Was the Pope correct about war and prayer, based on that Biblical verse?
As I said, I would have preferred that Trump let the whole thing slide when Pope Leo criticized him (and yes, it was the Pope who “started it” in terms of the fight). But that’s not Trump’s way, and one of the purposes Trump’s response has served is to call attention to a couple of things about the current Pope.
The first is that yes, the guy is a leftist or at least left-leaning, based on earlier tweets he wrote and/or retweeted as a cardinal, which involve politics (see also this).
The second is in some way even more troubling – at least to me. The Pope seems to have gotten his scriptural context wrong. Watch this video, which explains it quite well I think. It’s not long, I’ve cued it up for a 3-and-1/2-minute segment that is the relevant part:
How could the Pope make such an error? Was he a “journalist” for the New York Times in his earlier life? No, not that and not much of anything else except growing up Catholic and answering an early calling to be a priest. The Pope’s quote was from Isaiah, a book of what Christians call the Old Testament and Jews call the Tanakh. There are differences between the two books that aren’t especially relevant to this discussion. But here’s the King James Version of the chapter, and I don’t see any way to interpret it as Pope Leo did.
Either Leo hasn’t really studied the text, or he’s distorting it to make an anti-Trump antiwar point. I’ll leave it at that.
It’s not an error, it’s an op, and it is working exactly to plan.
Or he’s a typical stupid liberal with an axe to grind.
I do think you were naive, much as I respect you, about the Axelrod visit.
bill fello:
I think you misunderstood my point about the Axelrod visit. As I said in my post:
And as I further clarified in one of my comments, the Pope and Axelrod are already aligned politically, so there’s no need for the Pope to be responding to Axelrod. Also I wrote here:
As I wrote in a comment addressed to you:
So no, I don’t think I’m naive. I think Axelrod was there for several reasons, and one was almost certainly to discuss politics. If anything, I think he was reacting to what the Pope had already said rather than the other way around, and also egging the Pope on to speak further along those lines.
I’m not really sure how to categorize interpretations of Bible verses as “errors”. They are almost always interpreted in the light of a theology, needless to say Christians and Jews interpret many verses in Isaiah completely differently.
I think the best you can do is show that Pope Leo is not interpreting it in the light of Catholic theology. Catholic theology is a big topic and says a lot of things, and not everyone agrees with it anyway. I don’t think this video even did that, honestly, and there are enough Catholics at National Review that probably someone could have done that.
At any rate Pope Leo certainly has at some point learned about Summa Theologica which lays out war for Catholics pretty clearly. There are pacifist Christians who would not accept that of course, and likely would agree with what Pope Leo said. Whether it’s appropriate of him to agree with them is a matter for his Church to sort out. It is not as though no Popes have ever made mistakes or done wrong.
But the whole situation is bizarre. No one who is using Pope Leo’s words as some kind of authority accept that authority over themselves. Biden and Pelosi remain Catholics in good standing. American Catholics do as they want and believe as they want, use contraception and get divorced and remarried, etc.
This is the classic Pajama Boy argument: “I don’t believe this myself but I thought it might work on you.”
As a Catholic, I think the Pope owes an apology for stating a ridiculous untruth. The citations in the book of Psalms, Ecclesiastes and the history of the Church bear witness to the truth. What a terrible example of poor leadership. I’ve been praying for him in hopes that humility will carry the day. If he states error as part of a homily, a public contrition is in order.
Niketas:
The text of that Isaiah chapter can’t be stretched to fit Pope Leo’s interpretation. The elasticity of texts is not infinite. It is not about war or warriors. Catholic doctrine is a different thing, and I’m not speaking to that.
@neo:The text of that Isaiah chapter can’t be stretched to fit Pope Leo’s interpretation. The elasticity of texts is not infinite.
I can see why you’d think so, but in practice different religions do this, and accuse each other of doing it, more or less all the time. Rastafarians find Bible verses to support their use of marijuana, for example, which is quite a bit more of a stretch than what Leo is doing. They’re aware that others hold that those verses are not that elastic.
“Either Leo hasn’t really studied the text, or he’s distorting it to make an anti-Trump antiwar point.”
Citing the text directly implies familiarity with it.
“The text of that Isaiah chapter can’t be stretched to fit Pope Leo’s interpretation.”
Even a cursory examination of the text invalidates Leo’s ‘interpretation. So Occam’s razor applies, he’s distorting it to make an anti-Trump, antiwar point. Given the nature of his position, a willingness to lie*, strictly to advance a political agenda reveals something very dark about the man.
* Webster defines lying as, “to knowingly tell an untruth”.
He can’t even excuse lying on the grounds that he serves a greater truth than Trump because truth not only has no need for lies but in fact abhors them.
Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Psalm 146:9 The LORD preserveth the strangers; he relieveth the fatherless and widow: but the way of the wicked he turneth upside down.
Geoffrey Britain:
Well, I was giving the Pope the benefit of the doubt by using the word “really” to modify “studied.”
Niketas:
Of course people do it. But it doesn’t mean the text justifies it in any objective sense.
It’s a bit like those people who say a person can interpret a poem any way the person wants, and it’s valid. Well, a person can do it, but no, it’s not valid if you stretch the text into something it just doesn’t say. A text can be open to many interpretations without being open to all interpretations.
“…which is quite a bit more of a stretch than what Leo is doing. They’re aware that others hold that those verses are not that elastic.” Niketas
Catholics are discouraged from lifting solitary verses and ascribing meaning, let alone blanket statements about whether or not God will hear a prayer. This was just a case of foolishness.
‘ I would have preferred that Trump let the whole thing slide’. Neo, I’ve been reading your blog for seemingly 20 years, when I was part of the Bear Flag League of bloggers. And when I see you write things like this, I see an older woman stooped over, rubbing her hands in worry. Avoiding conflict is why conservatives lose so much.
Trump has the best political instincts of this era, so I will trust him on this. And while this episode will turn some people off, it will bring more to the realization that the head of the Catholic Church just aligned himself with a Muslim extremist theocracy that just massacred 30,000 of their own people (you even wrote about it, worrying Trump wouldn’t do anything about it, but your concern should have been the Pope). Like most leftists, the Pope’s religion is leftism, and he will align with people who would willingly see his destruction if it furthers his leftist cause. Remember it is Trump who is most responsible for putting everything in place for overturning R v Wade, and the Catholic Church just spit in his face.
On a larger point, I’m guessing few people understand that a great part of the US has anti-Catholic sentiments (not just the leftists who hate any religion). My vibe is that this episode is stirring that back up, and it will be the Catholics regretting this more than Trump. If anything there will be less sympathy when leftists go after nuns, Catholic private schools and the like, any goodwill painfully rebuilt after the pedophile scandals destroyed.
Answer: No. God is a Man of War and indeed THE war god, and while He lacks the bloodlust or joy of violence in itself of say an Ares, He identified David as the man after His own heart in spite of banning him from constructing the Temple precisely because David was a man of war.
As for Axelrod and Leo, I think in this case Axelrod would have less prompting Leo to a given belief and more to a given Act. Namely to act on their pre-held, mutual beliefs and political interests by doing this to try and torpedo the effort against Iran and hurt Trump and American Conservatives before the midterms. Likely accompanied by some kind of strategizing or trying to line up geese. Not because Leo needed Axelrod to convert him (as you pointed out Leo was already a TDS affected leftist well before) but to encourage him to act in a given way in the hopes of it having the greatest possible effect.
Pope Francis drove my wife to leave Catholicism and enter Eastern Orthodoxy. Pope Leo’s irresponsible handling of Scripture just reinforces her decision. This is bizarre. We have always interpreted Scripture through the lense of the Church Fathers and this has stood the test of time.
whatever:
I’m glad you’ve been a longtime reader, but I think in this case you have an overactive imagination.
Fortunately, I’m not yet stooped over. Secondly, even when I am worried, I don’t rub my hands about it. Third of all – and this is the heart of it – what on earth makes you think I avoid conflict or think Trump should avoid conflict? I can assure you that I never would have become a blogger if I’d wanted to avoid conflict. Who needs the aggravation?
I try to be polite here, however – most of the time. But I am very very used to conflict. In addition, I absolutely don’t expect or require Trump to avoid conflict. I simply, in this case, would have preferred him making less of a big deal of this one, mostly because it wasn’t really worth calling attention to and only amplified the Pope’s comments. Trump doesn’t need to respond to every single thing, in my opinion.
I think this pope and the previous one were both leftists and have the wrong attitude towards Islam. But I don’t usually pay much attention to popes or write much about them, as a rule. I’m not Catholic and I’m not Christian.
I see, on doing a search here though, that I sometimes write about popes. Of course, I tend to write on the occasion of one dying and a new one being elected. I’ve also written about their interaction with politics, which sometimes happens, or issues related to sexual abuse by priests. I wrote about Pope Frances and his leftism here, and about his statements regarding Islamic aggression here. I have to say that, re-reading those, I would say that Pope Leo is considerably worse than Pope Francis was on the subjects.
The verses following verse 15, provide context– it’s like the Pope did a Google search and pulled the first verse that seemed to fit his point.
Isaiah 1:15:
Verses 16-20
I would say it’s a stretch to use this passage about war.
At the beginning of the conflict Pope Leo had issued this statement, in part:
Interesting that there is a peaceful coexistence based on justice. Is that the only path? Interesting concept, but it raises some thorny issues. Sometimes the only path to justice is war– or at the minimum an authority who administers justice. So how do Islam and Christianity arrive at peaceful coexistence when their Supreme Authorities are at odds as to what and how justice is achieved?
In fact the case could be made that a regime that slaughters 30-40,000 unarmed innocent victims of it’s own country demands justice by holding to account the leaders that committed such a heinous evil.
The chapter doesn’t seem to address war at all.
It does seem to have a lot of stuff that could be talking about what the Democrat party has wrought in the US.
2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
7 Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.
9 Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
@ Neo > “A text can be open to many interpretations without being open to all interpretations.”
A very nice aphorism, I shall keep it in my Bible Study notebook.
@ Sharon W > “Catholics are discouraged from lifting solitary verses and ascribing meaning, let alone blanket statements about whether or not God will hear a prayer. This was just a case of foolishness.”
Part (a) of your comment: as Latter-day Saints, we get the same admonition about using isolated scriptures to support our assertions.
Part (b) of your comment: blanket statements about whether or not God will do anything are treading dangerous ground.
Part (c): Fool, or knave? Neither one is an encouraging stance for the spiritual leader of millions of people.
@ Neo > “As I said, I would have preferred that Trump let the whole thing slide when Pope Leo criticized him (and yes, it was the Pope who “started it” in terms of the fight). But that’s not Trump’s way, and one of the purposes Trump’s response has served is to call attention to a couple of things about the current Pope.”
Even Popes can fall into the trap of The Streisand Effect.
@ sdferr > “It’s not an error, it’s an op, and it is working exactly to plan.”
I’m not too sure about that, given the reactions we have seen from inside and outside the Catholic Church, but I don’t know what the plan might be.
I have some ideas, but so does everyone else.
@martin
FYI, “Hosts” as of “Lord of Hosts” has a number of meanings esp in translation but in this original context it overwhelmingly means “Armies”, “Forces”, etc. it reinforces YHWH’s identity as Saboath, God of War and chief determiner of contests of arms.
We see echoes of this with the “ but if you refuse and rebel,
you shall be eaten by the sword;
for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
In essence it is stating that God has primacy over war and indeed has given the land over, strengthening the warlords and enemies arrayed against it, and devastated it and its people, and now pleads with them to repent lest it happen some more.
Trump says he has a ‘right to disagree’ with the Pope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aLrjEoQf_c
Not only Trump has a right to disagree with the Pope. Catholics have that right; they are not required to accept the Pope’s comments as dogma, and can disagree with anything that is not dogma and be fully Catholic. But this Pope’s misuse of that passage from Isaiah is causing many Catholics some anguish, the sort of feeling they often had when Pope Francis made questionable statements.
Apparently yesterday Trump was asked by a reporter about a report that Iran was about to execute several anti-government protestors, including one woman, and what did he think. His answer was gold: “Why don’t you ask the Pope about that?”
LOL. Yeah, he’s brash and over the top sometimes, but we all should learn about how to take on the left like he does.
I find it remarkable that the current pope seeks to “build bridges” with moslems while still never having modified in the slightest the fatwa–er, I mean the anathema–declared by the Counsel of Trent against protestants. I mean, if you are going to open up a prayer room for moslems in the middle of a Christian place of worship, and prance around, hand-in-hand with a moslem cleric all the while declaring that Christians should stop being so opposed to islam, because moslems share Jesus with us, shouldn’t you maybe also admit that protestants are not going to hell because they profess belief in Jesus of The Bible instead of the vatican? And what Jesus is the pope talking about? To moslems, Jesus is not divine, certainly not the Son of God, and will return and declare their mahdi the true messiah, all the while telling everyone to kill all the Jews and–mirabile dictu!–also kill the people who profess belief in Jesus! I mean, really, what is going on here?? Is it possible that this pope believes himself to be not merely the spiritual head of the church, but also a political leader whose destiny is to rule on Earth, while also occupying a place on the same spiritual throne as Jesus? Why else would he be courting the support of that billion-strong cohort of potential followers who profess to follow mohammad? It appears the this pope applies his alleged title, “vicar of Christ” much too literally, and certainly, much too politically.
Forget it,
JakeSteve, He’s a White Sox fan…Related:
Is nothing sacred?
“Nutella debuts first new flavor in 60 years…”—
https://nypost.com/2026/04/16/lifestyle/nutella-debuts-first-new-flavor-in-60-years/
Thought I said it here, possibly someplace else. Pretty sure I didn’t dream it.
Following the Gulf War; Desert shield, Desert Storm, the Presbyterian Church (USA) discovered, to its horror and shocked surprise, that the US had fulfilled every requirement of the Just War Doctrine.
This would never do, so the General Assembly required a modification. However it was to be phrased, it would have added an codicil something like “The foregoing being fulfilled, we don’t care, the US can’t do this stuff no way no how.”
The committee assigned this task, presumably anticipating how they would explain to Aquinas and Augustine that they didn’t finish their job. Should have anticipated the US’ eventual existence or something. So they punted and went with How The Christian Handles The Bully.
Such Catholic views of current events as I see seem to have completed the task, as do those of others in the NCCNGTA (National Council of Churches Nobody Goes To Anymore).
Some Popes — like Presidents — have been better than others. Leo should try extending more grace to the leaders fighting the world’s great evils lest he secure his place in history on the list below:
https://popehistory.com/popes/the-worst-popes-in-history/
It would be helpful to view the church correctly. The church is a religion and an organization. Sometimes Popes forget which holds up which.
Given the political leanings of Pope Leo, I suspect he was almost giddy to use Isaiah 1:15 to condemn President Trump.
I think Isaiah 1 describes our current culture, and the hands full of blood refers to the modern slaughter of innocents. God calls us to turn from our evil ways.
This complete cleansing described in Isaiah 1:18 is only possible through the salvation that comes by faith in Jesus Christ — His death paying the penalty for our sins and His resurrection giving us new life.
If we repent and put our trust in Jesus, God promises to do exactly what He said in Isaiah 1:18: wash our sins completely away, so we stand before Him pure and forgiven.
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins…” (Ephesians 1:7)
The Book of Isaiah gets a work out at Easter (and Christmas) because it contains the most recognizable prophecies regarding the death and birth of the Messiah (Isaiah chapters 53 and 9, respectively). I suspect that Pope Leo might have had a homily on Isaiah chapter 1 already queued up for Palm Sunday, and then grabbed the most convenient verse (15) to highlight regarding the ongoing kinetic action in Iran. As Neo suggests, I don’t think he misunderstands the context of the chapter, and I would even suspect that he wanted to suggest some parallels between the depiction of Judah and Israel in the beginning of that chapter and the US and Israel now, and decided to fudge the interpretation since the imagery (“blood in your hands”) was just too good. All in all, not his finest hour and probably a clear indication of how things are going to go for this Papacy.
Similarly with Alexrod, I understand what what Neo is driving at and I think Turtler has it right. Alexrod wasn’t going to convince Leo of anything, nor did he need to, but he certainly reminded him of shared interests with the Democrat/Leftist cabal. It’s also worth noting the revelation of Trump axing about $11 million in funding for Catholic Charities in the US about two weeks before Palm Sunday (not after as most “news” articles on the action suggest.)
Neo,
Isn’t this the Bee Gee?
https://x.com/i/status/2044898630482718755
A “Pope” who cries for muslims while completely ignoring the genocide of Christians in Africa is an illegitimate “Pope” as well as an irrelevant leftist politician.
My view.
I think it means defenestrate the Jezebels, keep kosher and stop driving on Shabbos.
Maybe Chicago Bob should reconsider.
What have those Cardinals been smoking in the Vattican, crack?
First of all I am not a Catholic so I don’t have a dog in this fight. So looking at the WHOLE passage (Isiah 10-15) (NET an excellent modern translation free to use)
10 Listen to the Lord’s message, you leaders of Sodom! Pay attention to our God’s rebuke,people of Gomorrah!
11 “Of what importance to me are your many sacrifices?” says the Lord. “I have had my fill of burnt sacrifices, of rams and the fat from steers.The blood of bulls, lambs, and goats I do not want.
12 When you enter my presence,do you actually think I want this— animals trampling on my courtyards?
13 Do not bring any more meaningless offerings;
I consider your incense detestable! You observe new moon festivals, Sabbaths, and convocations, but I cannot tolerate sin-stained celebrations!
14 I hate your new moon festivals and assemblies; they are a burden that I am tired of carrying.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer, I look the other way;when you offer your many prayers, I do not listen, because your hands are covered with blood.
Pope Leo is committing a classic homiletic error called proof-texting, a miscreant behavior usually strongly associated with TV evangelists. Basically, he has taken 15b (when you offer your many prayers, I do not listen, because your hands are covered with blood ) about ignoring the prayers due to the blood and related it (war and its damages) to something the rest of the passage makes clear it doesn’t reference. The passage is talking about the hypocrisy of the offerings at the temple and that they do not please G*d because the hearts of the people are NOT in the prayer. The blood referred to is that of the offerings in v 11, not any result of war or violence.
Even odder the passages specified in the liturgy for Easter Sunday were First Reading :Acts 10:34a, 37-43; Responsorial Psalm:Psalm 118:1-2, 16-17, 22-23 “; Second Reading : Colossians 3:1-4 or 1 Cor 5:6b-8
Gospel: John 20:1-9 or Matt 28:1-10. None of this is Isiah 1. Passages from Isiah 9 (And Unto you this day a child is born) are often read at Christmas, Passages from Isaiah 52-53 (the Suffering Servant) are often read on Good Friday.
So Pope Leo has not only picked a particular bit of text out of its own context but has pulled it into the context of Easter Sunday one of the MOST attended masses at St Peter’s. One presumes his familiarity with the scriptures and with basic interpretation of it is better than this usage would indicate, Thus he has decided that this particular war is worthy of attention, even though it clearly falls within the rules of Just War theory both Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello as called out by St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas in laying out the Catholic churches view on war and its validity.
Pope Leo ignores his own churches traditional teachings on war and instead leans into US politicians from the Chicago area and their desire to derail the US intent.
Sennacherib:
Yes. There are tons of Bee Gees interviews on YouTube, and on some of them they sing with just a guitar, in the middle of the interview. I’ve probably watched all the interviews they ever gave 🙂 . They have lovely speaking voices and are usually very funny.
Tregonsee314:
Indeed. That’s why I sarcastically asked about him having perhaps once having worked for the NY Times. What he did is a favorite MSM technique.