Post #7684 Rant of the Day: Trump's Attack on Pope Leo

 I, as an American Catholic, have a personally nuanced record on the topic of political differences with popes. To non-Catholics, the authority and/or doctrine of infallibility rests on issues of morals or faith, not on political or other differences. Now, of course, political matters can touch on moral issues, including war and abortion.

At the end of the nineteenth century, a prior Pope Leo had condemned Americanism. Via Google AI:

The papal rejection of "Americanism" was a formal condemnation issued by Pope Leo XIII in 1899, targeting a perceived set of dangerous theological and cultural tendencies among American Catholics. Primarily detailed in the Apostolic Letter Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae addressed to Cardinal James Gibbons of Baltimore, this document warned against adapting Catholic doctrines to align with modern, liberal culture, sometimes described as a "phantom heresy" because few American Catholics actually held the extreme views described. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key Aspects of the Condemnation

Pope Leo XIII condemned five specific "errors" associated with the "Americanism" movement: [1, 2, 3]

• Undue Individualism: The idea that the Church should allow individuals more liberty of action to follow their own "natural bent and capacity" (subjective judgment).
• Disparagement of Religious Vows: A tendency to downplay the value of religious orders and cloistered life in favor of "active" virtues, viewing them as unsuited to the modern world.
• Minimizing Catholic Doctrine: The belief that to attract converts, the Church should downplay or soften traditional doctrines and "ancient severity".
• Rejection of Spiritual Direction: A belief that external spiritual direction is no longer necessary, relying instead on individual inspiration.
• Cultural Adaptation: The general push to reshape Church teaching to fit the "spirit of the age" and American democratic values. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Context and Rationale

• The "Heresy" Debate: While many American bishops insisted that "Americanism" was a misunderstood concept rather than a real heresy, European critics, particularly in France, used it to critique the U.S. Church.
• Misunderstanding of Liberalism: European Catholics, including the Vatican, often failed to distinguish American liberal democracy from the anti-clerical, anti-religious, and radical "liberalism" that was causing unrest in Europe.
• Response from American Bishops: Following the letter, key American figures like Archbishop John Ireland of St. Paul quickly professed obedience, asserting that they did not support the condemned errors, which they considered misinterpretations of their actions. [1, 2, 3]

Historical Impact

• Modernism Oath: The condemnation served as a prelude to Pope Pius X's 1910, Oath Against Modernism, which required clergy to vow against "Modernism," a related movement often seen as a broader form of Americanism.
• Cultural Shifts: Despite the condemnation, many observers note that the Americanist impulse (a preference for religious liberty, democracy, and separation of church and state) became a defining feature of 20th-century American Catholicism, eventually influencing the wider Church during the Second Vatican Council. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The 1899 letter did not aim to condemn American Catholics themselves, but rather to ensure that the Church in the United States remained faithful to universal Roman doctrine and did not succumb to complete assimilation. [1]

Of course, anti-Catholicism was historically prevalent in the context of the Protestant-dominated US:: 

Anti-Catholicism was a deeply ingrained, structural element of American history from the colonial era through the mid-20th century, largely driven by the nation's overwhelming Protestant majority. This prejudice stemmed from a combination of theological opposition stemming from the Reformation and, later, secular nativism and fear of foreign influence. [1, 2, 3]

Key aspects of this historical anti-Catholicism include:

Colonial and Early American Origins

• Theological Foundation: Anti-Catholicism was brought to the Thirteen Colonies by Protestant settlers—primarily Puritans and Anglicans—who often viewed Catholicism as a corrupt, "un-Christian" threat.
• Legal Restrictions: Prior to the American Revolution, many colonies passed laws prohibiting Catholics from holding public office or voting.
• "No Popery": Anti-Catholicism helped define American freedom by focusing on a supposed foreign threat to liberty, allowing disparate Protestant sects to find unity. [1, 2, 3, 4]

19th Century Peak and Nativism

Anti-Catholic sentiment reached its zenith during the mid-19th century due to mass immigration from Catholic countries like Ireland and Germany. [, 2]

• Nativist Movements: The 1840s saw the rise of political nativism, notably the Know-Nothing Party, which aimed to restrict Catholic political power.
• Violence and Riots: Anti-Catholic fervor led to mobs, violence, and the burning of churches, such as the Philadelphia Bible Riots of 1844 and the burning of the Ursuline convent in Massachusetts.
• "No Irish Need Apply": Discrimination was not merely political; signs restricting employment for Irish Catholics were common in major cities. [1, 2, 3]

Late 19th - Early 20th Century

• Political Conspiracies: Prominent figures and newspapers, such as The Menace, promoted conspiracies that the Pope was plotting to seize control of the US government.
• Ku Klux Klan (KKK): In the early 20th century, the second KKK embraced intense anti-Catholicism, portraying the Church as an enemy of American culture.
• 1928 Election: The presidential campaign of Al Smith, the first Catholic to run as a major party nominee, was targeted by significant anti-Catholic bigotry. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Core Reasons for Distrust

• Allegiance Question: Protestant Americans often claimed Catholics could not be loyal citizens because of their supreme allegiance to the Pope, a "foreign despot".
• Anti-Republicanism: The Catholic Church was seen as hierarchical and despotic, therefore antithetical to the egalitarian, republican values of the United States.
• "Un-American" Identity: Catholics were frequently depicted as a submissive group that couldn't think for themselves, unable to fit into the independent, educated, and largely Protestant American society. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Anti-Catholicism largely began to subside in the mid-20th century, particularly following the election of John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic president, in 1960. [1, 2, 3, 4]

In fact, Jack Kennedy was the first American Catholic POTUS in a nation nearly a fifth Catholic, and religion was an issue in the 1960 campaign:

Religion was a major and controversial issue in the 1960 presidential campaign, as John F. Kennedy's Roman Catholic faith raised concerns among Protestant voters who feared potential Vatican influence, particularly in an era with limited history of non-Protestant presidents. Kennedy directly addressed this anti-Catholic bias in a pivotal 1960 speech to Houston ministers, advocating for strict separation of church and state. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Key aspects of the religious issue included:

• Widespread Anti-Catholic Sentiment: Many Americans, including some religious leaders, questioned whether a Catholic president could act independently of his faith.
• The West Virginia Primary: The 1960 West Virginia primary was crucial, with Kennedy's victory in this heavily Protestant state helping prove that religion was not a fatal political handicap.
• The Houston Address: In his address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, Kennedy stated: "I am not the Catholic candidate for president; I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic".
• Impact on Election Results: While the controversy prompted a shift in voting patterns, with many Catholic voters supporting Kennedy, it also created a backlash. Some analyses suggest he lost more popular votes nationally due to his religion, yet gained key electoral votes in states with high Catholic populations. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

The 1960 campaign marked a significant moment where religious prejudices were tested in the public arena, resulting in the election of the first Catholic president. [1, 2]

American Catholics have held prominent positions in politics, including former POTUS Biden, VP JD Vance, the Cuomos, former GOP Presidential candidate Santorum, and former Speaker Pelosi, not to mention, over the recent past, over half of SCOTUS

I have written about the life of my blog over my Franco-American (French-Canadian) roots (my great-grandparents on both sides of the family emigrated during the late nineteenth-century Quebec diaspora). The Catholic Church is a critical aspect of our heritage. In fact, two close relatives: my beloved maternal Uncle Roger was a Fall River diocesan priest, while my paternal Aunt Grace was (for the first 20-odd years of her adult life) a sister/nun. I once visited Uncle Roger while he was a pastor on Martha's Vineyard, and Aunt Grace picked me up for a weekend when I was in Navy OIS in Newport. These were two of the loveliest, holiest individuals you would ever meet. I wanted to reference them before discussing the ugliness of virulent anti-Catholicism.

Let's be clear: Catholic clergy and religious generally live demanding lifestyles, typically with lifelong vows of celibacy and modest means, meant to imitate Jesus' Spartan ministry. There have been notorious exceptions in the history of the Church. There have been scandals (especially the sex misconduct scandals zealously reported by the Gray Lady and Protestant bigots), which the Church hierarchy badly mismanaged by misguidingly trying to contain the scandal, due process concerns for suspect abusers, and naive acceptance of "cured" suspects and their dubious, undersupervised redeployments. At some point, they lost focus on the primacy of the victims, their frailty and vulnerability. I'm not whitewashing what happened; this was an abominable, manifest perversion of the vow of chastity.

The fact that the Gray Lady and other anti-Catholic media sources relentlessly and prolifically promoted said context. The implication that sexually abusive behavior is distinctively Catholic and/or a consequence of Catholic policies and practices is not supported by the evidence:

 For example.

One particularly virulent anti-Catholic institution is the Westboro Baptists, primarily known for their protests at Gulf War American soldier funerals. Consider, for example, this telling reference:

Now, my anecdotal experience does not constitute scientific proof, but I, as a USAF brat, was an altar boy for 8 years through high school, even serving daily mass. I've probably known, dined, and/or socialized with probably dozens of priests, including one of my favorite OLL philosophy professors. They have been among the finest men I've ever met. As I've mentioned before, I thought when I started college, I had a calling to become a priest. (The Jesuits never followed up on an introductory interview.) I've been in numerous parishes and probably known hundreds of fellow Catholics, and never witnessed or heard others discuss the inappropriate behavior of any priest. Does it mean it didn't happen beyond my knowledge or experience? No, but you start implying godly men like my late uncle were sexual predators, it is deeply offensive. Uncle Roger never had any ambition to climb the Church hierarchy. He wanted to serve the members of his parish.

So when we discuss the context of Trump's disrespectful treatment of Pope Leo, I am not naive in the sense that Donald Trump will treat most perceived critics without civility. This must be viewed in the context that most American Catholics view the hierarchy from the bishops to the Pope as successors to the Apostles; even if we disagree with the cleric, we respect the office he occupies; we would genuflect and kiss the ring of the bishop. Even though I criticized Pope Francis throughout the blog, I avoided personal attacks. Trump has no such nuance; his entire tone is disrespectful. He's ridiculing what Pop Leo says, creating strawman arguments (e.g., that the pope wants a nuclear-armed Iran. He even tried to take credit for Pope Leo's election as pope:

First of all, Trump knows next to zero about Catholicism. The idea that Cardibal Prevost wasn't on anyone's list is flat-out wrong; I did a custom-range search on Google before the conclave and found a Chicago Sun-Times piece:

Prevost, who got his master’s degree in divinity at the Catholic Theological Union in Hyde Park, spent two decades in Peru as a missionary and bishop, leading a diocese there. He has been made a member of several Vatican commissions in addition to heading the one that screens prospective bishops, “indicating how much Pope Francis trusts him and values his administrative abilities,” as the College of Cardinals report notes.

“This is the guy who makes bishops,” Ilo says. “This is the guy who will say: This person should be raised to a higher rank. That means that the pope has the absolute confidence in his ability, his goodwill and his capacity to make judgments of character.”

Prevost’s name also has been floated among some Vatican-watchers — as well as online oddsmakers who are taking bets on who will be Francis’ successor — as a possible candidate for the papacy.

“Obviously, he’s well-respected,” says the Rev. Robin Ryan, a professor of systemic theology at the Catholic Theological Union. “And he hasn’t spent most of his time in the U.S. So, maybe if an American were to be elected, maybe it would be someone like that, who served in other countries and now serves in Rome."

It is true that Prevost was considered a long shot and not one of the most listed American candidates, but Trump's crackpot idea that the conclave by selecting Prevost was sending a message to the Trump Administration is laughably absurd; no American Catholic, including me, predicted an unprecedented American pope, and nobody in the conclave gave a damn about what Trump thinks about anything; Trump's narcissism imagines he is more relevant than he is. Prevost is a dual citizen (Peru) and held a high-profile post in the Vatican under Pope Francis, the first South American Pope.

Now, before exploring policy differences between Trump and the Pope, just a few personal notes: I am not the first or only Catholic libertarian. High-profile libertarian Catholics include Lew Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, Jeffry Tucker, and Tom Woods, and some of them, like me, are fond of the traditional Latin Mass. Second, I criticized Pope Francis in the blog, on the record, on at least 3 grounds: I thought his moral ambiguity on the morality of homosexual sex was unworthy of leadership (i.e., "who am I to judge?") For me, the issue was not the rejection of the sinner but of the sin, and the consistency of moral teaching on conduct throughout the history of the Church. (Note, I have gay nephews and/or nieces and love them unconditionally.) Second, he condemned what I consider a caricature of libertarianism: the construct of social Darwinism (yes, I unfortunately had to buy a relevant text during college), an absurd interpretation of Herbert Spencer's philosophy. Third, I had issues with his 2015 encyclical on the environment. A lot of Pope Francis' talking points on socially liberal topics came across as a one-sided conventional leftist perspective integrated with Statist authoritarian policies. We libertarians have an alternative approach to environmental externalities

A key reason for mentioning my differences with Pope Francis (and I am not suggesting that Pope Leo's political views are radically different) is that one of my (Catholic) nephews wrote a favorable Facebook post about Pope Francis. I responded more critically.  I later found that not only did he not respond to my comment, but he had deleted it (I don't mind the give-and-take of debate, but I don't like being censored).   But I recently experienced the flipside. I had written a Facebook post critical of Trump's attack on Pope Leo. I have a Catholic BIL, a career USAF veteran, who fully adopted the Trumpkin talking point that clergy should steer clear of politics and focus on their own area of expertise on faith and morals. Whereas I have some concerns about celebrities using their platform to intervene in politics (a notorious example being Trump himself), churches have often served as an independent moral conscience, including the traditional construct of sanctuary:

The history of sanctuary religion spans thousands of years, originating in ancient civilizations and continuing today as a faith-based protection for marginalized people. Rooted in the concept of holy, "set-apart" space, it evolved from ancient Hebrew "cities of refuge" and Greek/Roman temples into a medieval Christian tradition, before re-emerging in the 1980s as a political movement supporting refugees. [1, 2, 3]

Ancient and Biblical Roots

• Origins: The concept of offering refuge to persecuted individuals is ancient, found in almost all major religious traditions.
• Hebrew Bible: The concept of "Cities of Refuge" was established, where those accused of accidental death could flee from vengeance.
• Graeco-Roman Era: Temples were considered sacred spaces where fugitives could not be harmed. [1, 2, 3]

Medieval Sanctuary Tradition

• Formalization: By the 4th century, Roman law officially recognized the right to sanctuary within Christian churches.
• Church Protection: For over 1,000 years, churches provided a safe haven from violent persecution or law enforcement.
• The 40-Day Rule: By the 13th century, a person could technically take refuge for 40 days, which often evolved into finding a way for the accused to safely go into exile.
• Decline: The system began to die out as churches grew lax, leading to situations where criminals abused the protection, with, for example, sanctuary laws being abolished by 1624. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Modern Sanctuary Movements

• 1980s U.S. Movement: The modern movement began in response to the U.S. government deporting Central American refugees fleeing violence.
• "Underground Railroad": Over 500 congregations—including Catholics, Lutherans, and synagogues—offered shelter and public advocacy, often violating federal law.
• New Sanctuary Movement (2000s): Reemerged to protect immigrants from deportation in the 21st century.
• "Sensitive Locations": While ICE has historically had policies to avoid arrests in churches, the protections have varied in recent years, making the current status of sanctuary churches complex. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Key Historical Concepts

• Definition: "Sanctuary" stems from the Latin sanctuarium ("holy place").
• Purpose: It functions not just as physical protection, but as a public witness against injustice.
• Controversy: Historically and in modern times, it has been controversial, particularly when balancing the protection of individuals with the laws of the state. [1, 2, 3]

I'm not here going to go into a discussion about the rift between Trump and Pope Leo, but the following excerpts are relevant: 

President Donald Trump’s feud with Pope Leo XIV has evolved beyond disagreements over Iran and military escalation into a broader ideological and political clash involving immigration, Catholic theology, humanitarian policy and growing tensions between the White House and the Vatican over the direction of U.S. foreign policy and moral leadership.

The increasingly public dispute involving Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio [the latter two Catholic], and senior Vatican officials has transformed into one of the most consequential confrontations between a U.S. administration and the Catholic Church in years, forcing the White House into an increasingly delicate balancing act as the Vatican positions itself as a global voice advocating restraint, humanitarian protections and peace. 

and

The leader of the Catholic Church and the first pope from the United States said the president doesn't understand the message of the Gospel. Mr. Trump said Pope Leo is "weak on crime" and he told CBS News the pope is "wrong on the issues."

While presidents and popes have disagreed before, religious studies professor Mathew Schmalz of the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Massachusetts said this moment in history is uncharted territory. 

"An American president criticizing a pope in the way Donald Trump has is really unprecedented. For presidents, they've always been careful to generally refer to the pope as a moral leader, the conscience of the world and they have been, in times past, very concerned about cultivating Catholics as a political constituency. So, the fact that you have a president of the United States personally criticizing the pope is really something new," Schmalz said.

 It doesn't take much to explain how Trump, who has repeatedly and unilaterally threatened and/or actually used military force against Venezuela, Iran. Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and Greenland, never mind undeclared drone wars.

via Council on Foreign Relations

It's not just that Trump continued and/or expanded wars that  the Vatican had already condemned for Leo's predecessors, but Trump has waived restrictions on imminent threats and discontinued reporting of civilian casualties Under Trump 1.0, via ACLU:

The U.S. lethal strikes program began under Bush and escalated under Obama and then Trump. The Obama administration prioritized flexibility and threat prevention, entrenching an architecture for a potentially global killing program with little transparency, no accountability, no meaningful public assessment of human and strategic costs and consequences, and a failure to properly consider the precedent it was setting. President Trump took what President Obama left, and did not have to do much to cast policy restraint aside. After all, just over a year ago, the Trump administration unilaterally took this country to the brink of conflict with Iran with the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. That’s in addition to his administration’s escalation of lethal strikes—and civilian deaths—in Yemen and Somalia.

In fact, Trump has all but unleashed war on drug cartels wherever located:

As I write, Trump seems to be opening the door to a Venezuela-style overthrow with recent legal action against Raúl Castro of Cuba:

The Vatican sees itself as a global moral authority as a peacemaker principally on State warring actors, including the US. But the Vatican has already called on Iran to stop supporting terrorist actors. and publicly condemned the Oct. 7 attacks:

As for Trump's disingenuous argument that Pope Leo was promoting Iran's nuclear weaponization effort, Trump, a hypocrite on nuclear disarmament,  is, once again, ignorant of Vatican policy:

That Pope Leo, a missionary priest who spent decades serving the people  of Peru, would oppose xenophobic Trump, who was elected on lies of migrant violent crimes and mental illness, who denies refugees due process, and has pursued cruel policies like family separation, is not surprising given the Church's history and missions in support of immigration:

As to Trump's unsupported allegation that Pope Leo is "soft on crime", I'm not sure what he''s referencing unless he's referencing his smears of Latinos mentioned above. The Catholic Church has a mission to minister to the imprisoned, based on Christ's teachings.  This does not imply support for violence or theft in the 10 Commandments.

I'm not going to respond to each unprecedented personal attack as usual on the pontiff by an undisciplined, obnoxious Trump. But Trump's preference for Robert's oldest brother, Trumpkin Lou, is rather pathetic.ThatTrump would invite Loser Lou to the White House as a prop to attack his little brother just underscores Trump's perverse values, trying to exploit family differences