- Two emissaries, one theological silence
- Diplomacy of mercy rather than diplomacy of doctrine
- The patriarchy that closes one door while the state opens another
- Peace that is built without waiting for communion
- What Scripture says about the peace that precedes unity
- The suffering body as the primary theological site
- The families' expectations are stronger than the institutional obstacles.
- What theological silence does not say
- A fracture that precedes the war and may even outlive it
- The lesson of a Church that knows how to distinguish its registers
- Lectio divina
- ✝ Biblical references
There is something dizzying about this August of 2026: while Archbishop Paul Richard Gallagher is preparing to set foot on Moscow soil from August 25 to 28—a first for a high-ranking Vatican diplomat since the outbreak of the war in Ukraine—and Cardinal Matteo Zuppi is already planning a third visit to the Russian capital for September, the theological channel between Russian Catholics and Orthodox remains silent. The Russian ambassador to the Holy See, Ivan Soltanovsky, confirmed this week that Moscow is preparing a double invitation, one for the Secretary for Relations with States, the other for the Archbishop of Bologna. Two churchmen are therefore preparing to converse with the Russian authorities about the bodies, the prisoners, the deported children — while theologians have remained silent since 2018, locked down by a Russian synodal decision that froze all doctrinal dialogue with Rome long before the tanks entered Ukraine.
This separation is not a mere formality. It draws a clear line between two orders of action that the Catholic Church itself has always distinguished, without always knowing how to reconcile them: active charity, which knows no truce, and communion of faith, which cannot be decreed. Leo XIV, by sending his two closest diplomatic collaborators to Moscow in quick succession, was not reopening an ecumenical dialogue. He was opening a humanitarian corridor. And this choice, far from being a simple tactical precaution, reveals an implicit theology of peace that deserves to be explored down to its scriptural roots.
Two emissaries, one theological silence
Diplomacy of mercy rather than diplomacy of doctrine
Cardinal Matteo Zuppi is no stranger to Moscow. Sent by Pope Francis in 2023, and again in 2024, he met with Patriarch Kirill and Kremlin advisors exclusively within the framework of his humanitarian mission to Ukraine. His planned visit in September 2026 follows directly from his trip to Kyiv from July 13 to 16, where he visited the Zakhid-1 detention center in the Lviv region to meet with captured Russian soldiers. There, he presented symbolic gifts—a keychain, with the hope that the prisoner «will soon be able to attach the key to his home, to open his door and embrace his family»—and affirmed that «Pope Leo XIV stands with all those who suffer because of war.».
This visit to Kyiv was not an isolated gesture. Families of Ukrainian prisoners presented him with lists of captives, hoping for the Holy See's support for their release, because "the Holy See remains one of the few international actors capable of conducting a humanitarian dialogue on the release of our people." The cardinal also advocated for an "all for all" exchange, involving approximately seven thousand Ukrainian prisoners held in Russia and four thousand Russian prisoners held in Ukraine. It is this same purely humanitarian logic that motivates his upcoming trip to Moscow: according to sources close to the cardinal, he would like to visit detention camps there, particularly in the occupied Donetsk region—a wish that has not yet received any confirmation from Russia.
Archbishop Gallagher, for his part, represents a different kind of event. His visit to Moscow, from August 25 to 28, is of a different nature: it is the first time since February 2022 that such a high-ranking official from the Vatican Secretariat of State has traveled to Russia. The Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Moscow, Kyrill Gorbunov, confirmed the dates to the German Catholic News Agency, while specifying that little additional information had yet been released by the Apostolic Nunciature. This trip, unlike Zuppi's, falls under the category of classic institutional diplomacy: meetings with state representatives, assessment of negotiation channels, and positioning the Vatican as a potential forum for talks.
The patriarchy that closes one door while the state opens another
What is striking in this sequence of events is the stark contrast between Russia's diplomatic eagerness and the ecclesiastical silence of the Moscow Patriarchate. Official Russia, the Russia of the state, is carefully orchestrating this dual visit—Ambassador Soltanovsky himself confirmed it to an American Catholic network—while the Russian Orthodox Church maintains a position of theological freeze dating back to 2018. That year, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church decided to suspend its participation "in all episcopal assemblies, theological dialogues, multilateral commissions, and other structures" chaired by representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, in reaction to the Ukrainian question and the autocephaly granted by Constantinople to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk acknowledged at the time that the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue was "at an impasse.".
Since then, Patriarch Kirill's explicit support for the invasion of Ukraine, which he described as a "holy war," has definitively frozen any prospect of theological dialogue. Kirill's successor as head of the Patriarchate's external relations, Metropolitan Anthony of Volokolamsk, was indeed received by Leo XIV on July 26, 2025, in what was the first such meeting under that pontificate. But this audience, however symbolic, did not reopen any joint commissions or any doctrinal agenda. The Vatican did not even publicly comment on the theological content of the exchange, limiting itself to welcoming "the prospect of future cooperation." The Patriarchate, for its part, firmly opposes any Vatican involvement in the actual peace negotiations, reserving this domain for the strictly state sphere.
Peace that is built without waiting for communion
What Scripture says about the peace that precedes unity
7Seek the welfare of the city to which I have sent you into captivity and pray to the Lord for it, for its welfare will be your welfare.
This dissociation between peacemaking and unity of faith is not a contemporary anomaly; it finds a profound echo in a scriptural tradition often neglected. The prophet Jeremiah, writing to the exiles of Babylon—that is, to a people forced to live and negotiate within the very heart of a foreign power hostile to their faith—addresses them words that resonate strangely with the present situation: «Seek the welfare of the city to which I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord for it, for in its welfare you will find your own» (Jeremiah 29:7). This verse does not call for doctrinal unity between Israel and Babylon; it calls for concrete action for common peace, independent of any shared worship. Herein lies a theological principle of striking relevance: one can work for the well-being of a people, negotiate with its representatives, without this implying or entailing the reconciliation of beliefs.
The Epistle to the Romans offers another perspective, more directly addressing the conduct of Christians in the face of collective adversity: «Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good» (Romans 12:21). This verse, often quoted in isolation, takes on particular significance when placed in its immediate context, that of communal life under tension: Paul exhorts the Christians of Rome, a minority and viewed with suspicion by the imperial power, to «live in peace with everyone, as far as it depends on you» (Romans 12:18). This phrase—"as far as it depends on you"—is remarkably insightful: it acknowledges that peace is never entirely within our control, that it also depends on the will of others, and that it can therefore remain partial, fragmentary, without invalidating the effort.
There is also, in the First Epistle of Peter, a less frequently cited passage that seems tailor-made for the current Vatican situation: «Live good lives among the Gentiles, so that when they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of his visitation» (1 Peter 2:12). This text, addressed to a Christian community scattered in foreign and sometimes hostile lands, does not require the prior conversion of those around them; it calls for conduct which, through its concrete fruits—visits to prisoners, concern for deported children, and efforts to secure the release of captives—ultimately bears witness to a truth greater than words alone.
You might like...
The suffering body as the primary theological site
What is striking about Zuppi's mission is precisely this choice to make the suffering body—the prisoner, the deported child, the captured soldier—the primary focus of ecclesiastical action, even before any resumption of doctrinal dialogue. When the cardinal visited the Zakhid-1 detention center and affirmed that he was bringing the Pope's closeness to those who had fought in Russian uniform, he was not performing any act of theological communion: he was performing an act of recognition of wounded humanity, regardless of the wounded person's religious or national affiliation. It is a theology of the Incarnation applied to diplomacy: the Word became flesh, and the Church, following his example, makes itself a concrete presence to suffering flesh, without waiting for minds to reach an agreement.
This approach is rooted in a well-established Catholic tradition: that of humanitarian diplomacy, distinct from doctrinal diplomacy, which can already be seen in the actions of many apostolic nuncios during the twentieth century. But under Leo XIV, it takes on a particular character. The Pope has consistently denounced the bombing of civilian infrastructure, called for a just peace that implicitly excludes any Ukrainian capitulation, and offered the Vatican as a venue for negotiations—an offer which, by its very existence, positions the Holy See as a legitimate mediator rather than a mere observer. This stance had already been evident during the telephone call of June 4, 2025, between Vladimir Putin and Leo XIV, the first contact of this level in three years, during which the Russian president conveyed Patriarch Kirill's greetings, and the Pope responded by expressing his hope that "shared Christian values promote peace and religious freedom." It should be noted that the Orthodox Patriarchate had then marked its distance from the new pontificate by sending only a subordinate representative, Metropolitan Nestor, to the inaugural mass of Leo XIV on May 18, 2025, unlike other non-Catholic Orthodox officials such as Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople.
The families' expectations are stronger than the institutional obstacles.
We must consider the concrete implications of the two visits announced for this autumn. The Vicariate General of the Archdiocese of Mother of God in Moscow has already confirmed that Archbishop Gallagher will be there for four days, from August 25 to 28, although the precise agenda for the meetings has not yet been released. This trip closely follows Gallagher's mission to Ukraine, where the focus was on humanitarian issues. It is therefore not an isolated gesture, but rather the continuation of a well-established diplomatic shuttle between Kyiv and Moscow, where the same clergymen travel back and forth across the front lines, carrying the same demands: the return of prisoners, the repatriation of deported Ukrainian children, and humanitarian access to occupied communities, particularly those of Oleshky and Hola Prystan in the Kherson region.
What this shuttle reveals is the power of an expectation that far transcends institutional divisions. The families of prisoners, whether Ukrainian or Russian, care little whether the theological dialogue between Rome and Moscow is suspended or not; they wait for someone, somewhere, to carry their voice to the ears of those in power. It is this expectation that gives true meaning to the mission of Zuppi and Gallagher: not to reconcile two Churches, but to serve as a living bridge between two symmetrical sufferings, that of the Russian soldiers captured in Ukraine and that of the Ukrainian civilians detained in Russia. Cardinal Zuppi summed it up with disarming simplicity: "A single soldier, a single civilian, or a single child who can be reunited with their family is a step toward peace.".
What theological silence does not say
A fracture that precedes the war and may even outlive it
It would be misleading to believe that the theological deadlock between Russian Catholics and Orthodox is merely a side effect of the Ukrainian conflict. As we have seen, it predates the conflict, dating back to the 2018 synodal decision. This pre-existing situation changes the nature of the problem: it is not a matter of waiting for the end of hostilities for doctrinal dialogue to automatically resume, as if military peace were enough to reopen the channels of faith. The rift touches on much older and deeper issues—the canonical status of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, jurisdiction over the post-Soviet territories, the centuries-old rivalry between Moscow and Constantinople—which will not be resolved simply by signing an armistice.
This distinction is theologically crucial. It reminds us that Christian unity, in the full sense understood by the Second Vatican Council in its decree on ecumenism, is never simply a matter of diplomatic peace between institutions; it presupposes a conversion of hearts, a purification of memory, a work of truth that neither the best political will nor the most generous humanitarian gestures can accomplish on their own. Zuppi and Gallagher are not theologians on a mission; they are servants of concrete charity, and their very effectiveness—real, measurable, measured in lives saved—must not obscure the extent of what remains to be healed in terms of the communion of faith.
The lesson of a Church that knows how to distinguish its registers
This unprecedented situation offers a lesson in practical ecclesiology whose significance few commentators have grasped. The Catholic Church, under Leo XIV, demonstrates its ability to separate its various spheres of action without ever conflating or opposing them. It can send a cardinal to visit Russian prisoners held captive in Ukraine, and then Ukrainian prisoners in Russian territory, without this implying any theological validation of the regime that launched the invasion, nor any reconciliation with a patriarchate that blessed this war in religious terms. It can, in the same breath, receive the representative of Patriarch Kirill at the Vatican without reopening any joint commission for doctrinal dialogue.
📁 Special Report
Leo XIV1300 articles
Leo XIV, the first American pope, facing AI and digital technology: profile, social legacy of Leo XIII and challenges…
Access the folder →This ability to hold together, without conflating them, active charity and the rigor of doctrinal truth, is perhaps the most discreet yet most lasting contribution of this nascent pontificate to papal diplomacy. It implicitly echoes Saint Paul's teaching to the Romans on peace, which "depends on us" without being entirely dependent on us: the Holy See is doing its part, the part that is its due, without presuming to accomplish what can only be achieved through a mutual conversion that is still beyond our reach. And it is perhaps this methodological humility, more than any solemn declaration, that prepares the ground for a future theological dialogue—a dialogue which, when it resumes, will find before it a memory already rich with concrete acts of mercy, rather than a void of ten years of silence.
Lectio divina
«Seek the well-being of the city to which I have sent you into exile, for your own well-being depends on its well-being.» Jeremiah 29:7
Sometimes you wait until everything is reconciled before acting for peace around you. You would like hearts to be in harmony before your hands are extended. But can you bring a little comfort where communion is not yet possible? Can you pray for those whose faith you do not share, without waiting for them to return to you? Where in your own life could charity precede reconciliation rather than follow it?
Lord, you send your people to dwell in lands that do not welcome them. You ask them to build, to plant, to pray, even in exile. Teach me to seek the well-being of those who are strangers to me, without demanding communion from them before love. Grant me the patience of the prisoner who still hopes for the key to his home. Make my hands a bridge, even when words remain silent. May your peace precede your unity, as rain precedes harvest.
A key held in a trembling hand, facing a still-closed door.
✝ Biblical references
3 passages · 3 books
Cast all your anxieties on him, for you are precious in his eyes. (1 Peter 5:7)
Encouragement to persecuted Christians: hope, baptism and conduct in society.
→ Explore Codex 1 Stone- Leo XIV and the gesture of Saint Ignatius of Antioch: when Rome learned to sing with one voice with the East
- Norway 2030: When a king killed by the sword becomes the seed of a Church
- These Russian Catholics whom Rome calls upon to become living bridges
- When American charity meets the memory of Hippo: Leo XIV's words to the Vincentians
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel. (Jeremiah 31:31)
Prophet of the destruction of Jerusalem and of the new covenant of the heart.
→ Explore the Codex Jeremiah- Nicaragua: The invisible body of the bishop and the faith that cannot be filmed
- The small remnant of Moscow: when a mass for a few hundred worshippers becomes the true center of Vatican diplomacy
- China: The two years that will decide the fate of the Sino-Vatican agreement
- Rabat: The minority church faces the test of judicial silence
The righteous will live by faith. (Romans 1:17)
Paul's great theological synthesis: sin, grace, justification, and life in the Spirit.
→ Explore the Roman Codex- Leo XIV at the nunciature in Buenos Aires: when the Church chose discretion to prepare for the immense
- When the lines of communication resume: what Moscow reveals about reconciliation diplomacy
- Ceuta, Rome, Madrid: when the word of the bishops becomes a rift between sister nations
- Kenya: When the Church dares to plan its mission ten years in advance
🌍 3 countries involved
In Russia, Catholics today represent only a tiny minority in a space dominated by Orthodoxy and a highly centralized power. The early Christian presence in the territory dates back to the conversion of…
Discover Russia →
In Ukraine, Catholics today represent a significant minority, primarily through the Greek Catholic Church and the Latin communities in the west of the country. Christian roots go back to the conversion of…
Discover Ukraine →
In the Vatican, the population is almost entirely Catholic, since this microstate exists in direct service to the universal Church. The Christian presence there dates back to the 1st century with the martyrdom and burial of Saint Peter…
Discover Vatican City →
