Pope Leo’s recent comments on the United States military operation in Venezuela were quickly labeled left‑leaning by some media outlets, including The Daily Beast, Yahoo News, and a growing list of syndicated sites.
But that framing misses the point. It forces a long tradition of papal diplomacy into the narrow world of American politics while ignoring the centuries of Catholic teachings on war, peace, and justice.
With the headline,” First American Pope Voices Grave Concern Over Trump’s Invasion” Laura Esposito of The Daily Beast framed Pope Leo’s response through a critical lens by bringing up a long list of the pontiff’s past criticisms of some of President Trump’s policies. Claiming that Pope Leo “has repeatedly condemned Trump’s hostile treatment of immigrants, his deportation tactics, and elements of the president’s approach to Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations,” The Daily Beast attempts to frame Pope Leo’s response to removing Venezuela’s despotic President as fitting into a larger anti‑Trump narrative.
The truth is that the pope’s focus on sovereignty, peace, and dialogue follows the same pattern set by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis whenever military action was on the table. Treating his words as ideological and increasingly hostile to President Trump says much more about the media’s preferred storyline than about the Vatican’s actual position.
The Esposito essay in The Daily Beast frames Pope Leo’s cautionary remarks as “a sharp rebuke” of President Trump’s actions in Venezuela. This framing suggested Pope Leo was siding with the political left rather than applying long‑standing Catholic moral teachings and established principles of Vatican diplomacy. A few other general interest outlets echoed this tone by highlighting conflict and ideology instead of Pope Leo’s actual language about sovereignty and peace. These stories treated his caution about military action and concern for the Venezuelan people as a partisan signal, even though the pope never used political terms or singled out President Trump by name.
There’s a clear pattern in how previous popes have addressed military action that matches the pattern used by Pope Leo. Pope St. John Paul II called war a “defeat for humanity” and urged leaders to choose diplomacy before turning to force. Pope Benedict XVI said military action should be only defensive and always focused on protecting civilians. And Pope Francis echoed the same ideas, asking that “weapons fall silent” and warning against any nation using force to control another.
Pope Leo’s comments on Venezuela follow the same pattern as he talked about sovereignty, peace, and dialogue, not politics. Comparing the responses from each, it is evident that Pope Leo is not breaking from tradition at all. He is following the same path the modern papacy has walked for decades.
In fact, it was less than a year ago, on February 9, 2025, when a frail Pope Francis delivered a moving homily promoting peace at a Mass for the Jubilee of the Armed Services. Then‑Cardinal Robert F. Prevost, who was then prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops (and is now the current Pope Leo XIII), presided over the liturgy at that Jubilee Mass for the Armed Services. In his homily, Pope Francis thanked members of the military for their service, and urged them to resist seeing others as enemies, and asked them to devote their work to protecting life, peace, and justice: “Be vigilant lest you be poisoned by propaganda that instills hatred (and) divides the world into friends to be defended and foes to fight,”
In certain ways, some within the Catholic media itself are at fault for contributing to the confused media narrative and the primacy of politics that have led others to believe that Pope Leo is hostile to President Trump. Even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops published an essay on January 5th with the headline that “Pope Leo Voices Deep Concern Over Venezuela After Capture of Maduro,” and quotes—without editorial comment or criticism—the newly installed acting Venezuelan leader, Delcy Rodríguez, as saying that “the U.S. violated international law and that Maduro remains president.”
At a moment when Pope Leo’s words are being filtered through a partisan lens, it is worth recalling the broader moral tradition that shapes Catholic thinking about the use of force. The Church’s just war framework has long emphasized legitimate authority, the protection of the innocent, and the careful, proportionate use of military power.
Bishop Robert Barron’s clear explanation of these principles—outlined in his teaching on Catholicism and just‑war theory—offers a helpful way to evaluate actions taken to remove an unjust ruler in a case like the vicious and tyrannical ex-President Maduro of Venezuela. In a short video at Annapolis Military Academy, presented four years ago, Bishop Barron draws from Aquinas to state clearly: “Sometimes the only way to oppose great wickedness is to use violence or to use force.” That is the essence of just war theory.
Seen through this lens, the question is not whether the pope is leaning left or right, but whether the moral criteria that guide Catholic teachings are being taken seriously by those charged with interpreting them. And if they are, Pope Leo’s words look far less like politics and far more like the steady moral witness the Church has offered for centuries.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Anne Hendershott, who’s writings I generally enjoy, says that reporting on Pope Leo’s comments, “forces a long tradition of papal diplomacy into the narrow world of American politics while ignoring the centuries of Catholic teachings on war, peace, and justice.” I would say that Pope Francis’ statement that “there is no such thing as a just war” Ignored centuries of Catholic teachings on war…
She goes on to say, “Claiming that Pope Leo “has repeatedly condemned Trump’s hostile treatment of immigrants, his deportation tactics…” I believe that the word “reporting” rather than “claiming” would be more accurate as there is no doubt that Pope Leo has made these statements.
I remember the times when we left doors unlocked and a handshake was good enough.
I remember those times also, Br. Jacques. In some places it’s still like that.
I traded in my truck last year on a federal holiday when my bank was closed. It was going to be closed the following day too, due to severe weather. The small town car dealership, a 3 hr. drive away, took my personal post-dated check & word of honor that it was good & off I drove.
Pope Leo needs to get busy reining in EPISCOPAL DICTATORS and leave politics to the grown-ups.
Yes, indeed.
Yes, deacon: stay out of politics BUT interpret through the lens Catholic teachings.
The MSM are seriously unreliable.
Most worrying is the Associated Press, whose take is generally followed uncritically by the rest of the pack.
(Para. 8 – In fact . . . – Pope Leo XIV).
It seems to me that when evaluating Papal statements on world affairs that ascribing political motivation is purely speculative and should be ignored. We must take seriously Church teachings when applied specific situations that contain serious moral implications. I fully realize that such statements are not infallible pronouncements, and are subject to error, but nevertheless, we should take them seriously without all the speculative baggage.
Didn’t Pope Francis reject Just War Theory and embrace unilateral disarmament? Pope John Paul II rejected the pacifist policy of many American bishops. (See USCCB debate over the “Peace Pastoral). When did Pope Leo invoke Just War Theory? Ed Feser’s statement on Venezuela and Just War should be adopted by the Pope.
Plus Ca Change, Plus Le Meme.
Yes, my friend Terrence , you are spot on.
Simplistically, I cannot always discern if the Pope is conforming God to the world or conforming the World to God given we never hear of the Church Militant and the Prayer of St Michael has been shelved. A simple root cause analysis is that objective evils is promoted by those that do not know or simply reject Jesus and those whom reject in a fallen world somewhat imperfectly with good intentions and imperfact means given only God can respond perfectly.
I think this action by Trump and the US is just a step in the right direction to defend the western world against communism, radical Islam (its most pure heretical form) and the nominalist, secular humanist, modernist heretical views permeating western culture. This attack on Judeo-Christian culture is intentional by a host of evil powers that we can all name. The “war” is intentional but difficult to define when compared to ancient and medieval wars.
This war is intentional and coordinated, but it is using guerilla tactics of infiltration and propaganda to gain a foothold within western societies and instigate violence and ultimate destruction of the last hope for the western world, the United States moving to strengthen and defend a Christian world ultimately against communism.
We need to see the big picture here and recognize the dynamism of the “war” we are in.
I respect Ed Feser as one of the finest philosophers in the world. However, for him to insist on a full plan to explain logistically the phases and objectives of how the operation will be done in Venezuela is impractical and unrealistic. He needs to be more patient to see how the operation unfolds before saying Trump actions are not morally justifiable. Trump has to make prudential decisions moving us forward in this long term “war”. It involves many elements to govern the way to victory for western culture. He has the experience of leading large businesses and now a large government in this internal and external struggle against communism. The Church rejects communism and socialism no matter what current cardinals, bishops and popes say.