By Charlotte Soulé – Rise to Peace Fellow

Diplomatic relations between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Holy See, formally established in 1994, represent a distinctive case of engagement between a Muslim-majority monarchy and a transnational Christian authority. While such relations are frequently framed in terms of interfaith dialogue or symbolic gestures of coexistence, their political significance extends beyond ceremonial diplomacy. Jordan occupies a singular position in the region, as it is both a Muslim state whose ruling dynasty derives legitimacy from descent from the Prophet Muhammad and a recognised custodian of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. The Holy See, by contrast, exercises influence not through material power but through moral authority and global religious networks. The sustained and publicly visible interaction between these two actors, therefore, raises a broader question concerning the role of religion in contemporary diplomacy.

Religion and Faith-Based Diplomacy

Understanding the diplomatic engagement between Jordan and the Holy See requires a conceptual lens that recognises religion as both a normative and socially embedded force. Religion cannot be reduced to personal belief or ritual practice; it shapes the behaviour of political actors and can influence entire populations, including those who do not identify as religious. In the context of diplomacy, this influence is operationalised through faith-based diplomacy, a practice distinguished not by coercive or material power but by its ethical claims to reconciliation, justice, and the restoration of political order disrupted by conflict or injustice. Such diplomacy derives credibility from perceived moral neutrality and its association with widely recognised ethical principles within a religious tradition.

It is important, however, to avoid essentialising religion or assuming that one political or institutional interpretation represents the entirety of a tradition. Diplomatic gestures, such as interfaith dialogue or papal visits, are ethically framed performances designed to project legitimacy rather than reflections of all religious actors within a society. This perspective enables a critical analysis of Jordan-Vatican relations, demonstrating how Jordan leverages the Vatican’s transnational moral authority to reinforce both domestic religious legitimacy and international prestige. By viewing religion as both normative and strategically mobilised, the complex interplay between faith, diplomacy and political authority becomes visible.

Domestic Religious Architecture and Hashemite Legitimacy 

The Hashemite monarchy’s legitimacy is closely intertwined with its management of religious pluralism, particularly regarding the Christian minority within Jordan. Christian communities are legally recognised and operate within structured ecclesiastical jurisdictions, which regulate communal boundaries and spheres of autonomy. This institutionalised pluralism ensures that Christians can maintain religious and social practices while remaining integrated within the broader framework of state governance. Such arrangements reinforce the monarchy’s self-presentation as a guarantor of coexistence, signalling both domestic inclusivity and stability to international observers.

Beyond institutional structures, the monarchy derives symbolic authority from its Hashemite lineage, which claims descent from the Prophet Muhammad, and from its custodianship of key Islamic and Christian holy sites, particularly in Jerusalem. These dual responsibilities position Jordan as a unique interlocutor between Muslim and Christian actors in the region. Interfaith initiatives promoted by the monarchy, including public statements and participation in religious commemorations, further consolidate this legitimacy by demonstrating active engagement with multiple faith communities. Jordan’s engagement with the Vatican provides an outward projection of this domestic model. The exhibition “Jordan: Dawn of Christianity”, hosted in the Vatican to commemorate thirty years of bilateral relations, exemplifies how domestic religious heritage is mobilised as a form of cultural diplomacy. Similarly, public celebrations of papal visits and pilgrimage sites such as the Baptism Site highlight the state’s active role in preserving Christian heritage. Together, these practices demonstrate that religious diplomacy is credible precisely because it rests upon a domestically structured and state-managed model of pluralism, rather than on rhetorical claims alone. By embedding religious protection within legal, institutional, and symbolic frameworks, Jordan constructs a narrative of coexistence that can be credibly communicated to transnational partners, enhancing both domestic authority and international prestige.

The Holy See as a Faith-Based Diplomatic Actor 

The Holy See operates as a unique diplomatic actor, exercising influence primarily through moral authority rather than material or military power. Its engagement in Jordan exemplifies faith-based diplomacy, where ethical claims to reconciliation, peace, and the protection of religious communities are central to diplomatic practice. Pilgrimages to sites such as Bethany Beyond the Jordan serve not only religious purposes but also diplomatic ones, projecting messages of interfaith cooperation and regional stability. By participating in these events, the Vatican reinforces its transnational role as a moral actor and validates Jordan’s custodial responsibilities for sacred sites. Papal visits further institutionalise this moral and diplomatic engagement. The Jubilee pilgrimage of 2000 by Pope John Paul II highlighted Jordan’s position as a site of interreligious coexistence, while more recent visits by Pope Francis have emphasised regional peace and the protection of Christian minorities. These visits function as performative diplomacy, symbolically linking the Vatican’s ethical authority with Jordan’s domestic and international narratives of moderation and stability. 

High-level meetings and public statements by Vatican officials, including those by Cardinal Parolin, further demonstrate the Holy See’s strategic engagement with Jordan. These interactions emphasise mutual commitments to the preservation of holy sites and the promotion of peace, reinforcing Jordan’s international legitimacy as a moderate and stabilising actor in the Middle East. Through these mechanisms, the Vatican’s diplomatic influence complements and amplifies Jordan’s own religious and political authority, illustrating the mutually reinforcing nature of faith-based diplomacy in the bilateral relationship.

Interpreting Religious Diplomacy 

The preceding analysis illustrates that Jordan–Vatican relations operate at the intersection of domestic legitimacy, transnational moral authority, and strategic diplomacy. Jordan’s domestic religious architecture, with legally recognised Christian communities and structured communal boundaries, provides a foundation of credibility upon which international engagement can be built. By projecting this pluralism externally through exhibitions and the preservation of pilgrimage sites, the monarchy converts domestic institutional arrangements into diplomatic capital. This demonstrates that religious diplomacy is effective only when grounded in tangible domestic structures rather than symbolic claims alone.

Simultaneously, the Vatican leverages its moral authority to reinforce Jordan’s position as a stabilising actor in the region. Pilgrimages, papal visits, and high-level meetings act as performative instruments, signalling ethical legitimacy while enhancing the visibility of Jordan’s custodial role over sacred sites. The reciprocal nature of these interactions underscores that faith-based diplomacy is mutually constitutive: Jordan benefits from an association with a globally recognised ethical authority, while the Vatican secures a reliable partner in advancing interfaith and peace-oriented objectives.

At a conceptual level, this dynamic illustrates the dual character of religious diplomacy. It is both normative, grounded in ethical claims and the promotion of coexistence, and strategic, serving state interests in legitimacy, soft power, and international positioning. Crucially, this reflection underscores that the credibility of religious diplomacy depends on the alignment between domestic institutional reality and transnational ethical projection; where this alignment is strong, as in Jordan, faith-based diplomacy becomes a potent tool of statecraft.

Strategic Boundaries and Instrumentalisation  

While Jordan’s religious diplomacy projects an image of interfaith coexistence, it operates within clearly defined political boundaries. Christian communal autonomy is institutionalised but regulated, ensuring that pluralism aligns with state interests and does not challenge monarchical authority. Similarly, engagement with the Vatican is selective and strategic: bilateral initiatives emphasise shared ethical claims, protection of holy sites, and regional stability, while sensitive geopolitical issues, such as the status of Jerusalem, are managed cautiously.

This duality demonstrates that religious diplomacy is both normative and instrumental. Ethical and moral narratives are employed to enhance legitimacy and soft power, yet they coexist with pragmatic considerations of security and political influence. The credibility of these efforts relies on the alignment between domestic institutional reality and transnational ethical projection, highlighting the calculated nature of faith-based diplomacy in advancing Jordan’s broader political objectives.

Ultimately, the relationship between Jordan and the Holy See illustrates that religion remains a consequential dimension of contemporary diplomacy rather than a residual or purely symbolic element of statecraft. By embedding religious pluralism within domestic legal and institutional frameworks while simultaneously projecting a narrative of interfaith stewardship abroad, the Hashemite monarchy has positioned itself as both a national guardian of coexistence and a credible international interlocutor. Engagement with the Vatican consolidates this positioning by linking Jordan’s custodial claims and interfaith initiatives to a globally recognised moral authority, thereby enhancing its soft power and diplomatic visibility. Yet the effectiveness of this strategy depends upon careful calibration: religious diplomacy must remain sufficiently authentic to retain credibility while sufficiently controlled to safeguard political stability. In this balance between ethical projection and strategic management lies the enduring significance of Jordan–Holy See relations, revealing faith-based diplomacy as a deliberate and adaptive instrument of legitimacy in an increasingly complex regional environment.