 2014 U.S.-Cuba diplomatic reopening.

But on major interstate wars, the pattern is consistent: papal statements generate news coverage and express moral positions without measurably altering military decision-making. The Nordic Defence Review concluded that the Holy See's strategic role is "not as a decision-maker in war plans, but as a persistent advocate for peace" [25] — an assessment that describes influence without demonstrating impact.

Who Is Indifferent?

Leo XIV's target audience for the charge of "indifference" is deliberately ambiguous. The term could apply to:

• Western governments that continue arms exports while calling for peace
• International institutions that have failed to enforce existing norms against aggression
• Ordinary citizens who watch conflicts on screens without political mobilization
• Arms industry stakeholders whose financial interests align with continued conflict

The ambiguity may be strategic — a specific accusation would alienate some audience while rallying others. But it also risks diffusing responsibility so broadly that no one feels addressed.

The "globalization of indifference" framework, borrowed from Francis, is a moral diagnosis. Whether it is an accurate one depends on definition. Public opinion polls in Western democracies consistently show majority support for Ukraine and opposition to Russia's invasion. European defense spending has surged. Humanitarian donations to conflict zones, while insufficient, have not collapsed. If indifference means a failure to feel, the evidence is ambiguous. If it means a failure to act effectively, the charge lands harder — but the causes are structural, not primarily moral.

What Comes Next

Leo XIV's first Easter message establishes a template but not a policy. The Pope called for dialogue over force, quoted his predecessor's warnings about the normalization of violence, and addressed a global audience that includes Christians worshipping under airstrikes in Tehran, behind military restrictions in Jerusalem, and amid the aftermath of war in Gaza.

The address contained no specific policy demands — no call for embargoes, sanctions, or diplomatic initiatives. Days earlier, Leo had publicly called on the Trump administration to find "an off-ramp" to the Iran war [26], suggesting he is willing to name specific actors and situations outside the formal Urbi et Orbi framework.

The question that will define Leo XIV's papacy on matters of war and peace is whether he moves beyond the inherited language of moral exhortation toward the kind of specific, sustained diplomatic engagement — naming aggressors, demanding withdrawal, supporting targeted sanctions — that might carry material consequences. The Vatican's moral authority is widely acknowledged. Its translation into changed outcomes on the ground remains the institution's most persistent challenge.

Source: UNHCR Population Data

Data as of Dec 31, 2025CSV