Since his election, many Catholics have wondered where Pope Leo stands on pressing issues such as gender, LGBTQ+ inclusion, and the role of women in the Church. Will he continue Francis’ loved/contested openness or embrace a more traditional stance? So far, he has shown himself a thoughtful theologian and a skilled canon lawyer, though it’s too early to talk about a comprehensive theological vision.[1]
This contribution does not aim to speculate on Pope Leo’s future positions. Rather, it proposes that at the outset of this pontificate, the Church finds itself at a historically critical juncture, when political forces are increasingly adopting (or co-opting?) religious language to promote national identity and unity, often in ways that are sectarian and exclusionary. I argue that while the Vatican seeks to uphold its traditional teachings on family life, its rhetorical or direct alignment with far-right populist discourse fosters an oppositional “us versus them” dynamic that contradicts core principles of Catholic social teaching, especially in areas such as immigration and the preferential option for the poor.
This paper offers a brief overview of the Vatican’s discourse on gender ideology and suggests that if the Church is to remain faithful to its mission to serve the poor and marginalized, it must discern non-dominant models of love and relationship through two ethical criteria: resisting narratives of antagonism and exclusion, and embracing Pope Francis’ insight that “reality is greater than ideas.”[2] Italy, my home country, will serve as a case study for this analysis.
A Brief Overview
Since coining the term after the 1995 World Conference on Women in Beijing, the Vatican has consistently opposed what it defines as “gender ideology,” arguing that it poses a threat to the natural family as revealed in Scripture and upheld by Church tradition, as well as to the very fabric of society.[3] Similarly, in 2015, Cardinal Bagnasco, then president of the Italian Episcopal Conference, warned against what he called the dictatorship of gender that is “colonizing the minds of children, boys and girls, with a distorted anthropological vision, without having previously requested and obtained the authorization of parents.”[4] Ironically, this denunciation led to arguably repressive actions: banning children’s books and creating hotlines to report “gender ideology” in Italian schools.[5] These startling comparisons, linking gender theory to nuclear war, ecological collapse, indoctrination camps, and Nazism, served to galvanize anti-LGBTQ+ movements, reinforcing the belief that such movements were engaged in a righteous struggle against a dangerous aggressor, gender ideology. In this crusade, the Vatican found powerful, even though perhaps unexpected allies, particularly among right-wing populist movements that gained traction across Europe in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis, largely as a backlash against the political establishment.[6]
Pope Francis, as Judith Butler wrote, “despite his occasionally progressive views, continued the line developed by Pope Benedict,” viewing gender as an ideology and a “demonic force of destruction.”[7] For Francis, the perceived danger extends even further, encompassing threats to the environment and creation itself.[8] A consonant perspective, though presented as an attempt to engage in dialogue with gender studies, was reaffirmed by the Congregation for Catholic Education in its 2019 document Male and Female He Created Them.[9]
The Italian Episcopal Conference consistently backed the popes’ agenda by offering public support, lobbying the government, and mobilizing street demonstrations through affiliated movements and associations. The battle initiated by the Vatican soon expanded, drawing new actors into the field. In Rome, on July 25, 2013, the first open protest against gender, now joined by non-religious figures, took place, as dozens of young people staged a demonstration outside the Italian Parliament.[10] Seated before lit candles and with their mouths covered by bandages, they displayed flags bearing the logo of the French group La Manif Pour Tous and wore T-shirts with slogans echoing the language of the French demonstrators, such as: “LGBT privileges are not a national priority.”[11] They targeted the Scalfarotto anti-discrimination bill and the Cirinnà civil unions bill.
In the same year, the anti-gender rhetoric began to also be actively appropriated by two political leaders who would soon dominate the Italian political landscape: Matteo Salvini of Lega Nord and Giorgia Meloni, now Prime Minister and head of Fratelli d’Italia. Their use of anti-gender rhetoric turned moral resistance into a political tool, now embedded in structures of governance.[12]
The appeal of Catholic language, especially the idea of an ontological difference between the sexes, has proven compelling to many in conservative political circles. More pointedly, the co-optation of Catholic tradition by right-wing movements was also evident in the lead-up to the Synod on the Family. Through the transnational “Appeal to the Pope,”various Italian figures urged Pope Francis to reaffirm traditional Church teachings on marriage and family.[13] Among the key players in this conservative network is Famiglia Domani, a central force behind Rome’s March for Life. Unlike the more moderate Movimento per la Vita, Famiglia Domani and its allies, including Opus Dei and the aristocratic faction known as the “Black Nobility,” were supported by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and collaborated with international groups such as the Legionaries of Christ and Human Life International.
For this front, the rejection of “gender ideology” is framed as part of a larger cultural battle: defending national identity grounded in “Christian values” and the “natural family” against the forces of individualism, egalitarianism, and capitalist modernity. The implications of this alignment are profound. The Church’s rhetoric, even when rooted in theological reflection, risks being absorbed into political agendas that oppose its own teachings on human dignity.
If the Church is to remain faithful to its mission of justice and inclusion, especially toward migrants, the poor, and those at the margins, it must resist becoming a vehicle for ideologies and narratives that distort its tradition in the service of exclusionary nationalism.
Discerning Non-Dominant Models
One of the most concerning developments in this context is the strategic repackaging of religious and populist rhetoric. To gain broader political traction, anti-gender movements have refined their discourse, presenting it in socially acceptable terms that link the so-called “natural family” to the protection of the vulnerable.
However, for many political actors, including far-right populist parties, this rhetorical shift masks a deeper agenda: the creation of a hegemonic social order rooted not only in heteronormativity but also in the reproduction of the nation along lines that often imply racial, cultural, or ethnic homogeneity.[14] That is precisely why the Church must be especially cautious before aligning with or promoting narratives which render invisible those who do not fit within a narrow ideal of identity. A Gospel rooted in universal love cannot be reconciled with a vision of society that makes some identities unrecognizable and some citizens less worthy of belonging.
At the beginning of his pontificate, Pope Francis has famously written in his programmatical encyclical Evangelii Gaudium that “realities are more important than ideas.”[15] Francis argues that this principle calls for “rejecting the various means of masking reality: angelic forms of purity, dictatorships of relativism, empty rhetoric, objectives more ideal than real, brands of ahistorical fundamentalism, ethical systems bereft of kindness, intellectual discourse bereft of wisdom.”[16] The pope said that this principle is connected to the logic of incarnation and it encourages us to perceive and understand our story within the history of salvation. In this regard, gender studies showed us that a universal human being is not really universal, but simply reflects the partiality of who is describing the diversity and unpredictability of human experience. While deductive methodologies align well with the essentialist views of sex and gender, the reality is that human life is a much more complex mosaic. It is ironic that, while emphasizing the importance of attending to concrete lived experiences, the Vatican’s discourse on “gender ideology” has remained largely abstract, relying on vague concepts without engaging specific authors, scholarly trends, or real-life contexts, therefore making genuine dialogue difficult.
Antonio Autiero and Stefanie Knauss recently reminded us that constructivism challenges the assumption that there can be universally valid definitions of what it means to be human, revealing instead the culturally situated and contingent nature of such claims. [17] This posture threatens systems that claim neutrality while reinforcing structures of privilege and power. By questioning these foundations, constructivist perspectives disrupt the moral authority traditionally claimed by those who benefit from such frameworks, a disruption that becomes especially controversial when adopted within theological or ecclesial contexts.
In light of this, the Church must carefully examine the political uses of “universal” anthropologies, particularly when they are invoked to marginalize certain identities or uphold exclusionary models of the family and society. As Adam Beyt wrote in “Fruitful Bodies,” the rigid binary of gender “hold[s] grace hostage, thus failing to acknowledge what many would regard as the presence of the divine within a range of different embodied experiences, including those that do not fit easily or at all into the rigid frame of complementarity.”[18]
To remain consistent with its teachings on human dignity, justice, and solidarity, the Church must engage seriously with the epistemological critiques offered by constructivism and the diversity of human experience, viewing the challenges presented by gender theories as further opportunities to encounter and serve those marginalized by dominant narratives, or, put simply, to live the Gospel.
—
[1] Thomas Reese, “Interview reveals Pope Leo as a careful canon lawyer,” National Catholic Reporter, October 3, 2025, https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/interview-reveals-pope-leo-careful-canon-lawyer.
[2] Francis, On the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World: Evangelii Gaudium (24 November 2013) no. 231-233, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html#The_whole_is_greater_than_the_part
[3] See Richard Miskolci and Maximiliano Campana, “‘Ideologia de gênero:’ notas para a genealogia de um pânico moral contemporâneo,” Revista Sociedade e Estado 32, no. 3 (2017).
[4] Andrea Gagliarducci, “Church in Italy fights against imposition of gender ideology in schools,” Catholic News Agency, 2015, accessed October 5, 2025, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/31414/church-in-italy-fights-against-imposition-of-gender-ideology-in-schools.
[5] Sara Garbagnoli, “Italy as a lighthouse: Anti-gender protests between the ‘anthropological question’ and national identity,” in Anti-gender campaigns in Europe: Mobilizing against equality, ed. Roman Kuhar and David Paternotte (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield International, 2017), 166.
[6] See Garbagnoli, “Italy as a lighthouse,” 153–54.
[7] See Judith Butler, “What Threat? The campaign against ‘Gender Ideology’,” Glocalism: Journal of Culture, Politics, and Innovation3 (2019): 4.
[8] See Francis, Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to participants in the international colloquium on the complementarity between man and woman sponsored by the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, (17 November 2014) at The Holy See, no. 2, https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/november/documents/papa-francesco_20141117_congregazione-dottrina-fede.html;Andrea Tornielli and Giacomo Galeazzi, This economy kills: Pope Francis on capitalism and social justice (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2015), 149.
[9] See Congregation for Catholic Education, “‘Male and Female He Created Them’: Towards a Path of Dialogue On the Question of Gender Theory in Education,” (Vatican City: Vatican Press, 2019). http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20190202_maschio-e-femmina_en.pdf.
[10] See Maddalena Cannito, Eugenia Mercuri, and Francesca Tomatis, Cancel culture e ideologia gender: fenomenologia di un dibattito pubblico, Questioni di genere, (Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier, 2022), 3.1.1. (Kindle Books)
[11] Garbagnoli, “Italy as a lighthouse,” 151.
[12] See Cannito, Mercuri, and Tomatis, Cancel culture e ideologia gender, Chapter 3, (Kindle Books).
[13] See Associazione Supplica Filiale, “Supplica filiale a Sua Santità Papa Francesco sul futuro della famiglia,” accessed August 3, 2025, https://tfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015_Supplica_filiale_a_sua_Santità_Papa_Francesco_sul_futuro_della_famiglia.pdf?_gl=1*1ysz8lv*_gcl_au*OTg3ODk3NzE3LjE3NjA5OTQ0MzE.*_ga*MTM2OTg3MjgzNC4xNzYwOTk0NDMx*_ga_T660L5C23G*czE3NjA5OTQ0MzAkbzEkZzEkdDE3NjA5OTQ0NTIkajM4JGwwJGgwJGRENXdmZjJuakNxaURTbUxEYWlrSGZzOWpsR2JFdU1ObjN3*_ga_HFSGW18RNL*czE3NjA5OTQ0MzAkbzEkZzEkdDE3NjA5OTQ0NTIkajM4JGwwJGgwJGRQTmFmeTRIN2d2YUMtSWlMdnk0bklSNG00UUJlNkNfU3ln.
[14] See Judith Butler, Who’s afraid of gender? (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024), 51.
[15] Francis, On the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World: Evangelii Gaudium no. 231-233.
[16] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, (24 November 2013) no. 231, at The Holy See, https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.pdf
[17] See Antonio Autiero and Stefanie Knauss, Oltre il ritmo binario: prove di trialogo tra antropologia, etica e studi di genere, Exousia, (Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 2024), 26.
[18] Adam Beyt, “Fruitful bodies: Farley, Copeland, and Baldwin on sacred flesh,” Theology & Sexuality 25, no. 1-2 (2019): 46,https://doi.org/10.1080/13558358.2019.1640922.