The Pope versus Trump; Trump versus the Pope
I’m not Catholic and I’m not even Christian, and so I don’t ordinarily pay much attention to the Pope. But of course I follow any big news of the Pope and general trends, and the trend with the last two popes – in the political sense, because popes operate in a political world and both reflect it and have an effect on it – has been to the left.
I don’t expect popes to be cheerleaders in most wars. I expect them to talk about praying for peace and that sort of thing. But I was shocked when Pope Leo (the first American pope) said this the other day:
“Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war,” Leo said. “He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: ‘Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.'”
I am certainly no historian of the Catholic Church, but has any other pope ever said anything remotely like this? As far as I know, Catholic priests are often chaplains to the military, and they lead soldiers in wartime in prayer and there is no assertion that God doesn’t hear the prayers of those soldiers. There is also Catholic Just War theory, and plenty of Biblical precedent:
The Old Testament contains numerous examples of divinely sanctioned warfare. In Exodus 15:3, God is described as “a man of war,” affirming that war, under certain conditions, is not inherently evil. Judges and kings of Israel often led battles under divine mandate, as seen in the campaigns of Joshua (cf. Joshua 6) and David (cf. 2 Kings 5:19). Judas Machabeus led a successful war for freedom against the Seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes, a type of antichrist. God’s people suffered many martyrs (see 2 Machabees 6 & 7) but they also had angels fighting on their side (see 2 Machabees 3:24-26; 5:2-4). …
Church history is littered with saints who also served as soldiers; notable among them are as St. Sebastian, St. George, Bl. Charlemagne, St. Ferdinand III, and most famously, St. Joan of Arc.
These scriptural passages and saintly exemplars illustrate a foundational principle: War is not intrinsically immoral, but its morality depends on context, authority, and intention.
The passage to which Pope Leo seems to be referring is in Isaiah and here’s the context:
Dr. Marcus Peter writes that the Holy Father “might have been evoking Isaiah 1:15” when he said those words. The pastor of my church, in his homily on Palm Sunday, offered the same opinion.
But Isaiah did not say that God does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.
In Isaiah Chapter One, the prophet is chastising Israel. He says Israel has become a “Sinful nation, people laden with wickedness, evil offspring, corrupt children!” (1:4). Then he says, “When you spread out your hands, I will close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!” (1:15).
Dr. Peter notes that the language in the official Vatican text is clear. “The Italian original reads, “non ascolta la preghiera di chi fa la guerra,” which closely means that God does not hear the prayer of those who make or wage war.”
Isaiah is saying, however, that God does not hear the prayers of the wicked, the evil, or the corrupt. And not everyone who wages war is evil, wicked or corrupt. I don’t think George Washington, our Founding Fathers, or Abraham Lincoln were evil, wicked or corrupt. And President Roosevelt cannot be considered evil or wicked for declaring war on a country that attacked the U.S. and on another country that was out to conquer the world.
The Pope also criticized Trump’s “a whole civilization will die” threat, either not understanding it (as I wrote about here) or perhaps considering words as awful as deeds. Nor has Pope Leo (and I include when he was Cardinal Prevost) ever had a word to say about Iran’s constant “Death to America” threats, over the near-half-century of the mullahtocracy’s existence. At least, I couldn’t find any such statement by him.
So it’s unsurprising that Trump took issue with what the Pope said, although I actually think this is one of those times when Trump would have done better to have ignored it.
The Pope also said he’s not afraid of Trump. The statement implies that this involves some sort of bravery. But of course Trump isn’t going to send out a hit man to harm the Pope. Then again, Pope Leo might well be afraid of Iran, or Muslim terrorists. After all, look at what happened to Pope John Paul II:
In 1979, The New York Times reported that Agca, whom it called “the self-confessed killer of an Istanbul newspaperman” … had described the Pope [John Paul II] as “the masked leader of the crusades” and threatened to shoot him if he did not cancel his planned visit to Turkey, which went ahead in late November 1979. The paper also said (on 28 November 1979) that the killing would be in revenge for the then still ongoing attack on the Grand Mosque in Mecca, which had begun on 20 November, and which he blamed on the United States or Israel.
It’s a long and very convoluted story; you can find it at the link if you’re interested. It was a conspiracy, but only Agca fired and severely injured the Pope, who nevertheless later forgave him.
Back to the present – I’ve also seen quite a bit of talk in the comment sections of blogs on the right from people saying that of course it was David Axelrod’s visit that sparked Pope Leo’s comments critical of Trump. Some of them add that Axelrod is Jewish, which makes this one of those “the Jews are behind it” charges. But I doubt very much that the Pope is motivated by Axelrod or by Jews, whatever online commenters may think.
I don’t know what Pope Leo and David Axelrod discussed when they met, but they’re both from Chicago and they seem to share political worldviews anyway. My guess is that at least a portion of their discussion may have had something to do with Axelrod’s daughter. I’m speaking of this:
[Axelrod’s] first child, a daughter … was diagnosed with epilepsy at seven months of age. Axelrod describes Lauren as having had brutal seizures, requiring a constantly changing regimen of medications for some time. This left her developmentally disabled, but nevertheless mainstreamed in school. For a few years after high school, the family struggled to find programs that would keep her happy and fulfilled, but were able to place her in Misericordia, a large dormitory-style group home in 2002, where she leads an active life. As of 2021, Axelrod advocates for a flexible, mixed approach to group homes that support environments for people like his daughter, in contrast to the common approach of exclusively moving toward smaller group homes.
And of Misericordia:
Misericordia Home is a not-for-profit developmental home for persons with mild to profound developmental disabilities in Chicago, Illinois. It is run by the Sisters of Mercy and operated under the auspices of the Archdiocese of Chicago.
Axelrod’s daughter is now in her mid-forties and she’s been in that Catholic-run home for most of her adult life. Maybe Axelrod wanted to thank Pope Leo. Not everything is about politics.
“Not everything is about Politics…”
With Axelrod and his unholy alliance, it is indeed always about politics.
Leftists delenda est.
CivilServant:
You don’t think Axelrod cares about his children? Yes, leftists also do have private lives that are important to them. I know plenty of leftists.
Nor do I think Pope Leo takes dictates from Axelrod, anyway. But as I said, they are already aligned politically, so there’s no need.
I know plenty of Catholics who are disgusted with the leftword tilt of the Church. And this is from the top all the way down to local priests and parochial schools. But recall John O’Sullivan’s First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing
That’s an interesting sidelight on Axelrod’s daughter. May God bless the Sisters of Mercy who have helped her so much. However, not every grateful father gets to thank the Pope in person. It’s not unreasonable to suspect an Obama operative of being an Obama operative.
The bloody hands in that passage from Isaiah refer to people who have given up obedience and true worship and tried to substitute hypocritical bloody sacrifices, which the LORD says he despises. Perhaps the Pope and his defenders might also consider Matthew 10:34 (ESV):
Kate:
This is also not just a random pope, it’s a pope from Chicago.
And of course Axelrod may have also had a political message for the Pope – but there’s no reason to imagine Pope Leo would care what he said politically or that it would influence Leo, had not Leo already held the same viewpoints.
Plus, the idea that Axelrod was speaking as a Jew or to advance Jewish interests is an absurdity, although I see that assertion around the blogosphere. The opinion Pope Leo expressed was not a pro-Israel one.
And yes, the Pope did seem to be distorting what that Biblical passage said.
I seem to be missing something. Unless I’m mistaken, the Popes instigated the crusades as religious wars to save the Holy land from the Muslims.
Pope Leo’s brother still lives in their native city of Chicago. Lewis is known to be a full-on MAGA and a Trump supporter.
One wonders how often they talk about politics? Leo could learn from Lewis just like David Mamet learned from Thomas Sowell.
Neo, I agree that the idea that Axelrod was there as a Jew, to promote Jewish interests is absurd. I could believe Obama policies and viewpoints were discussed. That’s the Chicago way.
Besides the Leftists in the Catholic church, they have Muslims banging on the door to get in. Keep going Leftists the church will have cathedrals changed to Mosques.
I just finished reading The Golden Thread, and Christians have been involved in wars for the last 2500 years, frequently against other Christians instead of other threats, like Muslims.
I know plenty of Catholics who are disgusted with the leftword tilt of the Church.
I am one of them. To the extent that I may be giving up on the Catholic Church — but not the Catholic faith.
Is that possible? Maybe, maybe not.
How many divisions does the pope have? Asking for a, well not exactly a friend. But seriously (insert rim shot here), pope leo needs to shut his pie hole. Unless, of course, he uses it to condemn the islamic jihadis and communist dictators who have SLAUGHTERED, MAIMED, RAPED and TERRORIZED Christians throughout Africa, Asia, South and Central America. I have little regard for either this or any other pope, nor for the organized roman church, despite having been raised and educated as a roman catholic. I can make common cause with catholics in many areas, pro-life particularly, and admire the many catholic families who exhibit admirable qualities and produce many fine offspring. But that is as far as my affinity goes. The church hierarchy does not speak for me, nor from what I can tell, does it speak for a majority of catholics in many areas of modern morality, from birth control to celibacy. Why this pope thought it either advisable or acceptable to speak so particularly about President Trump in a context that leaves no room to doubt that he is supportive of an islamic regime that has slaughtered its own people and has been seeking to obtain a nuclear bomb for four decades, then to misquote the Bible in doing so, is inexplicable outside the possibility that he is looking to convince people that he actually is the antichrist or the false prophet of Revelation.
Possibly Trump’s biggest flaw is a thin skin, coupled with a tendency to speak without thinking things through. In this case he should have remained silent; his reaction to the Pope’s criticism just called more attention to it.
richf:
The Streisand Effect.
richf (5:21 pm), you mean, “Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth”?
Ohhhhhh, how I wish-wish-wish Trump were capable of doing this. But he isn’t.
(We fight with the army that we have, not with the one we wish we had, right?)
The leftward tilt of the Church from the top all the way down to local priests and parochial schools is undeniable. So, how likely is it that the College of Cardinals would elect any Pope not of a liberal/leftist POV?
In the book of Revelation, the returning Jesus is pictured as having a sword coming out of his mouth.
Revelation chapter 19:11-21
Now cross that with the Messianic Psalm 110- yes Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah- with the imagery of the dead being heaped into piles !
Keep in mind that the Vatican has had 2000 years to develop and refine its own deep state and it did so with excommunication and eternal damnation being its ultimate leverage.
I was born and raised Catholic. This idiot leftist Pope and his immediate predecessor, plus the egregious history of decades (maybe centuries) of fobbing known pedophiles onto unsuspecting parishes has crushed any respect I may have had for the church as an institution.
As for Trump’s communications antics, Neo and MJR, get over it. Trump is who he is, and we didn’t elect a saint–we elected an extremely competent leader who’s saving our country from the demented Dems. I don’t care what his foibles are, I’m happy with him as “the army we have” given how sound his actual policies are, and the horror of what could have been had he lost. Be thankful.
bill fello:
“Get over it” yourself. If you read this blog much, you should see I don’t especially care about Trump mouthing off and that I think a great deal of it is actually tactical and often helpful. But now and then I believe something specific he says would be better left unsaid. This is one of those times. Big deal.
Also, Axelrod met with the Pope on April 9. Pope Leo started this critique before that; the “hands full of blood” remark about praying in war was made on March 29. The “civilization” critique by the Pope was made on April 7. Axelrod didn’t cause those remarks; the Pope was already in that mindset. Axelrod and the Pope are both on the left – as I’ve already indicated. It was probably that Axelrod was reacting to the Pope’s already being in agreement with him. I don’t doubt that they talked politics – although it’s not known that they did. But this trend in the Catholic Church and in the Pope has next to nothing to do with Axelrod-
BTW, Miserecordia is the real deal. My neighbor’s daughter is a Downs child, now into her 40’s, anmd has been at Miserecordia for decades. We donate.
Also, the timing of Axelrod visiting and spending over an hour with this Pope and the hit job by the 3 bishops on 60 minutes is just too convenient to be coincidence. Obama was all about splitting people apart, and Axelrod was his strategic thinker. This meeting was no accident. They want to peel of Catholic supporters of Trump.
This X post has a number of Robert Prevost’s posts before he became Pope. The account was deleted the day he was elected, but his political opinions have not changed. Prevost was very critical of Trump, JD Vance, and the right in general.
https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/2044123715865325932?s=20
The Liberation Theologists have taken over. Miguel D’Escoto has transformed himself into Pope Leo.
I thought Vance’s comments were chosen well; and I do wish that Trump had spoken in the same vein.
I believe that Trump was justified in responding; but his unfortunate habit of stooping to personal invective is unnecessary.
A telling jab would have been to simply ask at what point the Church, and the Pope, would consider it immoral to continue to ignore Iran’s long history of atrocities, including the recent slaughter of their own people.
I see today that Trump has continued his habit with respect to Italy’s PM, who was the Golden Girl not so long ago. A simple statement of profound disappointment in Italy’s recent decisions should have sufficed, A public statement by the President personally (not in a Social Media post) that the U.S. will evaluate its relationships and commitments based on recent history would focus all of the attention that was necessary at this time. IMO.
As neo notes, for centuries Catholics and Christians have been involved in wars and praying about them. There is Catholic Just War Theory. Pope Leo must know about these things. So I take his comments as politically motivated deceit.
Over the weekend three American cardinals appeared on “60 Minutes” to support Pope Leo’s comments.
–“America, The Jesuit Review”, “US cardinals speak out against Iran war, mass deportations in 60 Minutes appearance” https://www.americamagazine.org/news/2026/04/13/us-cardinals-60-minutes-trump/
Clearly the US Catholic Church and Pope Leo are pushing a leftist agenda against Trump.
As to deportations — I don’t recall these Catholic leaders speaking out against the mass lawbreaking of American borders, the resultant trafficking of children, and the deaths due to violent criminals allowed in.
Nor do they mention the ulterior gains on the backend for the Church — grift to their immigration agencies and the filling of their pews by immigrants.
If these Catholic leaders wish to walk the walk on such policies, they can open Vatican City to the same immigrants and sell off the Vatican’s riches to take care of them. There are plenty of New Testament quotes to that effect.
Until then they are political animals operating behind their crucifixes and a Pope hat. I have no respect.
Neo, I’ve known too many people who pay lip service to normalcy in order to move thru normal life.
Axelrod slithers. So, no. Not like you or I do, or would.
Before the Battle of Patay, St. Joan of Arc encouraged her troops:
______________________________
In God’s name, we must fight them! Even if the English hang from the clouds, yet we shall have them! For God sends us to punish them.
Today the gentle Dauphin will have the greatest victory he has won for a long time! My Voices have told me that the enemy will be ours.
–St. Joan of Arc
https://www.jeanne-darc.info/biography/in-her-own-words/
______________________________
Pope Leo, I defy you to tell me that St. Joan did not pray in war and that God did not answer some of her prayers!
Joan always was a troublemaker for priests of Leo’s ilk. The English did the dirty work of burning her, but the Church was behind it.
______________________________
Bishop, I die through you!
–St. Joan of Arc, her final words to Bishop Cauchin, who presided over her trial, before she was burnt at the stake.
@Huxley
To be fair the the sham trial and burning was the work of a cabal of Burgundian Party affiliated clergy whose aristocratic patrons were collaborating with the English, and the Church proper took a while to got wind of it and was rightfully furious at the result, hence why the first Borgia Pope reopened the case and ended by quashing the conviction and excommunicating a lot of those involved in it.
https://www.jeanne-darc.info/trial-of-nullification/
Larger issue: Christianity, as a whole has had a problem dealing with naked aggression and evil. Christians are getting slaughtered world wide, yet, there is no effective response. Christians have lost a lot of Africa, all of the middle east, Europe and N. America. There possibly is growth in Central and S. America. Even as Orthodox I hear, at least in my circle nothing about Islam, yet the Jews are on everyone’s lips (and keyboards). We are losing towns to Islam in Michigan. 18 are either Muslim or have Muslim influence.
It leaves the impression of lack of will, cowardice and confusion.
As I watch this play out, the thought came to me this will not actually change a single vote.
@Turtler: … the Church proper took a while to got wind of [St. Joan’s burning] and was rightfully furious at the result,
Cite for the Church’s “fury”?
Are you arguing, Uncle Joe-style, that Joan wouldn’t have been burned had Rome known at the time of what was happening at Rouen in 1431?
The Church didn’t “get wind” of Joan’s burning and react. No, Joan’s family, friends, and supporters tied to the French crown formally pushed for it. Without that I doubt anything would have been done to clear Joan and certainly not at the time she was condemned.
The Church’s “position” on Joan changed dramatically over time:
1431: Condemned as a heretic (local Church court, politically influenced)
1456: Declared innocent (official Church review overturns verdict)
1920: Canonized as a saint
So the Church first condemned Joan of Arc, then later admitted it was wrong, and ultimately elevated her to sainthood.
There was much more politics involved at each level than principle.
– bill fello (7:04 pm) graciously advises me (and neo) to “get over it.”
Okay. Will do (or attempt). But first, a few comments.
– bill fello continues, “Trump is who he is, and we didn’t elect a saint . . . .”
Correct. I thought my earlier comment supported this, but perhaps it didn’t. “[H]ow I wish-wish-wish Trump were capable of doing this. But he isn’t.” Yeah, that supports it.
– “[W]e elected an extremely competent leader who’s saving our country from the demented Dems.”
He’s certainly doing his darnedest, which is far more than much (certainly not all) of the “R” party have been doing. I salute and appreciate his efforts.
– Working backwards in the sentence I see “an extremely competent leader”.
I’m very happy to report, so far so good. I’ve had my disagreements with him; it’s very rare that two people will see eye-to-eye on matters of policy. I’m going to guess that even bill fello has points on which he disagrees with Trump, but I’m convinced that bill fello has gotten over those little bumps in the road. I’ll give it a shot too, whaddayasay?
We’ve got just under three years to go with Trump 47, and the rest of those three years will be determinant as to competency. There’s an awful lot that can go wrong, even for those of us who are right-leaning. Let’s see how we end up in 2029.
– “I don’t care what his foibles are, . . . .”
* I DO *. They are legion, and they can be ugly in the extreme. And (I hope not) fatal.
– “I’m happy with him as ‘the army we have’ . . . .”
Just as Trump is what he is, that army is what it is. I get to watch. And pray. And I hope rejoice and not weep.
– “[G]iven how sound his actual policies are . . . .’
Much of this relates to those three years being determinant. I am very mindful of how the vicious and rabid left is doing all it can (and then some) to undermine everything he’s attempting. By the way, I am amazed at what he (and his family) have withstood.
– Finally, bill fello cites “the horror of what could have been had he lost. Be thankful.”
I’m pleased to end on two notes of total agreement. Horror indeed, and thankful indeed.
OK, OK, so the Pope got up and lied on the world stage about the meaning AND context of that “gotcha” quote from Isaiah.
BUT he lied in order to make Trump look EVIL!
Ergo, ALL is forgiven…
…and His Eminence should be applauded.
Congratulated.
BEATIFIED, even, for his courage, fortitude and moral probity…in warning us all about the Orange Monster.
(BTW, if he’s not afraid of lying to the world, why should he be afraid of Trump?)
File under: Deep Encyclical—“Fake but accurate” hermeneutics…in the service of “a higher Truth”…
(Unless the real question is, WHO’s his speech writer?)
If I were President, maybe I wouldn’t have said what Trump said, and I wouldn’t have posted the god-like meme. So what?
If I were President, I wouldn’t want to alienate Catholics. However, as noted above, not all Catholics are behind the Pope 100%.
Also, most Hispanics are Catholic, and Hispanics are an important and growing constituency.
I had wondered what Ed Morrissey of HotAir thought about the controversery, as he is a devout Catholic and writes a Sunday homily every week.
This is what he said today:
https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2026/04/14/tuesdays-final-word-n3813902
@Huxley
Firstly: with pleasure. I already provided one such citation, in my previous link. However, there are more. Starting with the proclamation of excommunication laid upon the first trial’s two main prosecutors and assorted others. Unfortunately I was unable to find an original proclamation of the matter online (though it seems search engines are getting worse) but it is briefly covered in the first link here.
https://sojournphotography.com/joan-of-arc/essay.htm
https://www.history.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/Trial-of-Joan-of-Arc.pdf
https://kolbefoundation.org/gbookswebsite/studentlibrary/greatestbooks/aaabooks/joanofarc/sessions4.html
https://www.jeanne-darc.info/trial-of-nullification/
Secondly: no need to put sarc air quotes around the “fury.” It was quite serious. About a dozen or so excommunications were published in retaliation, leading to quite a few executions and some vigilante killings. The chief prosecutor Pierre Cauchon was already dead but upon his excommunication his corpse was intentionally dug up from consecrated ground and thrown in the river, with it only being recovered and reburied in secret with the hallmarks of his office at great risk by some of his remaining supporters (hence why his body was only recently rediscovered). To say this was quite the harsh and serious – especially for those at the time – reproach would be an understatement.
And we will soon see why.
Alas, it was largely confined to the sort of middle managers, the clerical and university staff directly connected to the trial rather than the bigwigs like the Duke of Burgundy or the English lords, in part due to politics and in part because it would have been hard to prove what they knew or when they knew it on the various illegal and downright heretical things in the trial (and indeed one reason for the acquittal trial and ensuing excommunications taking as long as they did was because the Anglo-Burgundians purposefully hid the relevant documents in Rouen and would not give them up until the Valois took Rouen by arms, and even in trial with Papal oversight several of the VIPs involved in the convictions flatly refused to answer questions about what trial proceedings were like).
Correct, that is absolutely what I am arguing. Or at least; that is what would be the case if the Papacy and Church higher ups applied canon law as they did in the retrial, and for various reasons I think there is no real reason to believe they would not have.
But perhaps the most eloquent evidence in favor of that was the nature of the trial itself and what the perpetrators did during it. Among other things, Monsieur Bishop Cauchon took pains to exile one of the prior judges mid trial for voicing that the trial was proceeding unjustly and in contrast to the law, and he and his co-conspirators took pains to minimize reporting of the matter to their ecclesiastical superiors (though they rather unwisely for them but fortunately for us kept a rather complete record of the trial, which was crucial evidence against them). They also refused to turn over records to their superiors for more than 20 years until the Valois seized them and the city that held them, and their successors repeatedly refused to answer basic questions about etiquette and conduct on the trial even when confronted by a Papal Legate speaking with the authority of the Pope.
To say this screams Mens Rea and at the time also did does not even come close to describing it. It shows the Burgundian operatives involved in the trial knew they were operating in violation of their oaths and canon law, expected there to be trouble if (when) that became obvious, and took pains to purge naysayers and limit the evidence that could be brought to bear on them. I may be a Protestant who has plenty bad to say about the Catholic Church now, even moreso to say about it in the time of the Late Middle Ages, and I think there can be something to be said about a system that allowed men like this to seize the power and impunity they had and how the Church’s institutions had allowed that, but one reason the Maid has the stature she does is because the trial and retrial were not particular edge cases and not a case like with say the Knights Templar where the central Papacy knew what was going on and at least passively approved it (even if grudgingly or under duress/threat as in the case of the Templars).
Cauchon etc al broke basically every rule in the book, knew it, and relied upon a conspiracy of silence and the Burgundian/Plantagenet armies to hide the evidence. And so when that came to surface the Papacy was livid and took bloody revenge.
Semantics. And again as my links point out, while Cauchon etc al ultimately kept far better records than was good for their reputational health close at home they sent scant reports up the chain. Hence confusion from the higher church authorities in France and Italy when they thought of it even at the time (which admittedly was not often, they had other fish to fry like the Ottomans sweeping up and the embers of a massive church schism being healed as well as “more mundane” peacemaking roles) prior to the Royal and Doremey appeal, and bafflement and increasingly anger as they dug up the case and ran into the Burgundians stonewalling increasingly futilely.
Which is again why the Pope not only personally squashed the excommunication of Joan and all other adverse verdicts, but the excommunication of a host of those involved in the trial.
You are entitled to your doubts, but I would like to point out how there were already a host of question marks raised at the trial even at the time and while the wider church did not think much of it at the time Cauchon etc al’s intentional vagueness in reports was noted and even at the time Cauchon and to expel one of the judges and a host of other witnesses and staff from the trial midway precisely because they were objecting to his particular flavor of railroad.
Obviously significant royal and French clergy pressure helped speed this along, as did the fact that the excommunication of Joan was never affirmed throughout the rest of the Church and English Rouen and Burgundian Paris largely failed to get it to hold even on their bow territory. But this is the kind of thing that would likely be picked up and dug up after the fact.
This is a misreading of the Church structure both then and now, and would be closer to what happened with Jan Hus. But in Joan’s case the excommunication and execution for relapsed heresy was only passed in a relatively few portions of the local church administration (not coincidentally those that were Burgundian and Plantagenet aligned), with their superiors (mostly the other bishops and the Primate to the Gauls and some assorted cardinals and nuncios) being baffled at the poor quality of the reports but not finding it too out of the ordinary in a time of plague, war, and social collapse, but not affirming the verdict and in particular with large parts of the rest of the church territories in Western Europe never respecting or accepting the verdict (and again even the Burgundian and Plantagenet clergy having a hard time getting it to stick in their own territory).
Then the appeals came in and worked their way up, to the scandal of those, and a certain lesser know Borgia Pope murmured a bit about how these were very serious charges so let’s examine this decision from the subordinates. And the rest is history, and theology with a side bit of legality.
Well sure, but it helped that in this case the prosecutors ran afoul of a huge amount of the politics involved as well as some of the principles. Even if Pope Callixstus III had been a much more shameless and cynical man than even I think he was (and I do think the vigor with which he reacted indicates some amount of genuine disgust and righteous rage) why the Devil would he happily accept this kind of overreach and systematic insubordination from a mere Bishop for nakedly secular reasons? And I note that even Uncle Joe was content purging people not just for their crimes that he had authorized or ordered them to do (as Yezhov might attest) but also a few cases where he learns some of them were taking “liberties” he had never approved of, as Dybenko could attest.
Better than thirty years ago–is it that long–in the wake of Desert Storm, the Presbyterian Church (UDA) was horrified to discover all requirements of the Just War Doctrine–Augustine AND Aquinas–had been met. So a move was made to, as far as I could tell, to add a codicil, “The foregoing aspects of the JWD having been met is insufficient. The actual qualification is whether the US did it. If so, none of the foregoing apply.” I kid, but only sightly. The committee tasked with crafting the exception punted, presumably not wanting to, eventually, have to explain to Augustine and Aquinas how they got it wrong. Ended up with something aoout how the Christian handles the bully,
As has been said about a million times, his Holiness is not stopped from noticing Nigeria, is he? Is any Christian church forbidden by Heaven to notice Nigeria? Seems like it.
If you take the “leadership” of any Christian denomination, I may except the most conservative but I’m not sure, as being made up of the mot egregious hypocrites, you’ll be pretty close to target.
Then there was the coordinated attacks by the bishops
There is the fact that leo was part of the bishopric in algeria where christianity id largely proscribed and missionaries were murdered in the 90s but he finds ‘dignity’ in algeria
He as much as damned the president, quoting isiah saying ‘god doesnt hear the prayers of those who wage war’
Doesnt it suggest a 5th column since he has been nearly basenghi on the regimes atrocities
Some have pointed out pope pius anbivalence but context that he was supporting a coup against hitler among other things
That gets in the word of the narrative promulgated by hochhuths the deputy
Frankly i was rooting for Cardinal Sarah who is strong in the word but the conclave is rather useless
Indeed.
Now let’s do Pakistan…
…or Egypt…
— Bill Fello
Nobody should ‘get over it’ because it is quite possibly Trump’s greatest political vulnerability. His communications style is also one of his greatest assets at the same time, so it’s a problem.
Trump can condemn someone in what seems like irrevocable terms and then turn around and praise them to the skies, or vice versa. Look at some of what he has said about Ted Cruz or Lindsay Graham or others. To an extent that’s just politics, you have to demonize your opponent in the primaries and then work with them in the general. But Trump is much more intense about it in both directions.
As I said, it’s both his greatest strength and greatest weakness, but as a weakness it could bring him down if he said just the wrong thing about just the wrong person at just the wrong time.
— Richard Aubrey
This is critical. This isn’t just a problem of the Catholic Church, it’s an institutional problem all over Christendom, in both clerical and secular institutions. The educated class of the West hates/loathes their own civilization, and it tends to focus on America as the preeminent Western power.
But not uniquely. Decades ago, for ex, Peter Hitchens (brother to the more (in)famous Christopher) wrote a book called The Abolition of Britain about this same tendency in operation there.
The educated class of the West has soaked up a globalist, one-world, non-violent vision of the future from grade school on, for over half a century now. Not everyone buys into it, obviously, but for a critical mass of that class it’s the air they breathe, the water they swim in, they don’t even think about it, it’s just there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGbgSzBuI6s
This old Coke commercial from 1977 (I can remember when it was on air as a kid) is actually a telling example of that mindset. Coca-cola was just trying to sell soda, of course, but they made that ad because they knew it would have an appeal. Look at the kids singing, all races, all religions, all ethnicities, peaceful and united.
That vision actually does animate the ideological globalists on a deep level, so deep they themselves are only half aware of it. Run, of course, by People LIke Them*.
But that tends in turn to make them turn on their own society, and esp. America, because they know/sense that the majority of the people don’t believe in it. When America asserts its sovereignty, ignoring international institutions, that is a threat their vision. They literally don’t quite perceive the threat of Islamism or the Nigerian issues or China, because they are non-Western. Victims of the West. Oppressed. The world is all messed up because the West messed it up and won’t let them fix it.
They need everybody, everywhere, to stop identifying with their own nations and faiths and so on, and be ‘one world, one people’, like in the commercial. America is strongly nationalistic and insists on acting as a sovereign nation.
It’s the same reason Western intellectuals used to be outraged by South Africa but uninterested in China’s offenses…except for Tibet. The Tibetans ranked higher on the ‘victim scale’.
The first priority, from that POV, is to make sure the West is tied down and firmly under the control of People Like Them. They want to create a world state because they want to create an appeal authority that will overturn their own peoples when they don’t follow the intellectual class.
(See the EU, and it’s infamous ‘vote again’ commands when an election goes against an elite class goal.)
The Church is simply one institution among many that is now dominated by members of that educated class, and so shares their attitudes and assumptions and thus sees the USA as the primary threat to the world and that vision from the Coke commercial.
(Or the song Imagine which comes close to being the anthem of the educated class. I cited the Coke commercial simply because the Church is an outlier on the atheistic elements of the vision from the song.)
Even the sex scandals flowed from it. The Catholic Church was not the only institution with that problem at that time, and not the only one that covered it up. They rightly get more blame because they are supposed to uphold higher standards, but it was an issue institutionally all over the West, a nasty overspill from the Sexual Revolution.
*That’s a human failing, not just them. Almost everyone, when visualizing how things ‘should’ be, indulge in that.
— Geoffrey Brittain
The leftward tilt of almost every institution is undeniable. It varies in intensity but it’s widespread because the educated social class runs most institutions and have been pushing this for decades.
That’s one of the mechanisms behind Conquest’s 2nd Law: Any organization now explicitly and intentionally right-wing becomes left-wing over time.
That’ll be true as long as the educated class has the mindset it does.
Infallibility ” ex cathedra” didn’t exist until the 1800’s
The Pope in politics, is he Catholic?
And does the bear still live in the woods?