On March 21, the Wall Street Journal published a lengthy profile of the Pope as its “Saturday Essay.” The subtitle—“Pope Leo XIV pushes back against President Trump. Can the pontiff from Chicago make a difference in an era of power politics?”—gave the game away from the git-go: the Pope is to be understood as the over-against of the president, with Leo’s statements and actions filtered through that primarily political analytic prism.
Which misses a lot. To put it mildly.
Imagine a “Saturday Essay” on the Dalai Lama, framing him as the over-against of Xi Jinping: would that get you inside the mind and heart of the leader of an ancient, complex religious tradition? Of course not. Imagine a “Saturday Essay” on Rabbi Meir Soloveichik as the antithesis of New York mayor Zohran Mamdani: would that reveal the essential truths about America’s leading exponent of Modern Orthodoxy? Of course not. So why frame Pope Leo XIV as the un-Trump?
Donald Trump has sucked the air out of virtually the entire media universe since 2015. Is there anything that isn’t to be parsed or explained by reference to him? This obsession distorts reality. It certainly distorts the reality of Pope Leo, who has insisted that his mission is to preach Christ and invite others into friendship with him.
I had a couple of lengthy and, I thought, productive e-mail exchanges with one of the authors of that “Saturday Essay” before its publication, the reporter saying that he wanted a “conservative American perspective” on several Catholic issues. After telling the writer that he should know that I’m considered a dangerous Modernist by some Traditionalists, I happily answered his questions.
I reprise those exchanges here, as nary a syllable of what follows got into the Journal—and I fancy that my answers shed some light on the Pope on the cusp of his first anniversary on the Chair of Peter:
Q. Has Leo, as his supporters in Rome say, succeeded in reducing the tensions and polarization between progressive and conservative Catholics? Has he found a balanced position that’s rooted in doctrine and spirituality, not politics and ideology? Or do you see limits to this idea of harmony restored? Is Leo fundamentally a progressive with some traditionalist trappings?
A. Pope Leo XIV is very much his own man, and very much a man committed to the fullness of Catholic truth. So it makes no sense to try to slot him into the hoary categories of “progressive” and “conservative,” although various parties with their own agendas incessantly do so. Normality has certainly returned to the patterns of governance in the Vatican, and that is a very good thing.
Q. Immigration: The U.S. bishops, with Leo’s support and encouragement, have become one of the most critical voices about the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Rightly so? Has he veered too much into politics?
A. Leo and the bishops have made moral arguments, not political arguments, in an evolving situation in which the Administration is constantly moving the goal posts. Perhaps when the Administration settles on a stable immigration policy with achievable goals, a real conversation about real-world alternatives — and the moral implications of each — can be engaged.
Q. Foreign policy: Is Leo right to insist on dialogue and mediation, multilateralism and international law, and to denounce a “zeal for war”? His comments about war being back in vogue don’t explicitly name the Trump administration, but most people interpret him that way. Is it correct, and is it useful, for the Vatican to bet on a post-WW2 international order that is falling apart?
A. I hope that, as his pontificate unfolds, Pope Leo will institute a bottom-up review of Vatican thinking about the dynamics of 21st-century world politics and how the Holy See best responds to them as a moral witness and teacher.
Q. What direction do you think such a bottom-up review could or should take? I have not yet heard Leo talk much about just war theory — a possible direction, given his background?
A. Just war theory can only be discussed intelligently within a broader discussion of the Catholic concept of peace as what St. Augustine called the “tranquility of order”—the peace composed of security, justice, and freedom. As a son of St. Augustine, Pope Leo should be in a strong position to initiate that broader discussion, and then help “fit” a renewal of the just war tradition of moral reflection (which addresses the complex question of how the proportionate and discriminate use of armed force can help restore or establish that peace) into the conversation.
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.
Thanks George. The very fact that they came to you says a lot. At least the Pope is beginning to be listened to by the press.
Thank you for these refreshing comments. After reading the vitriolic comments directed at the bishops and Pope Leo in regard to a post on another Catholic News / Advocacy site, it is good to see you calling out the world’s desire to try to fit Catholicism into the political puzzle. It is clear that the political mega identities of conservative and liberal groupthink has caused the faithful to place politics above faith, to let political goals triumph over the teachings of the Church, and to place political leaders over Jesus and His Vicar. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.
The American media usually fail to understand the pope or even articulate his meaning remotely into secular vernacular, because it lacks grace. Only the Divine Will can help outsiders understand Christian faith, which It sometimes does, without their knowing it.
GW says: “Normality has certainly returned to the patterns of governance in the Vatican,…” Excuse moi?
GW should define his terms. What is ‘normality’ in the Vatican??? Was it when Pius XII criticized Hitler and his Holocaust of the Jews?
GW says ‘Traditionalists’ consider him a dangerous ‘Modernist.’ How do those terms interrelate? Do they lend any sense of relevance to GW’s perspective?
Many people describe GW as a Neocon. He would do well to explain how that ‘normality’ relates to Trump and to Leo.
GW claims Trump moves goalposts. Too bad GW is not self-reflective or bold enough to see that Trump is not alone in the department of squiggly.
Agreement in principle with G Weigel’s fair minded, factual assessment. Although there remain questions that the WSJ “Saturday Essay” addresses.
We’re still waiting for some sign of hope for a resolution to the Rupnik case, some action regarding the resurrection of Summorum Pontificum. Its remaining laid to rest solidifies the divide rather than alleviates.
At this stage it’s difficult not to ask, “Is Leo fundamentally a progressive with some traditionalist trappings?”.
“Pope Leo XIV is very much his own man, and very much a man committed to the fullness of Catholic truth. So it makes no sense to try to slot him into the hoary categories of “progressive” and “conservative,”
**********
It doesn’t make sense to do that for Christians in general. Christianity’s not about political ideologies. Orthodoxy versus non signifies, but not Left/Right.
Our private political affiliations are not what defines us as Catholics. Nor should we feel compelled to tick off every box to belong to a political team.
The traditional faith is the only faith. The conservatives with whom I used to identify are among the goal post movers. Do we have Holy Communion in the hands because Vatican II taught it or because of abuse? Women altar servers? Mass versus populum? Entertaining the possibility of women as lectors and deacons? We could go on. The conservative doesn’t actually conserve minus his chosen preferences. The traditionalist realizes that the goal posts are immovable, and because so many of us started in another camp such as conservative Catholicism, we learn more each year that isn’t what we were taught, so it appears like we are moving the goalposts. But we are actually learning the basics of the game decades into our life as Catholics, sometimes after earning advanced degrees in theology. The self-promotion and out of nowhere attack on trads is crazy. GW, what gives? You have so much to offer, but you always have to self-promote and always need to attack someone else. If you made it this far, yes: goalpost can be spelled as one word or two. lol. There is room for that old Catholic et et — both and.
Perfect! Thank you! God bless! Viva Christo Rey 👑
Mr. Weigel argues the Journal filtered the Holy Father’s statement through a “primarily political analytic prism”. Like what George Weigel did with Caritas in Veritate of “gold pen, red pen” fame?
As for me, after one year of Leo I’ve grown tired of his playing the role of secular politician. Christ had none of it and it’s unbecoming and unwelcomed from Christ’s Vicar.
The Trump Administration has been quite clear on its immigration policies. The bishops and 2 popes – Francis & Leo have not been the least helpful: facilitating the entry of millions of unvetted illegals during the Biden years, turning a blind eye to the dangers of sanctuary cities; lamenting the deaths of anti-Ice critics but not of Ms. Sheridan Gorman and others at the hands of criminal illegals; refusing to condemn violent attacks on law enforcement officers. Have the bishops ever talked to Angel Moms?
Principles such as the sanctity of human life, the dignity of the human person, the promotion of the common good are talked about by the bishops, but in practice apply only to migrants and no one else.
One very important interpretive “lens” through which to look at statements from the Pontiff Leo and this Secretary of State Eminence Parolin is to keep in mind that these men are operating under the influence of their Secret Accord with the Chinese Communist Party regime, a regime which in turn is the political ally of the Islamic Revolutionary regime controlling Iran.
By virtue of this Secret Accord with the Chinese Communist regime, it is simply undeniable that these men are gigantically compromised in anything they say about the war against the Islamic Revolutionary regime running Iran.
There is no avoiding that conclusion. PERIOD.
These men, Eminence Parolin and the late Pontiff Francis and the current Pontiff Leo are without a doubt morally and politically compromised by virtue of creating and maintaining their Secret Accord with China.
They have dug their own grave by confecting and maintaining their Secret Accord with China, the number one ally of the Islamic Revolutionary regime of Iran.
Unlike Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II, they cannot be granted the assumption that they are speaking freely and truthfully.
CIM: Homerun hit of the month!
Thank you Ed.
I apologize for disagreeing with you when you imply it’s not possible, however the very use of the term “secret” exposes your gnostic assurance of what amounts to mere conspiracy theory.
Mr. CRNugent:
I do not believe reasonable people need to apologize for being in disagreement.
I do believe that reasonable people would never insist that all people must pretend that reality isn’t happening.
I also believe that when 2 people are in disagreement, and one of them simply offers ridicule of the comment of another, such writing or speech indicates that the person using ridicule has a weak argument. He does not disagree on the merits of the matter in discussion, and opts instead to attack the person with whom he disagrees, because he may feel compelled to take the last resort in the laws of conflict (when you cannot defend, you must attack).
As you haven’t offered any counter argument to my comment, it is not clear what you actually believe. For example, perhaps you did not realize that the Vatican State has entered into a secret Accord with the Chinese Communist State, or that despite the existence of the same, it doesn’t matter?
In our time, a great deal of agreement and disagreement is signified by the different response people have when they walk by and read the political placards that some people post on their lawns, which can be fairly distilled to this statement: “In this house, we believe science is real, and Bruce Jenner is a girl.”
You might reply…in any number of ways…but so far, it’s not possible to understand what your point is.
Mr. Nugent:
As a precursor to my reply, there is no reason for reasonable people to feel compelled to apologize simply because they might disagree.
My initial response is to ask you this question: Are you unaware of the existence of the Vatican State’s Secret Accord with the Communist State of China?
If so, then that explains almost everything. I’m sure you and anyone can readily discover the evidence of its existence, by simply searching web-based news sources.
If on the other hand you are aware of its existence and are of the opinion that the Pontiff Leo and Eminence Parolin are not politically compromised by the fact of their secret accord with the Communist Regime in China, then that is a different argument, but you have not made that case.
If that is your argument, then that presents you with some fairly daunting difficulties in trying to persuade anyone of your opinion, because, as many readers here and elsewhere already know, the Pontiff Leo himself has already publicly stated, just weeks ago, when questioned by media representatives, that in regard to the imprisonment and trial and recent unjust sentencing of the Catholic Jimmy Lai of Hong Kong, “I cannot comment on that.”
On the other hand, you may have disagreed simply because you did not like what I wrote, regardless of the argument I am making. In that case, you are not making any reasonable argument.
All of the above may mean that your comments about gnosticism and conspiracy theories are mute, when you (or any other reader) becomes informed of the longtime existence and renewal of the Vatican Secret Accord with China (confected by Pontiff Francis and Eminence Parolin, with the conspicuous participation of their former colleague Theodore McCarrick, longtime agent in China affairs employed by Eminence Parolin, before his sociopathic criminal sex abuse was exposed, after which Pontiff Francis and Eminence Parolin had to erase McCarrick, in their reluctant report and ritual hand-washing).
Or perhaps your avoiding the facts of the matter, and opting instead to try your hand at insults is because you feel compelled to do so, following the laws of conflict, because you feel your own viewpoint is weak, and you must resort to attacking (i.e., a fundamental law of conflict is “when you are too weak to defend, you must attack”).
In any case, it’s not possible to know what your viewpoint really is, because you are not making a reasonable argument.
Of course, it might all come down to the ultimate 21st century Rorshack Test, where people register their beliefs in response to the ubiquitous political lawn signs posted by certain citizens, which can be summed up in this distillation: “In this house, we believe that science is real, and Bruce Jenner is a girl.”
I will keep an eye out for a response, if one is forthcoming.
Chris in Maryland,
I don’t really disagree with the substance of your comment save for the last line. Recall that JPII kissed the Koran, went to the Middle East and apologized for the Crusades and asked St. John the Baptist to protect the people of Islam. What these ecumenical gestures represent must be accounted for when assessing the modern Holy See’s relations with the Middle East and Islam. It didn’t all just start with Pope Francis.
Yeah…he did that and he was wrong to have done it.
We presumably diverge in that I haven’t reached the conclusion that he intended to orchestrate an act of worship of Allah, a figure who I hold to be a false god.
I do, however, distinguish the JP2 Koran gesture from the Pontiff Francis orchestration of the kneeling in worship before the pagan god Pachamama, and the personal act of kneeling on worship before Pachamama by Rev. Robert Prevost, now known to us as Pontiff Leo, which are outright acts of idolatry.
In any case, there is no doubt that JP2 and B16 never would enter into a Secret Accord with any Communist state, and that is the issue here: the Vatican Regimes of Pontiff Francis and Pontiff Leo are politically compromised because they desired and maintain their Secret China Accord.
Conspiracy theory?
Now I am really curious about what I may have missed: CIM would you be kind enough to share what evidence you have seen that allows you to draw the conclusion of Secret Accord between the Vatican and Communist China? Do you mean a negotiated meeting and signed documents?
Here we go again…Weigel (along with Michael Novak) carried water for the neocons during the Iraq “war” when none other than Cardinal Ratzinger called it unjust. He’s once again doing the bidding of his masters to maintain their favor. Perhaps George should actually listen to the bishops and the Pope instead of never missing an opportunity to tell everyone what they’re really thinking. Wages of sin are death.
I’m not sure this post has revealed anything new. The Pope doesn’t need to be Trump’s “over and against” in order to tell him that he’s wrong. Pope Leo has now referred to Trump explicitly, telling him he’s dead wrong concerning his threats to the Iranian nation and the conduct of the war. If anyone feels like crying because they fear the Pope is a covert Democrat they can cheer up. He’s not into politics, just Christian morality. And this time it’s Trump’s turn to get a moral hiding from Rome. No need to worry, the next Democrat president will get the same treatment.
I saw the pope as giving a clear message. WSJ is “fake news”. “Donald Trump has sucked the air out of virtually the entire media universe since 2015.” Trump’s statements regarding his war criminal acts lack any humanitarian concern, I.e Pope Leo. Trump – “I give Iran two weeks to return the Strait of Hormuz to its former status. Trump – “If they don’t agree, I will OBLITERATE them.” Then he backtracks on his usual TACO weakness. “I’ll give them two weeks.” How about three or four?
The Emperor has no clothes!
The “war criminal” charges have no merit Mr. morgan.
Pres. Trump was addressing a terrorist regime, not Iranian civilians, 90% of whom do not support the current regime.
MrsC. Thank you for your response. You say the Iranian people are 90% in favor of overthrowing the evil regime. No question. Contrast with Trump’s low ratings by having no real plan to exit the war.
I see President Trump as a catalyst for turmoil. It ranges from his frequent and prolific lies, hatred, and disparagements of those he considers his enemies, to his penchant for power.
My Republican friends, that includes Psychrists, have concluded that Trump is in mental decline and should be impeached.
Pray that our Republic will remain a beacon of hope for our children’s future.
Mr Morgan, have your psychiatrist friends ever explained about projection?
🙂
We can all benefit from a little self examination, myself included.
The failings we project on others can sometimes reflect our own shortcomings.
Donald Trump is only serving this one term. We get another chance to vote in a few years. He’s not perfect but he’s not demented.
morganD: Stop with the hate.
Any Traditionalist who would consider you “a dangerous Modernist” would most likely have issues with Vatican II and every pontificate since. I think you’re good!
I read what I believe was Weigel’s first book, Tranquillitas Ordinis in 1987 when it was printed, and I enjoyed it.
I no longer give any credibility to his statements on Just War after his September 30, 2020 CWR article titled “Truman’s Terrible Choice” regarding the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in which he says that “Truman made the Right Choice. His reasoning can only be described as the end justified the means.
Crusader, absolutely! No defending the bombings of August 1945. Soon-to-be-Blessed Fulton Sheen wouldn’t stand for such nonsense, whether from GW or not.
You should study your history. The bombings were both appropriate and necessary to end the Pacific war. The battles for Okinawa and Iwo Kima made that perfectly clear. Remember, the Japanese Army senselessly murdered 15 million people over the course of the war. Then there was Unit 731. The Japanese were not victims and should not be seen as such.
Surely Japanese children were victims?
I don’t have an answer about Hiroshima. I’ve listened to both sides & every outcome option would have been ghastly. War is a terrible thing & sometimes there’s no other choice than something hugely tragic.
War is also an economic stimulant which got us out of the depression. Bombs are a perfect product cus you can only use them once – but at what total cost? We’re still in a war about fear ever since the A bomb.
“War is also an economic stimulant which got us out of the depression.”
That statement is a common, distressing and unforced declaration of economic ignorance that confuses activity with productivity and ignores the costs of death, injury and destruction associated with the war.
First of all, what was known as “the depression” was actually a series of economic downturns fomented in large part by FDR’s constant screwing around with the economy. The stupidity may have reached its zenith when the Department of Justice took the Schechter’s to court over poultry haggling, which bureaucrats found “inefficient”. They won and brought down the intrusive monstrosity of the National Recovery Administration. On the other hand, plenty of idiocy advanced. Wickard v. Filburn | 317 U.S. 111 (1942) supported the idea that growing crops for your own use is “interstate commerce”.
The contention that war produces economic revival is a variation of The Fallacy of the Broken Glass. First posited by Frederic Bastiat, it revolves around a hypothetical broken window, where in pursuit of a “silver lining” it is observed that it will at least produce work for the glazier who will then spend the money to stimulate the local economy. Then the townspeople inferring that since this is a good, they break all their windows. You might be able to put lipstick on one pig, but not the whole herd.
The economy was not improved by the death and maiming of millions, nor the delay or disruption of others lives. the destruction of major cities or the redirection of factories from consumer goods like cars to tanks and planes was not a return to prosperity.
I don’t like Keynesian sorcery, but even the stupid idea that we should pay people to dig holes and then fill them up again is better than the ghastly body count of the war.
I suggest you read Bastiat’s “That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen” and if this remains unclear, then read the fine essay on this idea at Investopedia. Ignorance isn’t a crime, unless it remains unremedied.
“I don’t have an answer about Hiroshima. I’ve listened to both sides & every outcome option would have been ghastly.”
The difficulty with the use of the atomic bomb was in part that it was a novel weapon and despite FDR’s failing health, he never revealed the Manhattan Project to Truman. Maybe we know why his first Vice President described the office as not worth a bucket of warm spit.
Although World War II is portrayed as the perfect bifurcation of good and evil, on both sides, there was a competitively escalated subordination of the value of human life to “victory” and moral questions abound. Did FDR allow the the concentration of battleships (but not carriers) at Pearl Harbor as bait and then cover up his treachery with the kangaroo court of the Roberts Commission that scapegoated Admiral Kimmel and General Short-who were later exonerated? Was it moral to send thousands of B-17’s over Germany without adequate fighter escort until the P-51 fitted with the Merlin proved capable of the job? Was the slaughter at Normandy really necessary?
Part of the responsibility for the use of the weapon likes with the Japanese Imperial Government. Their conduct from the Rape of Nanking, Unit 731, the Bataan Death March and the use of both aerial and terrestrial Kamikazes among other atrocities dehumanized an entire people.
Worse, they promised to fight to the last person to defend the Emperor. The bombing of Tokyo did not seem to restrain their will. The last combatant gave up in 1971. After Hiroshima, they played chicken and lost. Hollywood did its part, portraying the Japanese as buck-toothed, soda bottle eyeglass wearing caricatures.
Nobody can know but God, but imagine the pressure on Truman. The bomb offered him a way to end a war that had already killed millions, with estimated of millions more (including civilians) deaths on both sides as the result of an invasion and occupation. He certainly could have been thinking WTH happens if this is still going on in 1948 or 1949, and the death toll mounts and then the public discovers the bomb was feasible in 1945
Archbishop Sheen, who I respect said the bomb as an instrument of moral corrosion. My late great uncle, who was a Tarawa survivor and an observant Catholic, whose daughter may have paid the price for his final assignment on Hiroshima clean up detail, as I recall thought the bomb saved countless millions.
I’m glad I wasn’t a Missouri haberdasher who ended up making that call.
Well Athanasius, I have studied history. I have studied military history and am currently reading a book on WW II.
The issue here is not history but morality. Your post, if I am reading it correctly, is using the same reasoning as Weigel, and that is the end justifies the means. That is not Catholic, or even christian morality.
I will quote one additional item from Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, # 80:
“Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against god and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”
I realize that there are many people, including readers of CWR, who do not accept this – just read Weigel’s article and the responses.
But, there it is. You can either accept it or not.
In reflecting on some of the other comments regarding WW II, I will add the following. Well before the atomic bomb Father John Ford S.J. wrote an essay, “The Morality of Obliteration Bombing” in 1944 in a theological journal. (It is available online). His reference was to our obliteration bombing of German cities. The atom bomb, although unique in its destructive power was not unique in our destructive bombing of cities. On the night of March 9-10, 1945 three hundred B29’s attacked Tokyo and killed 100,000 people, more than were initially killed in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
The issue isn’t so much the atomic bomb, it is the direct targeting of non combatants, which had been going on for some time before Hiroshima.
Left out of the discussions on ending the war is the fact of Russia declaring war on Japan on August 8th and attacking in Manchuria. History tells us that the Japanese did fear Russian occupation of Japan. Which adds another issue as to whether our invasion of the Home Islands would have been required for Japan to surrender.
They may have not been either, but there mathematically were fewer lives lost. Who knows whether Korea or Vietnam would have happened if we had continued on with Japan. The allies were tired of the war.
The pope detail/quality content aside, I completely also agree with Dr. Weigels point that the WSJ is not who they used to, claim to, and could, be.
Retired now, I had a medical office for 40 yrs, with a typical reception area. Patients would come in, read their paper then leave it, for others to read, I assume. Our office policy was that the receptionist would, after those patients leave, pick up certain papers, the NYTimes, the Boston Globe, and unfortunately toward the end we also would pick up the WSJ. I had subscribed to the WSJ for years, then quit.
Not to manipulate people’s minds via reading, but because those papers could not be trusted to not cause damage.
Censorship is always the effort to control people’s minds by control over information to which those minds are exposed. Own it. The need to control others (rather than self) is born of our own fears. We all have fear. The antidote is Love/ Trust…hard to remain in the positive states of Being. Requires more Courage than most of us have at this stage of our evolution from animal to Human ways of Being.