Pope Francis, the Roman Catholic Church, and Citizen Attitudes Towards Climate Change in Latin America

The study examines whether and how religious factors—specifically trust in the Roman Catholic Church and evaluations of Pope Francis—shape Latin Americans’ acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. Faith-based actors have become increasingly visible in global climate cooperation, particularly since Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ elevated the moral salience of climate change. Prior empirical work, largely U.S.-focused, suggests religious affiliation and messaging can influence climate attitudes, but cross-national evidence is limited. Focusing on Latin America—where Catholicism remains influential alongside growing evangelical movements—the authors investigate the extent to which institutional trust and perceptions of Pope Francis affect belief in human-caused climate change, a key precursor to public demand for ambitious climate policy. They articulate hypotheses about denominational differences (Catholic vs. evangelical), the role of trust in the Church, a “Pope Francis effect,” and the potential moderating role of Pope evaluations on the trust-belief relationship.

The literature on religion and climate attitudes presents mixed findings. Some studies, especially from the U.S., associate Christian denominations—particularly evangelicals—with skepticism toward anthropogenic climate change, citing factors such as skepticism toward science and preferences for individual action. Other research finds neutral or positive relationships between Christian affiliation and environmental concern. Within Catholicism, doctrinal elements such as stewardship and prior papal statements (e.g., John Paul II) indicate institutional support for environmental action, yet communication and implementation at the parish level have historically been inconsistent or ambiguous. In Latin America, evidence suggests evangelical and Pentecostal affiliation is not necessarily linked to reduced environmental concern. Based on prevailing theories that institutional doctrine and trusted communication shape attitudes, the study posits: H1—Catholics more likely than evangelicals to believe in human-induced climate change; H2—greater trust in the Church increases belief in anthropogenic climate change; H3—a positive evaluation of Pope Francis increases belief; and H4—Pope evaluations moderate (attenuate) the effect of Church trust on belief.

Data come from the 2017 Latinobarómetro survey across 18 Latin American countries. After listwise deletion, the analytical sample includes 13,472 respondents (~68% of the original sample). Outcome variable: agreement with “Human beings are the main actor responsible for Climate Change,” measured on a 4-point ordered scale (0=strongly disagree to 3=strongly agree). Key predictors: (1) religious denomination (Roman Catholic, evangelical Christian, none/atheist-agnostic, other); (2) trust in the Church (0=no trust, 1=a little, 2=some, 3=a lot); (3) evaluation of Pope Francis on a 0 (very bad) to 10 (very good) scale. Controls: religiosity (practice frequency), left-right ideological self-placement (0 left to 10 right), age, gender (male/female), marital status, ethnic group (black, indigenous, mestizo, white, other), and education (seven categories from illiterate to completed tertiary). Given the hierarchical structure (individuals nested in countries) and the ordered nature of the outcome, the study estimates multilevel mixed-effects ordered logistic regression models with individual-level fixed effects and country-level random effects. Core results derive from a fully specified model including all predictors and controls. Additional analyses include adjusted predicted probabilities and interaction models to test moderation by Pope evaluations. Robustness checks include leave-one-country-out jackknife re-estimation and an Argentina-specific test for differential Pope effects. Data and replication code are publicly available.

- Denominational differences: Contrary to H1, evangelical Christians are significantly more likely than Roman Catholics (reference) to accept anthropogenic climate change. Adjusted predicted probabilities indicate evangelicals are +3.2 percentage points more likely than Catholics to strongly agree that climate change is human-caused. - Trust in the Church: Contrary to H2, greater trust in the Church is associated with lower belief in anthropogenic climate change. Respondents with “a lot” of trust are 9.0 percentage points less likely to strongly agree than those with no trust. Joint significance tests indicate trust has a statistically significant overall effect (test statistic x=53.10, p<0.001). - Evaluation of Pope Francis (H3): More favorable evaluations of Pope Francis are positively associated with belief in human causation. Those rating him very positively are +6.2 percentage points more likely to strongly agree compared to very negative evaluations. For disbelief outcomes, changes are smaller in absolute terms (e.g., −2.3 percentage points with very positive Pope evaluations). - Moderation (H4): Positive evaluations of Pope Francis significantly attenuate the negative effect of trust in the Church on belief in anthropogenic climate change. Among respondents with a lot of trust in the Church, moving from a very bad to a very good evaluation of Pope Francis increases the probability of strongly agreeing by about 10 percentage points (from ~28% to ~38%). - Controls: Higher education increases belief in anthropogenic climate change; women are, contrary to some prior studies, less likely to believe than men. Religiosity (practice frequency) shows no effect once trust in the Church and Pope evaluations are accounted for. - Robustness: Results hold across leave-one-country-out analyses and do not differ significantly for Argentina relative to other countries.

Findings challenge expectations that Catholic identity and trust in the Catholic Church would enhance acceptance of anthropogenic climate change. Despite pro-environment doctrinal elements and papal advocacy, Catholics in Latin America are less likely to accept human causation than evangelicals or those of other/no denominations. Potential explanations include local-level variance in clerical emphasis: parish priests hold substantial discretion, and local messaging may not consistently reflect Vatican positions on climate. The study also highlights that evangelicals in Latin America do not mirror U.S. patterns of climate skepticism, suggesting contextual differences in issue framing and religious-political dynamics. Importantly, the work differentiates institutional intermediation (the Church) from individual leadership effects (Pope Francis). While institutional trust correlates with lower acceptance, favorable views of Pope Francis both increase acceptance and mitigate trust’s negative association, underscoring the distinct and interacting roles of organizations and leaders in shaping climate attitudes. These insights imply that to bolster public demand for climate action, coherent, affirmative climate communication by regional Catholic institutions, aligned with papal messaging, could be impactful.

The paper contributes comparative evidence from 18 Latin American countries on how religious institutions and leadership shape climate attitudes. It documents that (a) Catholics are less likely than evangelicals and others to accept anthropogenic climate change; (b) trust in the Church is negatively related to such belief; (c) a clear “Pope Francis effect” exists; and (d) favorable Pope evaluations moderate the negative impact of Church trust. By disentangling institutional and individual intermediation effects, the study advances understanding of faith-based climate intermediaries. Future research should: employ panel data to track temporal dynamics of papal appeals; implement clergy (elite) surveys to assess local transmission of doctrine; disaggregate trust in the Church versus local priests; and extend outcomes beyond attitudes to intended or actual behavior change.

Key limitations include reliance on cross-sectional data from 2017, which may not reflect post-2019 developments (e.g., COVID-19 impacts, political shifts, growth of evangelicalism). Measurement is constrained by the limited items available in the Latinobarómetro, precluding more granular constructs of climate policy support, behavioral intentions, or clergy-level influence. The study cannot fully disentangle the effects of institutional trust in the Church from trust in local priests. Causal inference is limited by observational design, and unobserved contextual factors may remain despite country random effects. Nonetheless, robustness checks (leave-one-country-out; Argentina-specific tests) suggest the main findings are stable.