The concept of the katechon, central to Christian eschatology, was reinterpreted by Carl Schmitt through a politico-theological lens marked by the idea that, in every age, a historical or spiritual force prevents the advent of final chaos. In light of current geopolitical upheavals, some analysts extend this interpretive framework by identifying new katechons capable of restraining the emergence of a global order perceived as destructive or malevolent. This article offers a critical reflection on the contemporary reactivation of the katechon, exploring its echoes in the current conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine.
1. The Katechon: Theological Origins and Schmittian Reception
The term katechon originates from the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (2:6–7), in which the apostle Paul refers to “the one who restrains” the coming of the Antichrist. In Christian tradition, the katechon designates the force — either a person or institution — that delays the revelation of ultimate evil and the end of time.
Carl Schmitt, in his Political Theology (1922) and subsequent writings, reappropriates this concept to articulate his view of history as a struggle between order and chaos, sovereignty and anarchy. For Schmitt, the katechon was historically embodied by the Christian Empire — notably the Holy Roman Empire — and, more recently, by the Roman Catholic Church, seen as a bulwark against the modern dissolution of order.
2. Vatican II and the Catholic Retreat from Resistance
Some critics of modern ecclesial developments argue that since the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965), the Catholic Church has relinquished its katechontic role by embracing a form of secularization they perceive as destructive. This “spiritual disarmament” is said to have paved the way for the rise of nihilism, the commodification of the world, and conflicts where Christian principles of justice and peace are increasingly marginalized.
This retreat from institutional resistance to evil is interpreted by some as a form of abdication in the face of a global hegemony driven by logics of economic domination, perpetual war, and cultural dissolution.
3. A Geopolitical Recasting: Palestine, Ukraine, Empire
In a more contemporary reading, certain thinkers extend Schmitt’s thesis by identifying new arenas where evil manifests in systemic forms of injustice. The case of Palestine — where Palestinians have for decades endured occupation and blockade widely condemned by international legal bodies — is viewed as a focal point of this dynamic.
Criticism here targets political Zionism, not Judaism as a faith. Zionism, as a national project grounded in ethno-religious exclusivism and enforced through military domination, is presented as one of the contemporary expressions of an unrestrained will to power. Unwavering Western support for this policy, despite well-documented war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank, is seen by some analysts as emblematic of the moral decay of the international order.
In parallel, the war in Ukraine is interpreted as another arena of struggle between globalizing forces of domination and national or civilizational forms of resistance. In this view, the post-Maidan Ukrainian regime — supported by powerful oligarchs and extremist groups — is perceived as integrated into a broader Euro-Atlantic hegemonic project. This perspective fuels a vision of convergence between financial imperialism and radical identity ideologies.
4. The BRICS and the Contemporary Face of the Katechon
Within this dualistic worldview, some observers hypothesize that the katechontic role is now shifting toward emerging powers, particularly those aligned within the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). These nations challenge Western unipolarity and aim to establish a new world order grounded in national sovereignty and multipolar cooperation.
Russia, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, is seen in this framework as a conservative power resisting postmodern excesses, the erasure of cultural identities, and unilateral military interventions. From both a political and theological standpoint, some view Putin as a potential modern katechon — not an absolute savior, but a rampart against what they perceive as the rise of a destructive “Empire.”
Conclusion
The concept of the katechon, through its hermeneutic flexibility, allows for a deep engagement with the historical dialectic between order and chaos, justice and domination. Its contemporary reactivation, though controversial, reflects a desire to interpret major geopolitical conflicts not only through strategic interests but also through a symbolic and spiritual lens. However, any modern application of the katechon must be approached with caution and intellectual rigor, to avoid ideological, essentialist, or exclusionary misuses.
By Belgacem Merbah
Comments
Post a Comment