One Year of Leo XIV: Back to the Substance of Faith
By Richard Meusers von Wissmannfor Die WeltMay 7, 2026
Pope Leo XIV has now been in office for one year. He is less interested in the socio-political hot-button issues of the West. Instead, his focus is on the unity of the Church and the proclamation of the Gospel.
“If I weren’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” With this twist, Donald Trump tried in April to pull the election of Pope Leo XIV into his own political orbit. In doing so, he unintentionally provided the perfect introduction to the misunderstanding that has accompanied this pontificate from the beginning. The idea that Leo is a kind of ecclesiastical counterweight to the erratic US president is by no means limited to Trump. Large parts of the media public had also pigeonholed the new pope exactly that way: as an anti-Trump in white robes.
From a Catholic perspective, the election of a pope is not a geopolitical reflex, but — according to its self-understanding — a spiritual process: the College of Cardinals decides under the guidance of the Holy Spirit on the successor of Peter. The thesis that Leo XIV is primarily a tactical response to the political situation in the USA may therefore fall short.
The real achievement of this first year of the pontificate is this: Leo consistently evades the usual attributions. Unlike his predecessor, he does not seek polarization, neither as a stylistic device nor as a substantive strategy. Francis had ultimately managed to irritate both conservative tradition-minded people and progressive reform Catholics equally. Leo is taking a different path. He listens, weighs, and integrates. That may sound unspectacular, but in a Church that in recent years has increasingly worn itself down along ideological fault lines, it represents a remarkable change of course.
For some, this may be an expression of arbitrariness. But Leo does not understand the papal office as a political leadership position with a moral mission consciousness toward the world; he sees it as a spiritual pastoral office with a clear mandate: the proclamation of Jesus Christ. Not as a pious platitude, but as a programmatic rejection of the politicization of the papacy. Even as a cardinal, he soberly formulated what for him constitutes the core of the office: “A bishop must have many abilities. He must know how to govern, how to administer, how to organize, and how to deal with people. But if I were to highlight one quality above all others, it would be that he must proclaim Jesus Christ.”
That Leo, in his first appearance on St. Peter’s Square, called out to the faithful the blessing words of Jesus, “Peace be with you,” was therefore not a liturgical routine. It was a headline. Anyone who reads it only as a general peace message misses the context: peace, in the Christian understanding, is more than the result of diplomatic processes — not a political category, but a theological one. It is the fruit of reconciliation with God.
His coat of arms motto puts it in concise form: “In the One we are one.” This is not an appeal to social diversity politics; it is a reference to unity in Christ. This becomes particularly clear in the handling of internal church conflicts. Francis often opened new front lines through pointed interventions; Leo strives to overcome existing divides. His handling of the liturgy dispute is exemplary in this regard. Leo’s predecessor had disciplinarily pressured the followers of the Old Mass again more strongly after the thaw under Benedict XVI. In contrast, Leo called on the French bishops in March 2026 to “generously include them.” This is more than a pastorally motivated compromise; it is an attempt to heal a division that had been deepened by one-sided church policy.
Restraint and Clarity
In doing so, Leo does not try to play one side against the other. He is not carrying out a “correction” of his predecessor in the sense of a conservative rollback. Leo simply moderates the conflict again after his clarification. He brings it back into the context of the actually significant questions, and those are — hardly surprisingly for a pope — first and foremost theological: Does it serve the unity of the Church, whose task is the proclamation of the Good News?
The decisive point in the first year of this pontificate lies not in spectacular decisions, but in the way Leo XIV contains conflicts. This is particularly evident where political expectations are strongest, for example in questions of war and peace. Western media like to cast him in the role of a moral counter-voice to American foreign policy, but Leo acts according to different priorities.
This pattern of restraint at the top and clarity in teaching also runs through the handling of internal church disputes. This becomes particularly clear in the debate over the blessing of homosexual partnerships. Here, Leo has drawn a line that is as clear as it is unspectacular: formal blessings remain impermissible; at the same time, no one is excluded from the general blessing.
In Germany in particular, this differentiation encounters resistance. Parts of the episcopate, such as Cardinal Marx of Munich, continue to publish guidelines for blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples and thus enter into open contradiction with Rome. Leo reacts to this in a remarkably sober manner: he avoids any escalation or public reprimand, but at the same time explicitly confirms the existing teaching.How Leo shifts the weighting in the process is no less revealing. In Western European debates, moral-theological questions — especially those of sexual ethics — are often elevated to the decisive issues par excellence. For the pope, they stand in a larger context: “We tend to believe that in the Church, moral questions are exclusively about sexuality. But in reality, in my view, there are much more important issues such as justice, equality, the freedom of man and woman, and religious freedom, all of which take precedence over this particular question.” Leo holds to an inclusive practice of blessing for the faithful who “are all welcome, all invited to follow Jesus.” That they are also, according to Leo, “invited to strive for conversion in their lives” was almost consistently ignored by German media.
It is precisely in Leo’s clarity that the break with the expectations of many observers lies. He is not pursuing a church-political agenda in the sense of a “reform project” or a “rollback.” He deprives the conflicts of the symbolic exaggeration on which both progressive and conservative camps thrive, and at the same time refuses the permanent culture war. This also applies to all attempts to make the pope an actor in the geopolitical game of the powers. For Leo, peace is not an instrument of international order policy, but a theological imperative.
The Church Is Not an NGO with Incense
This also explains the sharpest counter-criticism of this pontificate: the accusation of naivety, for example with regard to Islam or international conflicts. Those who rely on deterrence and power balance will have little use for Leo’s pacifism. And indeed: as concrete instructions for action, this attitude is hardly suitable. But that is also not its purpose. Leo does not formulate a foreign policy master plan, but reminds of normative boundaries precisely where politics oversteps them.
The real point of this pontificate therefore lies in its setting of priorities: Leo is less interested in the major socio-political hot-button issues of the West; his concern is the unity of the Church and the proclamation of the Gospel, which is the same in Europe as in Africa. He pulls the plug, so to speak, on the overinflated balloon of ideologies.
For German functionary Catholics who would prefer the Church to be understood as a socio-political actor — essentially as an NGO with incense — this is an unexpected imposition. For Leo shifts the axis: away from symbolic politics and toward the substance of faith. Of course, anyone who wants to can debate extensively about diversity, climate fasting, or women’s ordination. But that does not define the core of the Church.
Or more simply: While parts of the Church are still arguing about which flag should fly on the church tower, Leo XIV is reminding us why a church tower is there in the first place at all.
Richard Meusers von Wissmann (b. 1965) studied Catholic theology in Bonn and Rome.
[source, in German]
Pope Leo XIV has now been in office for one year. He is less interested in the socio-political hot-button issues of the West. Instead, his focus is on the unity of the Church and the proclamation of the Gospel.
“If I weren’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” With this twist, Donald Trump tried in April to pull the election of Pope Leo XIV into his own political orbit. In doing so, he unintentionally provided the perfect introduction to the misunderstanding that has accompanied this pontificate from the beginning. The idea that Leo is a kind of ecclesiastical counterweight to the erratic US president is by no means limited to Trump. Large parts of the media public had also pigeonholed the new pope exactly that way: as an anti-Trump in white robes.
From a Catholic perspective, the election of a pope is not a geopolitical reflex, but — according to its self-understanding — a spiritual process: the College of Cardinals decides under the guidance of the Holy Spirit on the successor of Peter. The thesis that Leo XIV is primarily a tactical response to the political situation in the USA may therefore fall short.
The real achievement of this first year of the pontificate is this: Leo consistently evades the usual attributions. Unlike his predecessor, he does not seek polarization, neither as a stylistic device nor as a substantive strategy. Francis had ultimately managed to irritate both conservative tradition-minded people and progressive reform Catholics equally. Leo is taking a different path. He listens, weighs, and integrates. That may sound unspectacular, but in a Church that in recent years has increasingly worn itself down along ideological fault lines, it represents a remarkable change of course.
For some, this may be an expression of arbitrariness. But Leo does not understand the papal office as a political leadership position with a moral mission consciousness toward the world; he sees it as a spiritual pastoral office with a clear mandate: the proclamation of Jesus Christ. Not as a pious platitude, but as a programmatic rejection of the politicization of the papacy. Even as a cardinal, he soberly formulated what for him constitutes the core of the office: “A bishop must have many abilities. He must know how to govern, how to administer, how to organize, and how to deal with people. But if I were to highlight one quality above all others, it would be that he must proclaim Jesus Christ.”
That Leo, in his first appearance on St. Peter’s Square, called out to the faithful the blessing words of Jesus, “Peace be with you,” was therefore not a liturgical routine. It was a headline. Anyone who reads it only as a general peace message misses the context: peace, in the Christian understanding, is more than the result of diplomatic processes — not a political category, but a theological one. It is the fruit of reconciliation with God.
His coat of arms motto puts it in concise form: “In the One we are one.” This is not an appeal to social diversity politics; it is a reference to unity in Christ. This becomes particularly clear in the handling of internal church conflicts. Francis often opened new front lines through pointed interventions; Leo strives to overcome existing divides. His handling of the liturgy dispute is exemplary in this regard. Leo’s predecessor had disciplinarily pressured the followers of the Old Mass again more strongly after the thaw under Benedict XVI. In contrast, Leo called on the French bishops in March 2026 to “generously include them.” This is more than a pastorally motivated compromise; it is an attempt to heal a division that had been deepened by one-sided church policy.
Restraint and Clarity
In doing so, Leo does not try to play one side against the other. He is not carrying out a “correction” of his predecessor in the sense of a conservative rollback. Leo simply moderates the conflict again after his clarification. He brings it back into the context of the actually significant questions, and those are — hardly surprisingly for a pope — first and foremost theological: Does it serve the unity of the Church, whose task is the proclamation of the Good News?
The decisive point in the first year of this pontificate lies not in spectacular decisions, but in the way Leo XIV contains conflicts. This is particularly evident where political expectations are strongest, for example in questions of war and peace. Western media like to cast him in the role of a moral counter-voice to American foreign policy, but Leo acts according to different priorities.
This pattern of restraint at the top and clarity in teaching also runs through the handling of internal church disputes. This becomes particularly clear in the debate over the blessing of homosexual partnerships. Here, Leo has drawn a line that is as clear as it is unspectacular: formal blessings remain impermissible; at the same time, no one is excluded from the general blessing.
In Germany in particular, this differentiation encounters resistance. Parts of the episcopate, such as Cardinal Marx of Munich, continue to publish guidelines for blessing ceremonies for same-sex couples and thus enter into open contradiction with Rome. Leo reacts to this in a remarkably sober manner: he avoids any escalation or public reprimand, but at the same time explicitly confirms the existing teaching.How Leo shifts the weighting in the process is no less revealing. In Western European debates, moral-theological questions — especially those of sexual ethics — are often elevated to the decisive issues par excellence. For the pope, they stand in a larger context: “We tend to believe that in the Church, moral questions are exclusively about sexuality. But in reality, in my view, there are much more important issues such as justice, equality, the freedom of man and woman, and religious freedom, all of which take precedence over this particular question.” Leo holds to an inclusive practice of blessing for the faithful who “are all welcome, all invited to follow Jesus.” That they are also, according to Leo, “invited to strive for conversion in their lives” was almost consistently ignored by German media.
It is precisely in Leo’s clarity that the break with the expectations of many observers lies. He is not pursuing a church-political agenda in the sense of a “reform project” or a “rollback.” He deprives the conflicts of the symbolic exaggeration on which both progressive and conservative camps thrive, and at the same time refuses the permanent culture war. This also applies to all attempts to make the pope an actor in the geopolitical game of the powers. For Leo, peace is not an instrument of international order policy, but a theological imperative.
The Church Is Not an NGO with Incense
This also explains the sharpest counter-criticism of this pontificate: the accusation of naivety, for example with regard to Islam or international conflicts. Those who rely on deterrence and power balance will have little use for Leo’s pacifism. And indeed: as concrete instructions for action, this attitude is hardly suitable. But that is also not its purpose. Leo does not formulate a foreign policy master plan, but reminds of normative boundaries precisely where politics oversteps them.
The real point of this pontificate therefore lies in its setting of priorities: Leo is less interested in the major socio-political hot-button issues of the West; his concern is the unity of the Church and the proclamation of the Gospel, which is the same in Europe as in Africa. He pulls the plug, so to speak, on the overinflated balloon of ideologies.
For German functionary Catholics who would prefer the Church to be understood as a socio-political actor — essentially as an NGO with incense — this is an unexpected imposition. For Leo shifts the axis: away from symbolic politics and toward the substance of faith. Of course, anyone who wants to can debate extensively about diversity, climate fasting, or women’s ordination. But that does not define the core of the Church.
Or more simply: While parts of the Church are still arguing about which flag should fly on the church tower, Leo XIV is reminding us why a church tower is there in the first place at all.
Richard Meusers von Wissmann (b. 1965) studied Catholic theology in Bonn and Rome.
[source, in German]
