Opinion: Speaking the truth about the Pope and politics

In 1938, Monsignor Fulton Sheen wrote, “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

Observing the widespread contentions that, for example, Catholics worship Mary or that Catholics worship idols, Sheen notes that this caricature of the Catholic Church was viral. Of course, there was an easily available cure for the millions who suffered from this disease of misinformation: they could have done a little research.

But, alas, these men and women did not. And worse, many of them infected others.

Nine decades later, Sheen’s reflections on the virus remain, but we now have a new strain. This infection is not coming from non-Catholics, but rather from Catholics themselves. And social media is rotten with it.

For the past several weeks, it has become chic to post objections to Pope Leo XIV based on second-hand and third-hand reported comments. It is seen as avant-garde to doom-troll for negatively biased interpretations of decades-old stories that might cast sensationalist aspersions on him—and then, of course, to repost these items. It is wildly popular to Like, Love, and Share pseudo-journalistic hot takes from the goat rodeo that is the world of fringe-Catholic sites.

In short, many Catholics have come to believe—and repost—things that are verifiably untrue about the Vicar of Christ.

If Bishop Sheen could look around now and provide us with an observation, he might state: “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate Pope Leo XIV. There are millions, however, who hate who they wrongly believe to be Pope Leo XIV—which is, of course, quite a different thing.”

Of course, hating the Pope would be an objectively grievous sin against charity, regardless of what a Pope’s sins might truly be. But hating him on the basis of untruths would constitute an objectively grave sin against both charity and justice.

Now, as in 1938, a few minutes of research would disprove some very obvious yet widespread errors—including the following.

We are told that Pope Leo is in favor of open borders. That’s not true. He has clearly stated to the contrary: “No one has said that the United States should have open borders. I think every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter.”

We are told that Pope Leo has green-lighted the country of Iran building or obtaining a nuclear weapon. That is not true.

Comprehensively, on July 14, 2025, he stated that “Nuclear arms offend our shared humanity and also betray the dignity of creation.”

We are told that Pope Leo has not spoken out about the violence of the Iranian government. But on April 23, reporter Anneliese Taggart of Newsmax TV, asked Pope Leo: “Do you condemn these actions, and do you have any message to the Iranian regime?” Pope Leo responded, “So when a regime, when a country takes decisions which takes away the lives of other people unjustly, then obviously that is something that should be condemned.”

But much more broadly, we are told that Pope Leo XIV should stop speaking about political matters at all—especially war. “He should,” many insist, “stay in his lane!”

But since political life touches upon all Ten Commandments in immediate, practical, and profound ways, that would be a very narrow lane indeed—and make it impossible to navigate the Ark of Salvation.

Bluntly, the idea that the pope “should stay out of politics” amounts to a fallacious rehash of “the Church should stay out of the bedroom.” The latter dismisses the idea that a pope has any business discussing matters involving the sixth and ninth commandments. The former—especially regarding war—dismisses the idea that a pope has any business discussing matters deeply involving the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth commandments.

In truth, a pope has both a right and a duty to guide the faithful in both public and private matters of morality.

Moreover, if the pope should stay out of politics is the working principle of some Catholics, their correction should not be aimed at Pope Leo XIV, but rather at Pope Leo I, whose meeting with Attila the Hun saved the lands of Christendom from mass pillage in 452.

Perhaps their criticism should be aimed at Pope Alexander III, who condemned King Henry II of England for creating an environment that led to the murder of Thomas Becket in 1170. Or at Pope Saint Pius V, whose 1570 papal bull Regnans in Excelsis not only excommunicated Queen Elizabeth but referred to her as “the pretended Queen of England,” and lifted the obligation of English Catholics to obey her rule.

Maybe their objections should be toward Pope Pius VII, who excommunicated Napoleon in 1809. Or at Pope Pius XI for having Nazism condemned at every pulpit in Germany with his encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge in 1937. Perhaps it should be aimed at Pope Saint John Paul II, whose nine-day visit to Soviet-controlled Poland in 1979 helped bring down Soviet communism. Even more à propos, perhaps their umbrage should again fall on Pope Saint John Paul II, who declared the injustice of the war against, and embargo on, Iraq in 2003.

It’s a shame we didn’t listen.

To claim that Pope Leo XIV has neither the right nor the duty to speak about political matters is to object to practices and precedents that date back to patristic times. And if that is the goal—to silence the pope on these issues—the question might be asked: Is the object of condemnation the person of Leo, or the papacy itself?

We Catholics have a serious moral duty to fact-check our posts—as well as our words and our very thoughts—regarding Pope Leo XIV. And even prior to that, we have a duty to love the pope, to respect the pope, and to pray for the intentions of the Holy Father, Pope Leo XIV. If we’re not doing that—if we are not protecting the true reputation of the Vicar of Christ—millions of people will find themselves hating both pope and papacy. And, in some measure, it will be our fault.