Porras incident puts Vatican’s balancing act in Venezuela to the test

Will the Vatican respond more forcefully to the Maduro regime?

A few days after Pope Leo XIV warned against potential American military action in Venezuela, the Venezuelan regime barred a local cardinal with a Vatican passport from leaving the country, raising questions about whether the Vatican will respond more forcefully to the Maduro regime.

Cardinal Porras’ detention has exposed a long-running tension in Vatican diplomacy: the attempt to advocate for peace in Venezuela without seeming blind to the human rights’ abuses fueling Venezuela’s crisis. The Holy See has long prioritized protecting clergy and preserving its role as mediator, opting for quiet diplomacy instead of public confrontation.

Credit: CFimages / Alamy

But that restraint has often made papal calls for dialogue and Leo’s criticism of an American threat seem detached from the humanitarian crisis and human rights abuses on the ground.

The treatment of Porras now raises the question of whether the Holy See must change course and show that it can speak with greater moral clarity while still safeguarding the Church’s presence and keeping open the diplomatic channels vital to any future agreement to end the country’s crisis.

During a Dec. 2 press conference returning from his trip to Turkey and Lebanon, Pope Leo was asked about his opinion on an American military threat on Venezuela. He said in response that “it is better to seek dialogue, maybe pressure, including economic pressure, but looking for another way to bring about change.”

Just eight days later, Cardinal Baltazar Porras, who holds a Vatican passport, was stopped at Simón Bolívar Airport near Caracas as he tried to board a flight. Venezuelan officials informed him he appeared as “deceased” in the passport system, refused to return his documents, and forced him to sign a declaration that he was banned from traveling indefinitely due to “non-compliance with travel regulations.”

Sources close to Porras, the 81-year-old archbishop emeritus of Caracas, told The Pillar that he was detained for more than two hours, threatened with arrest, and subjected to a security check including drug-sniffing dogs. Authorities ultimately annulled his Venezuelan passport, leaving him stranded in the airport’s baggage claim area.

It is effectively unheard of for any country to allow a holder of one of its diplomatic passports to be prevented from leaving a state without issuing at least a formal and public protest. But the Vatican has not yet made a public statement on the incident.

Pope Leo has been notably cautious in his words and gestures toward the Venezuelan regime, echoing the approach of his predecessor.

In his Dec. 2 press conference, he acknowledged the country’s right to self-defense and the legitimacy of economic sanctions, while criticizing American military threats.

“On the one hand, it seems there has been a telephone conversation between the two presidents; on the other hand, there is this danger, this possibility, that there could be an action, an operation, including an invasion of Venezuelan territory,” he added.

“At the level of the bishops’ conference and with the nuncio, we are trying to find a way to calm the situation, seeking above all the good of the people, because in these situations it is the people who suffer, not the authorities,” the pope said.

On Nov. 4, the pope was also asked about the situation in one of his brief weekly press conferences outside of Castel Gandolfo. He responded, “A country has the right to have a military to defend peace, to build peace… In this case, however, it seems a bit different, with the tension increasing.”

“I think that with violence, we don’t win,” the pope said. “The important thing is to seek dialogue, to try in a fair way to find solutions to the problems that may exist in any country.”

While it would not be expected for a pope to support direct military action in this circumstance, Leo’s comments on Venezuela might easily be received as tone deaf in Latin America, especially in light of the recent treatment of Porras.

The pope’s statements risk emphasizing the threat posed by Trump’s potential military action while remaining silent about the abuses of a regime responsible for one of the largest humanitarian crises in the Western Hemisphere.

One of the biggest criticisms of Pope Francis in Latin America was the way he handled the region’s three socialist dictatorships: Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.

Francis remained largely silent about the dictatorships’ human rights violations, and even showed signs of friendship with the regimes, especially in the case of Cuba.

This silence allowed the Church to operate with greater freedom in the cases of Cuba and Venezuela. But it also led to disillusionment for many Catholics in these countries, who had expected a prophetic voice from a pope so deeply invested in social issues such as global peace, the environment, and the plight of migrants.

While Francis spoke about the crisis in Venezuela, he mostly made ambiguous appeals for peace without speaking boldly of human rights violations in the country. He received dictator Nicolás Maduro in an audience in 2016 yet repeatedly refused to receive members of the Venezuelan opposition.

Pope Leo’s lengthy experience in Latin America has prompted speculation about whether he will depart from Francis’ timid posture on the Latin American dictatorships.

There has been some indication that the pope may be interested in a shift from his predecessor’s approach.

Pope Leo received a group of Nicaraguan exiled bishops in an audience in October and then Bishop Rolando Álvarez separately in November.

And Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin gave an unusually scathing rebuke of the Venezuelan regime in a homily during a thanksgiving Mass for the canonization of two Venezuelan saints in October.

Both were welcome signs by those who had hoped for a different approach to the region’s three dictatorships.

At the same time, Leo’s recent comments on Venezuela echo Francis’ cautious stance, creating uncertainty about what approach the new pope is hoping to take.

The Holy See’s challenge is a delicate one: it must avoid provoking the Venezuelan regime into targeting local clergy while still speaking out on human rights abuses.

The balancing act is further complicated by the fact that the Church remains the only institution in Venezuela with widespread social legitimacy among all political actors, making it a key player in potential negotiations. Reuters recently reported that Maduro may consider leaving the country under a deal granting him full amnesty, a process in which the Church could act as a trusted guarantor.

Still, the pope has been outspoken in condemning the war in Gaza, despite the consequences that could bring for Christians on both sides of the Gaza strip. The relatively timid comments on Venezuela leave many in the country feeling that the Vatican is engaging in “both-sideism,” implicitly assigning at least some responsibility for the crisis to the country’s opposition.

If the Vatican wants to show support for human rights and democracy in Venezuela, it could do so through symbolic gestures rather than major public statements.

One possibility would be receiving a delegation of the Venezuelan opposition in an audience, something that Pope Francis never did.

Opposition leader María Corina Machado recently escaped Venezuela to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway. She says she intends to return to Venezuela, but is expected to make a few stops in Europe and the U.S. before doing so.

Sources close to Machado told The Pillar that Italian PM Giorgia Meloni has invited her to Rome for a meeting.

If Machado is already planning to be in town, Pope Leo XIV would send a powerful signal of support if he were also to meet her at the Apostolic Palace.

And not doing so would send an equally telling message about the Vatican’s stance.