The world is captivated by the spectacle of the first American pope locked in a war of words with the President of the United States. And a spectacle it is; while clashes between temporal sovereigns and popes have been plentiful over the past two millennia, it is shocking to see a 21st century American president attack the Pope so publicly and disrespectfully. Perhaps as shocking is to hear the Vice President, a devout Catholic convert, suggest that the Pope “stick to matters of…what’s going on in the Catholic Church.” While my views on the Iran war differ somewhat from those of Pope Leo and I wish some of his recent statements on war and peace had been clearer, I am grateful that he has not confined his witness and leadership to “internal affairs.” You don’t need to agree with all the Pope’s recent statements to recognize that he is fulfilling a key role of the pope in the Church and in international affairs: to draw the world’s gaze to Christ, and in so doing, to expose the hypocrisy and vanity of the false prophets in our world.
Over the past few weeks, Pope Leo has become increasingly forceful in his calls for peace. At his most direct, he referred to Trump’s threat that “a whole civilization will die” as “truly unacceptable.” His comments have created a stir, both among Catholics who fear he is rolling back millennia of just war doctrine in favor of pacifism and among members of the media and politicians, who have jumped at the chance to cast Leo as the anti-Trump. As George Weigel, biographer of John Paul II and prominent conservative Catholic public intellectual, has recently noted, both tendencies are overreactions. As a devoted follower of St. Augustine, widely considered the founder of the Christian just war tradition, it seems highly unlikely that Pope Leo intends to jettison the just war tradition or declare all wars intrinsically unjustifiable. His comment that “many people have said (this) is an unjust war” implies that there can be a just war, and his recent remarks to the Military Ordinariate for Italy acknowledged the nobility of the Christian soldier’s vocation when rightly exercised.
At the same time, the members of the media have been poised to cast Pope Leo as the anti-Trump since the earliest days of his papacy, and the Iran war has given them the perfect opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, in their haste to position Leo and Trump as the American pope vs. the American president, the media have oversimplified Leo’s motivations and missed the spiritual dimension of his actions. As Weigel put it in his column last week, using a “primarily political analytical prism” to interpret the pope’s words “distorts the reality of Pope Leo, who has insisted that his mission is to preach Christ and invite others into friendship with him.”
For all his distrust of the “fake news” media, Trump seems to have bought the narrative that Pope Leo is his nemesis, and is responding to Pope Leo’s admonitions with insult, invective, and (arguably) blasphemy. Over the past few days, he has called the pope “weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy,” has claimed that Leo was only elected pope because he is president, and, to top it all off, posted an AI-generated image of himself as a Christ-like healer on Truth Social. Trump’s disrespectful treatment of the pope has been widely criticized by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Given the unenviable task of publicly defending the President’s actions while being the highest-ranking Catholic in the U.S. government, J.D. Vance has suggested that the Trump-as-Christ image was a harmless joke and that the Pope “should stick to matters of morality,” “focus on what’s going on in the Catholic Church,” and be more careful in his theological statements about the justice of war.
What are Catholics, and Christians in general, to make of all this? In our highly politicized environment, it can be tempting to simply claim the pope for our own political ends (à la Christopher Hale and Letters from Leo) or to excuse Trump’s outburst as an understandable, if uncouth, reaction to papal meddling in U.S. politics. To see beyond this dichotomy, we must understand the essential role of the papacy in international affairs. Vance’s assertion that the pope “should stick to matters of morality” is rooted in a grain of truth: the pope is not a temporal political authority, and his authority is spiritual (for Catholics) and moral (for much of the world). History is certainly rife with examples of popes who took a more direct role in politics, conferring legitimacy on Christian kings, launching crusades, and even leading wars to retake the Papal States. Few people, however, want to return to the days of popes leading battles and micromanaging sovereign states.
However, Vance’s claim that the pope should speak solely about abstract moral issues and matters inside the Catholic Church is historically and theologically absurd. In the modern era, the papacy has developed Catholic Social Teaching, which, as Pope John Paul II explained, is “the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and in the international order, in the light of faith and of the Church’s tradition.” While the papal documents that comprise much of Catholic Social Teaching steer clear of endorsing political parties, sanctioning particular wars, etc., they certainly do not confine themselves to “matters within the Catholic Church” or morality divorced from current affairs. What is more, there is strong historical precedent for popes going further and applying Catholic teaching to specific instances using their own prudential judgment. For example, Pope Pius XII spoke out against the Nazi regime while clandestinely helping Jews to escape persecution; Pope Paul VI endorsed the mission of the United Nations; and Pope John Paul II led a revolution of conscience that ultimately toppled the Soviet regime. If a pope believes strongly that Catholic teaching demands a particular response in the political sphere, it would arguably be a dereliction of duty to remain silent.
Contrary to popular misconception, Catholics do not believe that the Pope is infallible in all matters, but only in regard to faith and morals and within carefully defined parameters. In many cases, there is not one obvious, correct way to apply Catholic moral principles to concrete situations. When this is the case, a pope must use his prudential judgment, and Catholics are free to disagree with his application of Catholic teaching, just not with that teaching itself. As a devout Catholic, I fully adhere to the just war tradition of the Catholic Church, but I am more open to the argument that the Iran war fulfills these criteria than Pope Leo seems to be. I have also been perplexed and frustrated by the wording of some of Pope Leo’s recent statements, which caused understandable confusion about the Catholic view of just war.
That said, I believe that Pope Leo is succeeding admirably at the most important function of the papacy in international affairs: helping to place Christ at the center of political discussions and decisions. Unwittingly, President Trump proved Pope Leo’s success when he posted that image of himself as a Christ-like healer. By rejecting the Pope’s calls for humility and prayer and instead placing himself in the role of Christ, Trump left no doubt about his character. Christians can in good conscience believe that Trump is right about the necessity of the Iran war and that Leo’s prudential judgment is incorrect. However, through his insistence on preaching the gospel, graciousness in the face of insults, and sincere concern for all who suffer from violence, the Pope has reminded us that we will achieve true and lasting peace not from the false prophets (AI-generated or otherwise), but only when we humble ourselves before Christ, the Prince of Peace. For this, he deserves our gratitude.