Follow us on social

google cta
Pope Francis' legacy of inter-faith diplomacy

Pope Francis' legacy of inter-faith diplomacy

After similar outreach to Sunnis, the pontiff's 2021 meeting with Shia's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani transcended boundaries and fostered co-existence

Analysis | Global Crises
google cta
google cta

One of the most enduring tributes to Pope Francis, who passed away this Easter, would be the appreciation for his legacy of inter-religious diplomacy, a vision rooted in his humility, compassion, and a commitment to bridging divides — between faiths, cultures, and ideologies — from a standpoint of mutual respect and tolerance.

Among his most profound contributions is his historic meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf, Iraq, on March 6, 2021. What made this meeting a true landmark in inter-faith dialogue was the fact it brought together, for the first time, the spiritual leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics and one of the most revered figures in Shia Islam, with influence on tens of millions of Shia Muslims globally. In a humble, yet moving ceremony, the meeting took place in al-Sistani’s modest home in Najaf. A frail al-Sistani, who rarely receives visitors and typically remains seated, stood to greet the 84-year-old Pope and held his hand, in a gesture that underscored mutual respect.

The visit to Najaf was part of a broader Vatican diplomatic outreach to the world of Islam. Pope Francis previously engaged with Sunni leaders, signing in 2019 the Document on Human Fraternity with Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb from Al-Azhar University, the pre-eminent scholar of Sunni Islam. The meeting with al-Sistani extended this outreach also to Shia Islam, the second principal branch of Islam. Najaf is a spiritual center of Shia Muslims, home to the tomb of Imam Ali, the pre-eminent saint of Shia Islam, and the Hawza seminary, led by al-Sistani.

That outreach was particularly meaningful as al-Sistani represents a community often misrepresented in Western discourse as inherently menacing through vague but sticky metaphors such as “Shia Crescent,” fueled by media sensationalism and geopolitical tensions driven, in part, by evangelical groups like Christians United for Israel who often conflate Shiism, Iran and hostility to Christians and Israel.

Pope Francis took a different approach: he went to Najaf not to proselytize, not to hold theological debates, and not to issue political demands, but to engage in conversation marked by shared concern over the humanity’s future, peace, justice and dignity for all people. Francis, as a Jesuit with a history of activism against the fascist dictatorship in his own home country, Argentina (1976-1983), was particularly well-suited for this role. His meeting with al-Sistani sent a bold message: in a world scarred by conflict and bloodshed, leaders of faith should unite to reject violence and promote co-existence.

The context of that visit was particularly significant as it also sent an equally strong political message: it took place in Iraq, a nation ravaged by war, particularly the U.S. invasion in 2003, driven by neoconservative fantasies of turning the Middle East into a paragon of liberal democracy, subsequent sectarian strife and rise of ISIS which treated both Shiites and Christians as enemies and apostates.

By choosing to go to Najaf, Francis showed respect for the Shia community, and challenged the narratives that portray Shias as implacable adversaries of the West. Instead of ceaseless demand and condemnation, so prevalent in the attitude of many Western leaders to Iraq, the Pope honored the figure, al-Sistani, who used his enormous influence to advocate for a civil state in Iraq, one that respected rights and equality before the law of all religious communities, including Christians. It was a far more effective gesture of support to Iraq’s decimated Christian community (which has dwindled from 1.5 million in 2003, before the U.S. invasion, to approximately 250,000 – 300,000 in 2021) than self-righteous posturing from the comfort of far-away Western legislatures.

At the time, Francis’ choice to visit Najaf was seen by some observers as a subtle rebuke to the Iranian theocracy, by privileging the so-called “quietist” school of Shia Islam, embodied by al-Sistani. That may or may not have been the Vatican’s intention, but Francis’ message resonated positively among Shia clerics in Iran too. Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has engaged in significant correspondence with the Pope to promote dialogue between Islam and Christianity. In 2016, he sent a letter to the Pope expressing appreciation for Francis’ stance that “Islam is not equal to terrorism.”

Makarem Shirazi emphasized that what Tehran calls “Takfiri groups” (i.e. ISIS, al-Qaida) indeed do not represent Islam. Pope Francis responded via an official letter sent through the Iranian embassy in the Vatican. He expressed gratitude for the ayatollah’s outreach and joined him in condemning violence in the name of religion as an insult to God and a grave injustice.

That exchange marked a contrast with criticisms Makarem Shirazi delivered to Francis’ predecessor, Pope Benefict XVI, for comments perceived as anti-Islamic. Of course, Makarem Shirazi’s stances are not purely faith-based, but also reflect the geopolitical orientation of the Islamic Republic, like in his implication that the “takfiri groups” prosper thanks to the support of the “arrogant powers” (read the U.S.). Overall, however, his outreach to Francis, and the Pope’s response, can be seen as a useful attempt to promote inter-religious dialogue between Christianity and Shia Islam.

Pope Francis’ efforts to engage with Muslim clerics, both Sunni and Shia, transcended religious boundaries, fostered dialogue and co-existence in a world scarred by conflict. While his visit to Najaf in particular set a powerful precedent, the sustainability of these initiatives depends on his successors’ willingness to build on his efforts. May they continue to walk this path of dialogue, proving that even the deepest divides can be bridged through vision, courage, and faith.


Top image credit: Pope Francis met with Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, one of the Muslim world's leading authorities on March 6, 2021 in Najaf, Iraq. (Vatican Media via REUTERS)
google cta
Analysis | Global Crises
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Ignorance about war powers plays right into Trump's hands
Top image credit: US House Speaker Mike Johnson arrives for press briefing at Columbia University in New York on April 24, 2024. (Shutterstock/lev radin)

Ignorance about war powers plays right into Trump's hands

Washington Politics

This week efforts under the War Powers Act to check President Trump’s unconstitutional and unauthorized war in Iran failed on a mostly party line split in both the House and the Senate. The result isn’t all that surprising. The naivety, however, on the role of Congress in matters of war is staggering. Congress is in desperate need of a civics refresher.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), in response to reporter questions on the application of the War Powers Act’s provisions to the president’s actions in Iran, said, “I think the president has the authority that he needs to conduct the activities. … As you know, there’s a lot of controversy around, questions around the War Powers Act, but I think the president is acting in the best interests of the nation.”

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.