The regime's attacks on Pope Leo backfire spectacularly
They're expose the broken, cult-like nature of Trumpism.
This special Saturday edition of PN is made possible by paid subscribers. Become one👇
President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance have picked a fight with the pope, and things are getting really weird.
It isn’t just the spectacle of Vance lecturing Pope Leo XIV about theology, though that is indeed a car crash you can’t look away from. It’s also that the man who declared he is “the most pro-faith and pro-religious liberty president in American history” is furious to find out that Catholics, a group he counted on as being not only reliable conservative voters but one that was completely aligned with his worldview, do not agree with his every move.
Now, both men are caught in a trap of their own making.
They’ve spent years attempting to shove religion into the public sphere, but only their violent, Christian nationalist version. Thus far, that’s been a relatively successful project, even as it openly excludes any religion outside the Judeo-Christian tradition. Dismissing the views of Muslims or Sikhs or Buddhists is easy for Trump and Vance and their followers. But insisting that the pope is out of line is different, and requires Trump and Vance to twist themselves into knots.
While Trump has chosen to attack the pope in his traditional manner — all bluster on Truth Social, vague accusations of being a communist, antifa, whatever — Vance has taken another approach: the pope should shut up, because he knows theology better.
Better than the pope, that is.
Christ-splaining to the [checks notes] pope
Perhaps because he’s made his conversion to Catholicism such a central part of his public persona, Vance seems genuinely confused to learn that Pope Leo XIV’s understanding of Catholic theology does not align with his own. He’s tried so hard to get the pope to just hang with him, so certain that his status as a co-religionist would woo the literal head of a church with roughly 1.4 billion members worldwide.
What Vance and Trump don’t seem to grasp is that the pope’s statements are, to be frank, relatively bog-standard expressions of Catholic theology regarding immigrants and war. It just doesn’t happen to be the Catholic teaching that Vance likes.
An important caveat here: you do not, under any circumstances, have to hand it to the Catholic Church writ large, which has a lengthy history of harm, from covering up the rampant sexual abuse of minors by priests to the horrifying treatment of indigenous children in Catholic residential schools to spending vast sums to make abortion illegal to its continuing opposition to same-sex marriage. And there’s no question that the Catholic Church has been responsible for its share of violence around the world, from the Crusades to forced conversions to the Inquisition.
Another caveat: quoting the church’s teachings is in no way intended to mean that the church lives up to those words. Rather, it’s that the teaching exists, and Vance, as a Catholic, is obliged to take them seriously and live according to their precepts.
The administration was at odds with the Catholic Church and the pope well before Trump’s war of choice in Iran started. The ceaseless violence of Trump’s immigration scheme, grounded in his America First ethos, runs headlong into Catholic social teaching about immigrants. And this isn’t some new thing whipped up by wussy progressive popes like Francis or Leo. It was back in 2000, under John Paul II, that the US bishops issued Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity. It is, well, not subtle:
“We reject the anti-immigrant stance that has become popular in different parts of our country, and the nativism, ethnocentricity, and racism that continue to reassert themselves in our communities.”
The church doesn’t call for open borders, saying that while it respects the right of nations to regulate borders and immigration, enforcement must be done with both justice and mercy. So, mass deportations of the most vulnerable is not really something the church is going to sign onto. In 2004, the US Catholic bishops made immigration reform a priority, committing to “creating a culture of welcome in which all migrants are treated with respect and dignity.”
There’s a direct line from those statements to ones by the US bishops during Trump’s second term. And here’s where we get a taste of JD’s theological beef. When the bishops condemned Trump’s executive orders on immigration, Vance literally told them to do better:
“I think the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has, frankly, not been a good partner in commonsense immigration enforcement that the American people voted for, and I hope, again, as a devout Catholic, that they’ll do better.”
Vance went on to speculate that the real reason the bishops were pro-immigrant and anti-Trump was money:
“I think that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops needs to actually look in the mirror a little bit and recognize that when they receive over $100 million to help resettle illegal immigrants, are they worried about humanitarian concerns? Or are they actually worried about their bottom line?”
JD Vance, making friends everywhere.
There’s no world where Vance, as an ostensibly devout Catholic, should be surprised by or unaware of the church’s stance on immigrants. There’s also no world where the US bishops or the pope are going to back off and just ignore longtime Catholic social teaching.
The fight over whether Trump’s war in Iran is just or good or blessed by Jesus or whatever kicked off when the pope posted that “God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.”
Vance reacted to this by deciding it was time to school the literal global head of his faith: “When the pope says that God is never on the side of people who wield the sword, there is more than a 1,000-year tradition of just war theory.” Vance also tut-tutted that Pope Leo really needs to do his Bible homework before he opens his mouth:
“If you’re going to opine on matters of theology, you’ve got to be careful, you’ve got to be sure it’s anchored in the truth and that’s one of the things that I try to do and that’s certainly something I would expect from the clergy.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson also waded in to tell the pope what’s what, despite not being, well, Catholic: “It’s a very well-settled matter of Christian theology. There’s something called the just war doctrine.”
Boom, gotcha Leo. What about that just war theory?
For any Catholic, even lapsed ones, Vance’s invocation of just war theory likely brought back memories of confirmation classes and the catechism. Because, as confused as JD seems to be about it, it’s all right there at 2308-2039:
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
You’ll note that Trump’s war of choice doesn’t resemble this at all. You’ll also note that there is nothing in here about belief. Believing the cause is just doesn’t even enter into this analysis. Rather, war, which is inherently bad and should be avoided, can only be undertaken when certain conditions occur, or it is not just.
Things got so stupid that the US Bishops had to issue a statement explaining the just war theory and also reminding Vance who the pope is, exactly:
“When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel and exercising his ministry as the Vicar of Christ.”
The use of the term “Vicar of Christ” is deliberate here, invoking the Catechism’s explanation of the role of the pope:
“The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church.
While Vance has approached this as a theological dispute, one in which he is smugly certain he is much smarter than the pope, Trump has approached it with his usual bluster:
“Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church!”
We’ve now hit what can only be called the “stick to sports” phase of things, with Trump going on to say: “I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do.”
Vance also weighed in, saying that “in some cases it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality.” Only in Vance’s mind could discussions of whether it is a good thing to go on a violent xenophobic deportation tear or start a war out of nowhere not constitute “matters of morality.”
All of this is rather, well, curious coming from the administration that touts how it is the greatest champion of religious freedom we’ve ever had. The problem is that Trump’s view of religious freedom is equal parts narrow and terrible.
MAGA theocracy
Not long after taking office, Trump bragged: “While I’m in the White House, we will protect Christians in our schools, in our military, in our government, in our workplaces, hospitals and in our public squares. And we will bring our country back together as one nation under God.”
You’ll notice that statement doesn’t offer any protection to non-Christians, which is its own big problem, but for Christians, it was an explicit statement that the government has their back.
We’ve also got high-level official government accounts posting explicitly Christian messages. On Christmas, in the very midst of overseeing violent detentions and deportations nationwide, the Department of Homeland Security posted “Christ is Born” and “We are blessed to share a nation and a Savior.”
And it’s totally fine for Trump to invoke religion when it comes to war, as he did when he launched a strike on Nigeria: “May God Bless our Military, and MERRY CHRISTMAS to all, including the dead Terrorists, of which there will be many more if their slaughter of Christians continues.”
And in the latest development, it also apparently means having Trump’s religious liberty commission, stuffed with hand-picked conservatives, deciding there is no separation of church and state and that any notion to the contrary a lie that has been perpetrated by evil humanists.
Trump and the people surrounding him have long pushed for a theocracy, an explicitly Christian nation. These folks are completely fine and happy when religious leaders weigh in … as long as they agree with what Trump is doing.
But that’s not religion. It’s a cult. Trump is treated as infallible. He is treated as wise. He is treated as if he speaks on behalf of all Americans. He is treated, apparently, as if he is just like Jesus or perhaps that he is actually Jesus.
No wonder he’s mad that the pope won’t sign on.
That’s it for today
We’ll be back this afternoon with a new episode of Nir & Rupar and then with a special Saturday edition of the newsletter. If you appreciate today’s PN, please do your part to keep us free by signing up for a paid subscription.
Thanks for reading, and have a great weekend.
The tell isn’t the theology fight, it’s the revealed preference. They’re fine with religion in the public square as long as it functions as a loyalty oath. The moment it asserts independent moral authority, it becomes a problem. That’s not religious freedom. That’s a state church without the paperwork.
Vance converted, made Catholicism central to his identity, and apparently assumed the institution would return the favor. What he got was a 2,000-year-old organization with its own doctrine that doesn’t bend to electoral math. Lecturing the pope on just war theory isn’t arrogance, it’s what happens when faith was always instrumental.
Turns out 1.4 billion Catholics already have a leader. Awkward.
;)
Johan
It should be fairly clear by now that white evangelical is heavy on the white and lite on Christianity.