Pope Leo XIV’s recent predecessors at the Vatican defended migrants. Will he do the same?
Political language is sometimes used to describe the orientations of the Vatican. When the late Pope Francis defended migrants, it was suggested that he was a “left-wing” pope. Today, people are wondering whether Pope Leo XIV will adopt a “progressive” path or, on the contrary, a philosophy on immigration different from that of Francis.
To answer this question, it is helpful to look at what successive popes have said about welcoming foreigners. We can see that they have defended not only migrants but also a right of immigration. Their approach has been universalist and it rejected all discrimination. Could it change?
During the period between the second world war and the election of Leo XIV, the Vatican had six popes. The first, Pius XII (1939-1958), seems to have been more in favour of immigration than the United Nations. In 1948, when the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, emigration was enshrined as a fundamental right: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.”
This wording does not mention the right to enter a country that is not one’s own, and Pius XII called this vagueness into question. In his 1952 Christmas message, he argued that it resulted in a situation in which “the natural right of every person not to be prevented from emigrating or immigrating is practically annulled, under the pretext of a falsely understood common good”.
Pius XII believed that immigration was a natural right, but linked it to poverty. He therefore asked governments to facilitate the migration of workers and their families to “regions where they could more easily find the food they needed”. He deplored the “mechanisation of minds” and called for a softening “in politics and economics, of the rigidity of the old framework of geographical boundaries”.
In the Apostolic Constitution on the Exiled Family, also in 1952, he wrote about why migration was essential for the Church.
Pope John XXIII (1958-1963) extended this argument in two encyclicals: © The Conversation
