The 15th of November is not a very memorable date in the Catholic Church. But, when you are looking into the annals of an institution that has been around for two millennia, every date in the calendar has its own interesting history.
On 15th of November 1397, a boy named Tommaso Parentucelli was born in Sarzana, a small town fifty miles outside of Genoa. Half a century later, in 1447, Parentucelli became Pope Nicholas V and would go on to rule the Papal States until his death in 1455. During his eight-year pontificate, Medieval Christendom suffered its biggest blow. On 29th May 1453, the city of Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Empire. The Byzantine Empire was no more, and the last vestiges of Ancient Rome were wiped from the map. 1,500 years of Christian control in Asia Minor came to an end.
Losing Constantinople would have been unthinkable to Nicholas V’s predecessors. Defending the city had underpinned much of Medieval Europe’s political agenda for the last five hundred years. In 1095, Pope Urban II’s call to defend Constantinople against the Turks had been the central point in his launch of the First Crusade. In 1453, Nicholas V attempted to muster his own crusade. No one answered his call.
Given all that history, perhaps it was high time that the 15th of November had a rebrand.
On 15th of November 2025, the Pope welcomed a host of Hollywood celebrities to the Apostolic Palace. His guests included the great and the good from the silver screen: Cate Blanchett, Monica Bellucci, Viggo Mortensen, Chris Pine. However, the Papacy made it clear that these individuals had been invited to the Vatican for reasons beyond their cinematic stardom. They were also there in their capacity as promoters of humanitarian causes. As you would expect, the actors did not fluff their line. In an extremely heartfelt interview, Blanchett spoke candidly about how she wanted to use this opportunity to raise awareness of the UN High Commission for Refugees where she works as a goodwill ambassador, and mentioned the International Film Festival Rotterdam initiative to support displaced filmmakers.
This symbiotic relationship between the film industry and charitable endeavours sits at the heart of the Vatican’s messaging. In an official press release, the Vatican billed the event as the product of the Pope’s “desire to deepen dialogue with the world of cinema [and explore] the possibilities that artistic creativity offers to the mission of the church and the promotion of human values”. In his address, the Pope summarised it one key soundbite. He hailed his guests as “pilgrims of the imagination” helping to “bring hope”.
But among all the niceties and handshakes, there were a few spectres at the feast.
One of those ghosts seemed to be on the arm of the American filmmaker, Spike Lee, who presented the Pope with a personalised ‘Pope Leo’ New York Knicks basketball jersey. In the photo that the pair posed for together, a question seemed to flicker across the pontiff’s face: Who am I?
It is a truth universally acknowledged to those in the know that Leo is perceived as much more of an introvert than his recent predecessors. As Hendro Munsterman, Vatican correspondent for the Dutch newspaper Nederlands Dagblad, explained to The Guardian, “Leo doesn’t have the same charisma as Francis, who was always giving catchy one-liners. […] Leo is a listener, very quiet and modest, which has its own charm. But he is also a product that has to be created.”
Put simply, Leo is a figure whose politics and personality are not leaping out at the world. By comparison, Pope Francis was not afraid to take strong positions on issues such as the decriminalization of homosexuality, opposing Trumpian right-wing and anti-immigration politics and vociferously calling for action on the climate crisis. While it would be unfair to draw too many comparisons between Francis and Leo or to simply categorize them as sitting on different sides of the political spectrum, the key distinctions between the two cannot be ignored.
As Munsterman argues, these differences could be down to individual personality. Something in Leo’s nature clearly appears to want to hide away from the polemic limelight that Francis was so happy to occupy. Vatican officials would argue that the event on the 15th of November was a step in addressing this fact and that reaching out to the secular world of film allowed the Pope to demonstrate his personality on a widely relatable topic. Few people probably have deep-seated views on synods, Gnosticism or ecumenical creeds. But films! We all love a good movie, don’t we? And now we know that His Holiness’ four favourite flicks are The Sound of Music, It’s a Wonderful Life, Ordinary People and Life is Beautiful.
But, to reference another film, this all smacks as a massive The Wizard of Oz moment. The Vatican has allowed us to peep behind the papal curtain, and the result is a huge anticlimax. While his comments on how the film industry can support religious and humanitarian causes will be welcomed by many, the very decision to hold the event raises some key questions about how Leo sees his own purpose as leader of the Catholic Church.
The Spike Lee photo op represented the Vatican’s public relations strategy in its purest form: Engagement! Engagement! Engagement! Surely, for a religious institution, there must always be a religious element to any end – even engagement. Getting the Pope across the front pages of the international media with film stars may well make him “more relevant” for the non-religious community. But to what end? Relevance surely should only be pursued to support particular initiatives. Right now, it’s impossible to ascertain what these are. We don’t know Leo’s priorities. And until we do, we will surely have many more of these Spike Lee moments: bizarre crossover episodes without any real plotlines.
But there is something even more problematic here.
The Vatican’s belief that they have to engineer events reaching out to areas where they feel that they are losing relevance, such as in the secular community or with the younger generation, points to a considerable lack of belief in those groups. Those who do not subscribe to the Catholic faith or any form of organized religion at all still look to the Pope as the global moral figurehead. Francis made sure of this. Through his strong advocacy, Francis held a firm position on the world stage and influenced the international order for the better. The similarity between the words ‘Pope’ and ‘papa’ is not a coincidence and, even to those outside the Church, Francis was a paternal figure. He spoke out in favour of the world’s marginalized groups no matter the political consequences. His power derived from his politics and his rhetoric, not from his communications and media strategy. It is a fallacy to think that those outside of the Church are not interested in the Pope’s religious or moral views in their own right and that some kind of popular culture medium is needed to garner any real attention.
When Leo’s papacy began in May this year, many were invigorated by the prospect of having an American leading the largest Christian church in the world. All of sudden there was an argument that the most important US citizen in the world was no longer the person living in the White House. Here was someone who had the political and cultural capital to bring Trump down a peg or two. And here we are in November, and we now know that the Pope is a fan of Robert Redford. Religious and moral leaders should lead on religion and morality. That is how you show your “relevance” to the world. Francis did it and we now need Leo to do the same.
Despite trying to bring about a cultural reset, the Papacy appears to have undergone a cultural regression. Man cannot live on press events with film stars alone. Not when our climate, our global democracy and humanity are all under attack. Our Constantinople is under siege and we need some leadership. Let’s just hope that it’s better than what Nicholas V offered in 1453.
Leave a comment