Donald J. Trump issued a disgusting tweet on Easter Sunday morning. I commented on it in Political Polarization in the Age of Trump. But I fail to see the value of Pope Leo’s pious performative Easter Sunday response.
The pope continued with words directed at the current conflict in the Middle East: “The peace that Jesus gives us is not merely the silence of weapons, but the peace that touches and transforms the heart of each one of us!… Let those who have weapons lay them down!
If you threw down your weapons before Hitler, he would not be moved to do likewise, but kill you on the spot on the ground that you had thereby demonstrated your physiological decadence and unfitness for life in the only world there is. Something very similar holds for the Muslim thugs of Iran. It is utter folly to project into others one’s own values and attitudes, as if we are all the same ‘deep down’ or all ‘really want the same things.’ Bellicosity is hard-wired into some. Thugs, whether born that way or socialized into it, have no regard for your tender-hearted love of humanity.
The Islamo-theocrats have vowed to destroy Judeo-Christian civilization, and have proven their intent through countless horrific acts over many years. They cannot be reached by Prevostian pieties. And there is no small hypocrisy in Leo’s decidedly unleonine mouthings. Would he not call upon the armed might of the Italian state to crush any jihadis who descended on Vatican City to destroy its people and its treasures? Would he allow their slaughter and its destruction?
I discuss the problem in detail in Morality Private and Public. The essay concludes with some penetrating observations of Hannah Arendt from “Truth and Politics” in Between Past and Future, Penguin 1968, p. 245:
The disastrous consequences for any community that began in all earnest to follow ethical precepts derived from man in the singular — be they Socratic or Platonic or Christian — have been frequently pointed out. Long before Machiavelli recommended protecting the political realm against the undiluted principles of the Christian faith (those who refuse to resist evil permit the wicked “to do as much evil as they please”), Aristotle warned against giving philosophers any say in political matters. (Men who for professional reasons must be so unconcerned with “what is good for themselves” cannot very well be trusted with what is good for others, and least of all with the “common good,” the down-to-earth interests of the community.) [Arendt cites Nicomachean Ethics, Book VI, and in particular 1140b9 and 1141b4.]
There is a tension between man qua philosopher or Christian and man qua citizen. As a philosopher and a Christian, I am concerned with my soul, with its integrity, purity, salvation. I take very seriously indeed the Socratic “Better to suffer wrong than to do it” and the Christian “Resist not the evildoer.” But as a citizen I must be concerned not only with my own well-being but also with the public welfare. This is true a fortiori of public officials and people in a position to influence public opinion. So, as Arendt points out, the Socratic and Christian admonitions are not applicable in the public sphere.
What is applicable to me in the singular, as this existing individual concerned with the welfare of his immortal soul over that of his perishable body, is not applicable to me as a citizen. As a citizen, I cannot unrestrictedly “welcome the stranger” as the New Testament enjoins, the stranger who violates the laws of my country, a stranger who may be a terrorist or a drug smuggler or a human trafficker or a carrier of a deadly disease or a person who has no respect for the traditions of the country he invades; I must not aid and abet his law-breaking. I must be concerned with public order and the very conditions that make the philosophical and Christian life possible in the first place. If I were to aid and abet the stranger’s lawbreaking, I would not be “rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”
Indeed, the Caesar verse provides a scriptural basis for Church-State separation and indirectly exposes the fallacy of the Catholic bishops and others who seek to inject a particular personal morality into the public sphere.
Bill,
It is important to understand that Prevost’s essentially pacificist position, one that contradicts the t Roman Catholic doctrine of just war, builds on the heterodox views of Bergoglio, the man who made him, that are set forth in the latter’s encyclical Fratelli Tutti, where he writes: “We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a ‘just war’. Never again war!” And in the footnote (242) attached to this claim, he more explicitly renounces the arguments of St. Augustine on this matter: “Saint Augustine…forged a concept of “just war” that we no longer uphold in our own day….”* So along with the biblical slight of hands of the Evangelicals on the Right we have the theological slight of hands of the radical, leftist modernists of the RCC. And it is not as if the latter are not equally adept at distorting biblical passages to serve their political ends, as in Prevost’s Palm Sunday homily, in which he states, “Brothers and sisters, this is our God: Jesus, King of Peace, who rejects war, whom no one can use to justify war. 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’ (Is 1:15).” Beyond the dubious theological claim that the righteous prayers of, say, those who fought at Lepanto in 1571 to protect Christendom from the Ottomans or those who landed on the beaches of Normandy in June of 1944 in the crusade to free Europe from Nazi rule were “rejected” by God, we have here the misrepresentation of the meaning of Isaiah 1:15, which is not a condemnation of all war but of hypocritical ritual amidst injustice.
Those who jump in to criticize the “God is on our side” religious crowd on the Right would do well to allot some of their invective to those on the Left who practice the same sort theological/ biblical manipulation.
Vito
Thanks, Vito.
“Sleight of hand” not “slight of hands.”
On the substantive point, though, I quite agree with you.
It is disgusting how both Hegseth and Prevost invoke the name of Jesus Christ to justify their diametrically opposed positions.
Also objectionable is the unshakable belief of Laura Ingraham, et al., that Trump was protected miraculously by God from the would-be assassin’s bullets at Butler, PA. How could they know that? On both sides, a lack of critical thinking. The wages of polarization.
And then there is Chris Hedges, a lefty with a brain, who wonders whether, nay denies that, Trump has a soul. https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/trump-has-no-soul/
Bill,
After the April 9th meeting of Prevost with David Axelrod, l’amico intimo of Obama, Chris Jackson raises the obvious question, “Was Leo XIV Elected as a Political Operative?”
In response, Jackson, who reviews the pre and post-conclave political behavior of Prevost, concludes:
“Leo does not have to be a literal Democratic operative to function as one in practice. If his most visible interventions keep landing against Trump, if his symbolic choices keep reinforcing the migration-and-peace frame prized by the global left, and if Democratic power brokers are the ones appearing on his public calendar, then we can conclude that the first American pope was not raised up to calm the political age, but to enter it on one side.”
Vito
*https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/was-leo-xiv-elected-as-a-political
Molto interessante, Vito.
Bill,
In a post today on Substack, “God Does Not Bless Any Conflict? Then Goodbye Just War,” Chris Jackson explores the content and method of Prevost’s ongoing campaign to undermine Catholic just war doctrine. On the insidious nature, “the trick,” of that method, Jackson writes:
“The doctrinal text of the Catechism still remains. … What changes is the atmosphere. The doctrine is left on the books, while the rhetoric is turned against it until Catholics are expected to blush for believing what their own Catechism still says. That is the conciliar method in miniature: do not always erase the formula; leave it in place, then surround it with enough sentiment, innuendo, and moral panic that hardly anyone dares to speak it aloud.
Only tangentially related but also of interest is Prevost’s gauchiste post yesterday on X in which he expounds on world poverty:
“Hundreds of millions of people throughout the world are immersed in extreme poverty. Yet, disproportionate wealth remains in the hands of a few. It is an unjust scenario, in the face of which we cannot fail to question ourselves and commit to change things. There is no lack of resources at the root of disparities, but the need to address solvable problems related to a more equitable distribution of wealth, to be achieved with moral sense and honesty.”
Roger Kimball commented on this, aptly terming it “a conceptual as well as a grammatical train wreck. Also, it should go without saying, it is a glaring instance of adolescent economic illiteracy. Leo should read Thomas Sowell and Friedrich Hayek and give the squishy Marxism a rest.” **
Vito
*https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/god-does-not-bless-any-conflict-then
** https://x.com/Pontifex/status/2042592181467353494
https://bigmodernism.substack.com
*https://bigmodernism.substack.com
Vito,
Please learn how to lay in a hyperlink. Scroll up and note that if you preface the string with an asterisk, no link appears; but if you don’t it does. Now please give me the link to X where Kimball responds to Prevost.
Sorry, Bill. I forgot to provide the link. Here it is:
https://x.com/rogerkimball/status/2042691138411192469
I never heard of laying in a hyperlink; I looked up how to do it on Google, but so far my attempts have not been successful. If I can’t figure it out, I’ll just put the links in parentheses, although I think if I leave a couple of spaces after the asterisk, the link would work.
Vito
P.S. After watching several videos on the subject, I finally learned how “to lay a hyperlink.” I had no idea that the command for this is found in Word.
Vito
Bill,
This morning, Trump gave Prevost a well-deserved verbal whipping:
“Pope Leo is WEAK on Crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy. He talks about “fear” of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart. I like his brother Louis much better than I like him, because Louis is all MAGA. He gets it, and Leo doesn’t! I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon. I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s terrible that America attacked Venezuela, a Country that was sending massive amounts of Drugs into the United States and, even worse, emptying their prisons, including murderers, drug dealers, and killers, into our Country. And I don’t want a Pope who criticizes the President of the United States because I’m doing exactly what I was elected, IN A LANDSLIDE, to do, setting Record Low Numbers in Crime, and creating the Greatest Stock Market in History. Leo should be thankful because, as everyone knows, he was a shocking surprise. He wasn’t on any list to be Pope, and was only put there by the Church because he was an American, and they thought that would be the best way to deal with President Donald J. Trump. If I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican. Unfortunately, Leo’s Weak on Crime, Weak on Nuclear Weapons, does not sit well with me, nor does the fact that he meets with Obama Sympathizers like David Axelrod, a LOSER from the Left, who is one of those who wanted churchgoers and clerics to be arrested. Leo should get his act together as Pope, use Common Sense, stop catering to the Radical Left, and focus on being a Great Pope, not a Politician. It’s hurting him very badly and, more importantly, it’s hurting the Catholic Church! President DONALD J. TRUMP”
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116394704213456431
Vito
I posted another comment after this one this morning, but WordPress held it for “moderation.” I am not sure why, but I assume that means that you will review it.
Vito
That’s weird. Let me check . . .
Hi Bill,
Just to let you know that I replied this morning to the link that T. Flood sent you, but my comment was again placed held for “moderation.” WordPress appears to do this now to all my comments, perhaps because I comment so frequently or because I includer hyperlinks. ??????
Vito
I just asked the AI Grok and learned that WordPress will place comments with two or more links IURLs) in moderation. Not sure how to get around this.
Vito
Bill,
I hope that my comments on this subject are not becoming tiresome. If they are, let me know.
Here, I just want to call your attention and that of your readers to today’s Substack post by Chis Jackson, “Trump Calls Leo’s Bluff,” on the president’s statement on Prevost and related, broader issue of the transformation, under Bergoglio and his smiling, hand-picked minion, of the RCC into a loyal ally of the global and American Left. In particular, Jackson eviscerates the three “cardinals,” Tobin, McElroy, and Cupich, all the most corrupt products of the “Uncle Ted” McCarrick clerical machine and mouthpieces for the progressive destruction of the Church, who just appeared on CBS’s 60 minutes, where they attacked Trump’s policies on Iran and illegal immigration.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/influential-us-cardinals-american-politics-60-minutes-video-2026-04-12/
On their joint interview, Jackson writes:
“The real scandal was the spectacle of three American cardinals on national television sounding like a clerical roundtable for the liberal managerial class. Tobin defended his earlier description of ICE as a “lawless organization” and said officers “hide their identities to terrify people.” McElroy declared the Iran war “not a just war.” He also said Spanish Mass attendance in Washington had fallen 30 percent because “it’s all fear.” Cupich denounced the administration’s conduct as “sickening” and suggested Catholics did not really vote for what they were getting. The whole segment was framed around their opposition to mass deportation and the war with Iran.
And there you have it. The men closest to Leo in the American hierarchy were not speaking like pastors trying to form consciences in light of perennial principles, but public antagonists of one administration in particular. That is why Trump’s reply resonated. It was a counterpunch against a political operation that had stopped pretending it was anything else.”
https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/trump-calls-leos-bluff
Vito
Vito,
I watched the 60 Minutes segment last night, and I agree with Chris Jackson’s criticisms. Those three cardinals were disgusting. The Left needs to be defunded and that now includes the RCC. I linked to Jackson’s Substack article on my Facebook page. So keep me informed about what Jackson posts on his Stack, and I will do my bit promoting what I think warrants promoting.
But I don’t see any hesitation on your part about the dreck DJT is posting. Surely you don’t endorse all of the content or all of the style. In his second sentence above he claims that the RCC was arresting priests during Covid. False. And this is just one of his recent disgusting posts.
What game is our boy playing? Is he a sane man trying to drive his enemies crazy with his irresponsible rhetoric, or is he somewhat unhinged himself?
But I remain a Trump supporter. He is all we’ve got, and he alone can save civilization. Well-meaning knuckleheads like Prevost don’t understand the danger we are in. He’s just another useful idiot. Am I being too charitable to Leo the Lamb?
Hi Bill,
I just noticed this reply of yours.
I don’t think that the “they” in “when they are arresting” refers to the RCC but to the civil authorities.
As for Trump’s excesses in general, from his sometimes bizarre tweets to his awful aesthetic taste, from all the gold (thankfully removable) that now defaces the refined trim and plasterwork of the early 19th century Federalist Oval Office to the proposed classical but gargantuan WH ballroom, I feel that the small price that I have to pay to have this courageous man in office.
Vito
Vito,
If you read that sentence carefully, you will see that ‘they’ does include in its reference the RCC. But we all know that Trump can’t write worth a shit. What disturbs me is the polarization that disallows any criticism of ‘their guy’ and any acknowledgment of good done by ‘the other guy.’
Bill,
Yes, too many reject any criticism of Trump.
In case you did not see my earlier reply, a comment that I made this morning in reaction to the excellent link that you received from T. Flood has been placed in moderation, apparently because it contains two hyperlinks. Apparently, WordPress automatically sends such comments to moderation, unless you change the settings to permit more hyperlinks in them.
Vito
There is also this to consider: https://kansascitystack.substack.com/p/trump-is-doing-everything-in-his
You see, Vito, you merely copy the URL and paste it in.
Tony Flood sends this: https://substack.com/app-link/post?publication_id=2175125&post_id=193787448&utm_source=post-email-title&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=false&r=14f59c&token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo2Nzg5MTI5NiwicG9zdF9pZCI6MTkzNzg3NDQ4LCJpYXQiOjE3NzYwOTYxNjMsImV4cCI6MTc3ODY4ODE2MywiaXNzIjoicHViLTIxNzUxMjUiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0._fBDZ0aL2G4buQbRXipjH-gsDktyIpCp0aTtykIuqBM
This Substack article by D. West on the longstanding links between the Chicago Marxist Mob and the RCC in that city and especially the notorious Bernadin deserves wide distribution. It calls to mind older bits of news, such as the three meetings of the hyper-modernist Montini, the future Paul VI, with Alinsky in Milan in 1958 and the testimony of B. Dodd on the placement of radicals in American seminaries in the 1920s and 1930s.
https://insidethevatican.com/news/newsflash/letter-48-2018-some-enemy-has-done-this/
You may have noticed the widespread outrage at Trump’s merited censure of Prevost on X and elsewhere yesterday. The choir of critics ran from those on the secular, religion-hating far-left to many “conservative” Catholic and Christian commentators and bloggers, including Rod Dreher, who I nominate as the jouer les sensibles of the day.
Chris Jackson calls the latter group out today on his Substack, “The Midterm Psyop in a Cossack,” and speculates on the Prevost/Axelrod meeting and related events as part of a strategy to divide the Right before the coming midterms.
https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/the-midterm-psyop-in-a-cassock
Vito
Vito,
That’s Bella Dodd you are referring to. I wrote something about her years ago:
https://maverickphilosopher.blog/index.php/2013/09/02/reading-about-commies/#:~:text=About%20Commies,line%20here.