Yves here. Wowsers, John Helmer provides a deep dive on the Trump Administration’s muscling of the Catholic Church and the Holy See’s pushback.
By John Helmer, the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears
When it comes to the role God plays in Vatican politics, inside the Holy See and outside in the warmaking capital of the US, there can never be too much ado about nothing.
You don’t have to be a believer to understand that in war and politics, God is Not Nothing.
President Donald Trump made it clear that he and God were head to head and holding hands during the Isfahan operation on the weekend, April 4-5. He — Trump, that is — has also been making sure that his most senior Roman Catholic officials (lead image, right), Vice President JD Vance (convert) and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (birth) – both of them candidates in the running to succeed Trump – keep American Catholic voters loyal to his presidency as they were in the 2024 election.
And so it came to pass that on January 22, a Catholic second-stringer in the Administration, Elbridge Colby, Under Secretary of War for Policy, called the Papal Nuncio in Washington, Cardinal Christophe Pierre, for a reproving lecture on papal politics. This followed the refusal of the new Pope Leo XIV to agree to Vance’s invitation to visit the US this year; and one week before Pierre turned 80 years old and signed his resignation to Rome. After a decade in Washington, the cardinal decided not to go out with a whimper, but with a bang.
The public report of what Colby had told him was leaked in the first week of April, reported here in a publication directed by a Jewish convert, almost three months after the Pentagon meeting. “The Vatican and the White House Are on the Outs” was the headline. The identified source was “Vatican officials briefed on the meeting, who spoke with The Free Press on the condition of anonymity”. They said that Colby gave Pierre “a bitter lecture warning that the United States has the military power to do whatever it wants—and that the Church had better take its side.”
The timing of this leak followed after Trump launched his declared genocidal war against Iran; and after the Netanyahu regime closed the Holy Places in Jerusalem during the Easter celebrations.
Leo XIV then announced in his Easter Mass homily on April 5: “death is always lurking. We see it present in injustices, in partisan selfishness, in the oppression of the poor, in the lack of attention given to the most vulnerable. We see it in violence, in the wounds of the world, in the cry of pain that rises from every corner because of the abuses that crush the weakest among us, because of the idolatry of profit that plunders the earth’s resources, because of the violence of war that kills and destroys.”
The Pope added: “Let those who have weapons lay them down! Let those who have the power to unleash wars choose peace! On this day of celebration, let us abandon every desire for conflict, domination, and power, and implore the Lord to grant his peace to a world ravaged by wars.”
On the next day, April 6, in his Washington press conference, Trump replied with seventeen (17) mentions of God.
“God was watching us,” Trump said of the Isfahan operation. “Well, it was the Easter — we were in Easter territory, I guess, but God was watching us…God is good every day. And to our adversaries watching from Tehran, let this be a clear message to the United States military will go anywhere at any time to protect our own and complete the mission. We execute with precision.” Asked by a reporter to clarify if “God supports the United States actions in this war?”, Trump replied: “I do. Because God is good. Because God is good, and God wants to see people taken care of god doesn’t like what’s happening. I don’t like what’s happening everyone says I enjoy it. I don’t enjoy this I don’t enjoy it. These two guys don’t enjoy it. You know, people say, oh boy, they’re so tough. They don’t want — they don’t like — I don’t like seeing people killed.”
The Pope’s foreign minister, Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, then reacted with a statement on April 9. “We cannot surrender to the logic of the strongest because that bends international law to its own interests. We cannot move from the force of law to the law of force.” Parolin took shots at President Vladimir Putin, Trump and the Israelis. “Many governments have expressed indignation over attacks against Ukrainian civilians by Russian missiles and drones, imposing sanctions on the aggressors. I do not think the same has happened with the tragedy of the destruction of Gaza.”
The Roman Curia has been under pressure from the American bishops to take a clear stance against Trump’s war and against his threats of genocide against Iran.
Archbishop Paul Coakley, speaking for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, followed the Pope’s Easter speech with one of his own, explicitly against Trump: “The threat of destroying a whole civilization and the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure cannot be morally justified. There are other ways to resolve conflict between peoples. I call on President Trump to step back from the precipice of war and negotiate a just settlement for the sake of peace and before more lives are lost.” In the campaign to keep God on the side of Catholic voters for Trump — begun at Colby’s meeting with the Papal Nuncio in January and ending with the Pope ordering the US bishops to vote their consciences against Trump — the Christian faction in the White House has been beaten as badly as the Jewish faction was beaten by Iran on the battlefield of the Persian Gulf.
Once upon a time, there were well-informed reporters on Vatican politics in Paris, Dublin and Rome. Their reports of exactly what has just transpired are missing now because they – notably, dearest friend of mine Nicolas Boult – are dead.
For details of Colby’s lecture on January 22 to Cardinal Pierre, read more here.
Leading up to their meeting, the cardinal, the Pope, and his American bishops had been discussing in secret how to respond to the White House pressure for Leo XIV to make a ceremonial visit to Trump ahead of Election Day on November 3. Trump had wanted God’s mandate; the Church said no.
Read more of the background – without the politics – here
Cardinal Pierre meeting Under Secretary Colby at the Pentagon on January 22. Source: https://x.com/DOWResponse/status/2042300020494418303
Colby attempted to silence the leaking breach with the Pope. “Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby,” he tweeted, “had a substantive, respectful, and professional meeting with Cardinal Pierre, the then-Papal Nuncio, and his team on January 22, 2026. During the cordial meeting, they discussed a range of topics, including issues of morality in foreign policy, the logic of the U.S. National Security Strategy, Europe, Africa, Latin America, and other topics. Cardinal Pierre expressed his appreciation for the outreach and both sides looked forward to continued open and respectful dialogue. In light of grossly false and distorted recent reporting, the Department of War repeats its statement: Recent reporting of the meeting is highly exaggerated and distorted. The meeting between Pentagon and Vatican officials was a respectful and reasonable discussion. We have nothing but the highest regard and welcome continued dialogue with the Holy See.”
The reported reference at Colby’s meeting to the French transfer of the popes from Rome to Avignon during the 14th century was especially galling to the Nuncio Pierre, and embarrassing for Trump’s appointee to the Holy See, Brian Burch. Burch had been in charge of mobilizing Catholic votes during the election campaign of 2024.
Burch has tweeted that yesterday (April 9) he had been “speaking” with Pierre in Rome. Speaking appears to refer to a telephone conversation, not a face-to-face meeting. “I was pleased to speak today with His Eminence, Cardinal Christophe Pierre. As expected, he confirmed that recent media characterizations of his meeting with Undersecretary Colby are ‘fabrications’ that were ‘just invented.’ Given the intelligence and seriousness of Mr. Colby, I was likewise not suprised when His Eminence acknowledged there were no threats of any kind in the meeting. ‘It was a frank and cordial meeting that took place two months ago.’ Threat of Avignon? ‘None.’”
In the religious doctrine which all three of them have been educated to follow, lying is a venial sin, not usually a mortal one.
The Catholic Vice President was careful in what he has said. “[Vance] told media he would ‘like to talk to Cardinal Christophe Pierre and, frankly, to our people [Colby], to figure out what actually happened. I think itʼs always a bad idea to offer an opinion on stories that are unconfirmed and uncorroborated, so Iʼm not going to do that.”
Pierre had retired after his 80th birthday on January 30, 2026; he officially resigned his Washington post on March 7. When Burch presented himself this week, Pierre was out of office. It is not known if his successor, appointed by Leo to follow Pierre to Washington, Archbishop Gabriele Caccia, was present on the telephone line or at the meeting table. Caccia, an Italian, has been serving as the Holy See’s Permanent Observer at the United Nations. In an earlier posting between 2007-2017, Caccia was the nuncio in Lebanon under Israeli fire. There is no record of his public statements in support of the Vatican doctrine at the time of “moral proportionality” between Israel’s attacks and Hezbollah’s defence; he avoided criticism of Israel.
Archbishop Caccia meets Brian Burch, April 8, 2026: https://www.facebook.com/holysee.usembassy/posts/ambassador-burch-welcomed-archbishop-caccia-the-new-nuncio-to-the-united-states-/1357052016454983/
The Catholic press in Paris and Dublin are treating the Colby-Pierre story as a parochial American Church affair and ignoring it. La Croix is waiting on today’s (April 10) meeting between President Emmanuel Macron and the Pope. In the meantime, the French newspaper is reporting Leo’s April 7 statement condemning Trump’s threats as “truly unacceptable for all the people of Iran.” The Catholic tribune editorialised: “For this pope disinclined to make his criticism personal, this move is significant. It marks a new hardening of the pope’s tone, after his first shift on March 31.”
In Rome, Mattia Ferraresi, the reporter who broke the Colby threat story in the US, followed up yesterday (April 9) with a report that his Vatican sources have met with the Pope and briefed him on what has followed the initial disclosures.
The latest US opinion polling shows the political urgency for Trump, Vance, Rubio, Colby and other officials, the Christians and the Jews, if the majority support which Catholic voters gave Trump in the 2024 election is lost now. In the presidential vote, according to the Pew Research Centre study released last year, the Catholic vote for Trump was 55% — white Catholics 62%, Hispanic Catholics 41% — compared to 43% for Kamala Harris. For the Democrats, there was a swing of 12 percentage points in the Catholic vote against the party’s candidate from the result in 2020. Compared to 2020, Trump gained a 5 percentage point swing from white Catholics, 10 percentage points from Hispanic Catholics.
Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patterns-in-the-2024-election/ Note the Jewish vote for Trump in 2024 was only 35% compared to 63% for Harris.
In new polling of late March, reported by Newsweek, “Trump’s approval [is] slipping into negative territory among both Catholics and Protestants. Among Catholic voters, 48 percent said they approve of Trump’s job performance, while 52 percent disapprove, a net negative of 4 points… Just weeks earlier, Catholics had leaned the other way. In the prior Fox News poll, conducted February 28 through March 2, 2026, Trump held a narrow edge with Catholics. In that survey, 52 percent approved and 48 percent disapproved, giving him a net positive rating of 4 points.” “Taken together, the two polls suggest a notable shift among Catholic voters over a period of several weeks, flipping Trump’s standing with that group from a net positive to a net negative. Attention around U.S.-Vatican relations intensified after Vance said he would look into reports that emerged on Monday about the January meeting between Pentagon and Vatican officials.”
Source: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-approval-rating-flips-with-christians-11741961
Source: https://x.com/OSVNews/status/2042354432218730819
As the Catholic anti-war movement picks up momentum with sermon support from the diocesan pulpits and the Vatican, fear of midterm election defeat is growing for Trump and his chief pollster, Tony Fabrizio (Catholic), whose principal ally in the White House is Chief of Staff Susan Wiles (Episcopalian, “Catholic lite”).
This vote swing is a larger, longer term threat to the two Catholic presidential successors, Vance and Rubio. The US press has yet to report the political fallout for them. It is one of the reasons Vance has been accepted by Trump at the leadership of the US negotiations with Iran in Islamabad this weekend. The subordination there of the two Jewish negotiators, Steven Witkoff and Jared Kushner, also occurred in the Abu Dhabi round of negotiations with the Russian and Ukrainian delegations in January. At that time, the Jews in the US delegation – Witkoff, Kushner and Joshua Gruenbaum – were subordinated to the US Army Secretary and Vance protégé, Daniel Driscoll (Southern Baptist), his advisor General Randy George (then Army Chief of Staff) and General Alexus Grynkewicz, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
NOTE: In Colby’s threat to do to Pope Leo XIV what had been done by France’s King Philip IV to Pope Boniface VIII at the start of the 14th century “Avignon Papacy” he missed a much more recent precedent. That was Napoleon’s arrest and seizure of Pope Pius VII in 1809. The first was a fight over state taxation of church property and of state courts over church courts. The second was a fight over the primacy of the state over the church in Napoleon’s new French constitution.
Read the second story in the context of a similar move the Russian Church and Patriarch made to put the name of God in President Vladimir Putin’s revision of the Russian Constitution in 2021.
56 comments
Comments are closed.
This is the inevitable fallout of the eschatological revolutions within the American body politic. The US state is undergoing a religious shift, from approximate agnosticism towards openly proclaimed Zionism. Of course the churches now left out of this revival are going to be sour on it. As the largest non-Zionist faith in the US, the Catholic church was always going to be jealous of seeing “unthroned” New York rabbis and hanger-on evangelical pastors take primacy over consecrated bishops in the White House — in the middle of a crusade no less!
Of course we can’t leave out the now disgraced “Church of Liberalism” in this great escatological street fight. That faith died in Gaza, but the ghosts of its clericy still haunt the halls of power. Will their old contempt for the forces of conservative papacy stir them to fight for freedom-of-night-clubbers once again, in service to settler-gangs in the West Bank. Probably. They will have to at least try to outdo the kow-towing abasements of the dispensationalist Protestants if they ever want to stay in power in this new Judeo-Christian looney-west. Little wonder so many atheists and religious alike are creeping off to Orthodox and Catholic services.
Unitarian Universalist for moi!
Cant really stand Father Beau of St Angela Merici Church, which is where I went to grammar school, and their neocon smugness.
PLUS – Bonus points for being right over the parish line in Lakeview from Metairie!
Feel bad for the old timers at the UU because there isn’t much new blood coming in.
I don’t believe in God, but I do believe in the message of Jesus, and tbh that’s enough for me at this point in my life (Single – 42 – Populist Loud Mouth)
As a old fashioned calvanist who never got how despensationalism was even tolerated (I see it as actually anathema worthy) in our churches… This is a generational struggle finally coming loose in evangelism.
For the last 20 years since the 2nd great schism (sexuality debates and final destruction of the mainline) the more “eschatological” denominations have been DROPPING their stances as requirements because none of us protestants after the cold war buy any of it. But ya’ll dont vote unless your old!
Fun fact: revelation was debated for inclusion in the cannon due to being crazy odd. It was due to the fact John slams together the idea of Church/Isreal and Christian/Jewish (debates moderns forgot). That wasnt a problem per say BUT it was seen as allowing the potential for someone to take it as ethno-nationalist work.
Origin summed it up this way (Googling him on it is eye opening): Jesus was crucified because he refused to be the warrior/earthly king. If you think the 2nd time he comes it means “OK NOW he’ll kill everybody” you undo the whole meaning of the cross and treat it as a “Oh he wasnt serious about that whole cross thing.”
And I’d remind you anti means “another” in Greek (anti-thesis). So the whole thing is Christ crucified Or some other Jesus?
Which is why at a doctrinal level with STRONG patristic era documentation of this exact debate/issue… that it ever revived in the US (with its racist and imperialist tendencies) and whats more has been embraced as orthodox could be a major scholarly work I dont ever care to write because it would get you black listed….
But it probanly would reverse the 50 year slide to take out a LOG that big in your eye.
I mean, US evangelicals do sometimes sorta fit Neitzches snarky description of Christians that they were just mad they didnt have the empirers power and used nice ideas to guilt their way into it… And I say that being on the team.
This version of Origin’s thinking about the life of Jesus and the meaning of the crucifixion pretty much exactly matches the views of Tucker Carlson and Nathan Apffel in their conversation a few days ago.
For a brief, seriocomic take on Nietzsche’s slave morality and the transformation of Christians into Old Testament worshippers—retaining the name while emptying it of its Origin-al meaning, you might say (a not uncommon move, admittedly)—see the sadomaso-Christianity sections in part 2 of this Substack post. Don’t skip the footnotes!
> Jesus was crucified because he refused to be the warrior/earthly king.
Thank you.
In recent years I have been captivated by the possibility that Jesus intended to be captured and killed*, as Israel’s king, as a way of demoralizing the militants among his followers, and in this way averting or delaying a looming clash with the Roman occupiers. He “ransomed” Israel from Rome, at least for a generation.
Re: dispensationalism, I find James Stewart Russell’s analysis, in his The Parousia, of the obvious expectation in the New Testament writings of something big and imminent, to be highly plausible (TL;DR — New Testament prophecy was fulfilled in the first Century AD in the war between Israel and Rome that culminated in the AD70 destruction of Jerusalem and the 2nd Temple). Don’t talk about it with dispensationalist friends, though. It may end friendships.
* This thought is inspired by NT Wright’s superb Jesus and the Victory of God, especially the sections on Jesus’ intentions and the function of the Cross as warning to Israel. Wright doesn’t go so far as to suggest that the warning was for a time successful, but I think it’s a plausible extension of his analysis.
Thank you for the biblio additions. Almost any Bart Ehrman book on early Christianities will likewise go into the life of Jesus and beliefs about the imminence of end times back in A.D. 30.
Describing Episcopalian as “catholic lite” — the Episcopal church may be similar liturgically but the key difference is not recognizing the authority of the pope. Which seems relevant in this context. It is the American version of the Church of England, i.e. the breakaway church created by Henry VIII.
Not submitting to the authority of the Pope under the idea that the English Monarch is the head of an Empire. and has authority over the archbishops. Anglicans certainly recognize the authority of the Pope as their sect is based on the same reasoning as the Pentarchy.
I think we mean different things by authority. I’ll put it this way: Leo can excommunicate Vance but he can’t excommunicate Susie Wiles. That’s a much stronger distinction than say between American Roman Catholics and Italian (or African) Roman catholics who do not necessarily see eye to eye on Papal authority over doctrine.
My point really was “catholic lite” is how you might describe Episcopalians in a class on comparative religion. It struck me as discordant in a discussion of political factions.
(Just to be goofily pedantic)
The Vatican did excommunicate Chinese bishops who didn’t recognize papal authority in the past, y’know.
(Background: after winning the Civil War, the CPC reorganized the Catholic Church in China as the Patriotic Catholic Church, recognizing the leadership of the Chinese state, not the Pope, but same in all appearances–who says Mao didn’t read English history? The Vatican did not recognize the schism and excommunicated several bishops who were too gung ho about it, while the Chinese government imprisoned bishops and priests who didn’t go with the reorganization. The whole thing has been thrown into murk lately with the agreements between Vatican and China lately, though.)
Well that’s an episode I wasn’t aware of (and I’m sure there are others). Do members of the schism still recognize the authority of the pope? For example, did “Vatican 2” have any effect on them?
Vatican 2 did not, at least not originally, which had the strange effect of making the “Patriotic” Catholic Church more traditionist in terms of liturgy for a while than the real thing.
Things began to change “unofficially” starting in 1980s: note that Vatican only excommunicated some bishops. It did not declare the whole “Patriotic” Church schismatic, so the door was open for many of the bishops in the Patriotic Church, with the informal consent of the Chinese state, to get “unofficial” Vatican recognition. Still, the situation was murky: many of the CPCA bishops still refused to recognize the papal authority and the Vatican had to issue tortured explanations that, while some bishops in China are illegitimate, their sacraments are still valid. At least for now, things are moot since the Vatican and the Chinese state have formally agreed to regularize the Catholic Church in China (via agreements to be renewed every so many years) in which Vatican recognized the formerly illegitimate bishops appointed by the Chinese state and the Chinese state agreed to consult the Vatican on religious matters. Still, it’s hardly a settled deal.
Don’t Protestant denominations also diverge from Catholicism in that Protestants view the Eucharist as a remembrance memorial for a past event, whereas Catholics see it as ongoing participation in a continuing sacrifice? “Catholic lite” would therefore seem to require acceptance of the latter interpretation fo the Eucharist, more so than acceptance of a Pope.
Christened by an Anglican bishop in a cathedral but lifelong atheist here: from what I dimly remember of religious studies, Anglicanism claims to be a catholic church (small c) but a protestant one and the 39 Articles of Faith required by Elizabeth I place the monarch at the head of the church. They also enshrine some doctrinal differences such that the Anglican and Catholic churches are not in communion with each (albeit they pursue a lot of institutional ecumenical cooperation these days).
Some of the differences relate to the sacraments: Anglicanism recognises only baptism and Eucharist. The rest (marriage, extreme unction, confession) are literally non-Gospel. Anglicanism also does not strictly demand Apostolic succession of bishops for them, their appointees and all sacraments administered thereby to be valid.
However, being a “broad church”, different provinces within the church have adopted stricter or loosed laws. Basically Anglo-catholics are more Catholic than the Pope (” bells and smells”, “pongs and gongs”) and might even go to Mass occasionally; Evangelicals are frightful happy-clappy guitar strummers and hard to distinguish from Pentecostalists.
This confederal nature of the Provinces makes it unlikely that the Archbishop of Canterbury could sway anybody’s soul about Trump outside the UK and (s)he has precious few regular attendees in the UK. Plus, Welby was a pin-eyed Alpha Course conspirator who led the church over the cliff by stuffing its hierarchy with followers of evangelism and Zionism. Luckily the Old Lady is so irrelevant and resistant to change that it represents no threat to the nation’s conscience. :-)
Speaking as a non-practicing Presbyterian, I think the most important distinction is whether the sacrament of communion (or any sacrament) is considered a requirement for salvation, with protestants saying no.
Trump and his people have been alienating whole groups of voters that enabled him to be voted into power. You are talking about the Hispanic vote, the Black vote, conservatives, business people,etc. So of course Trump and his people have doubled down and have now alienated the Catholic vote. If he is depending on the MAGO vote, they are being divided and are only a minority.
The alienated the Magoi votes, too, presumably–they were Persian. ;)
The businessmen I see on the weekend were pining for the days of Bill Clinton in the fourth week of the Ramadan War.
I believe that excommunicating Vance would be a good move by the Pope.
He might not have any divisions however he does have Moral force which would be reinforced by such a move.
And that matters over time.
Western “Leaders” are ignoring the needs and desires of their people, that will work until it doesn’t, violently.
Is that a reference to a Joseph Stalin quote?
Something to the effect of “How many divisions doe the Pope have?”
Risky. How come nobody seems to remember that Jimmy Vance killed Pope Francis just last year?
Hadn’t heard about that, but they definitely killed (or allowed to die) John Paul l, who was only in there for a few weeks, before being replaced by the Polish Cold War Pope and his Hitler Jugend (and pedophile-protecting) adjutant and successor.
I believe that was a joke about Vance. Francis met Vance and bowed out the next day.
There are lots of subplots involved in this – among other things, it shouldn’t be forgotten that many Palestinians are Catholic and are represented by an influential cardinal (the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem). That, among other reasons, is why there is a deep dislike among the catholic hierarchy for the US brand of Christian Zionism. To confuse matters, there are branches of Catholicism (i.e. various eastern catholic sects) in Lebanon (the Maronites) who have often been Israeli allies. Like so much in the region, its complicated. Other groups that extend into Syria (such as Armenian and Greek Catholics) were associated with the Assad government and are utterly terrified by the rise of Isis linked groups.
I suspect Vance now knows this if he didn’t before, but conservative and far right Catholics in Europe are very much not on board with Trumps antics – they have (for various reasons) stronger sympathies for the Christian populations in the Middle East. Its been observed for a while that many smaller far right groups are staying very quiet on the current wars, and this is probably related to a distinct lack of sympathy with US style Christian Zionism.
How this effects US politics, I don’t know, but I do know that many Conservative Catholics in the US have a suspicion of converts like Vance (the whole lost prodigal son thing is much more beloved among evangelicals), and there are other obvious sub-plots, like the mutual dislike between Cubanos like Rubio and other Latin Americans.
From what I can tell there is no group in America that is very fond of the Vice President. It was striking at the recent CPAC convention that the crowd overwhelmingly favored Rubio over Vance as potential candidates in 2028.
The Lebanese Catholics have been friendlier towards the Shiia (and thus Hizb’ullah) in the recent years, though: the real “allies” (insofar as anyone is anyone’s ally for long in Lebanon) Israel has had have been the Sunni who are Gulf aligned. Even then, groups differ, even among Lebanese Catholics. The Armenians (A lot of Armenians in the Levant are Catholic, even as those in the Caucasus are not–unsurprisingly, the mother church of the Armenian Catholics is in Beirut) have been friendlier towards Hizb’ullah from early on while the Maronites have been more mixed, as far as I can tell, for example.
In Lebanon there’s basically two major clans, the northern one is Maronite, and the eastern-southern one is Shia (most Hezbollah, some Amal).
It’s a consociation, not a democracy, and to some extent it was designed to be dysfunctional by the French when they left. Not that the all pervasive corruption and constant pendulating between consensus-democracy and warlordism by the Lebanese themselves has helped either.
There’s central power in Lebanon only when it serves both clans to have one, but it can never be a strong central power. At the moment, the so called government is in practice a wholly owned subsidiary of the State Department – totally depended on US aid to do anything.
Well, a 3 headed consociation with the Druze counting as the 4th sometimes (but unlike others, they don’t get an official seat.): The president is always a Christian (almost invariably Maronite, who probably make up 50-60% of Lebanese Christians), the prime minister is always Sunni, the speaker of the parliament is always Shia. The pecking order is based on the demographics of early 20th century when the country was majority Christian and, I think, no census is allowed beause rearranging constitutional arrangement on the current population makeup is deemed too disruptive (the current population is probably about 60-70% Muslim with the Shia making up the plurality.)
I always thought the population distribution was, from north to south, Sunni, Maronite, Druze, and Shia. Apparently, a bit more complicated than I thought, especially away from the coast, looking at the wikipedia map, although I don’t know how densely the interior is populated. The generalization that the south, where the fighting is, is mostly Shia, with bits of Christian and Druze mixed in, while most of the Sunnis are far away (with Beirut being mixed, but with Christians relatively dominant) seems a reasonable, if a bit inaccurate, simplification.
I agree re: the subplots.
Recall Vance’s claim that Catholic teaching of ordo amoris means one must adhere to nationalism, love those closest before you love others. Is this actually being taught in RCIA’s across the nation? Is Catholic teaching of social justice in the process of being manipulated or subverted at the RCIA level, perhaps? Ensuring recent converts have an incorrect understanding of Catholic catechism which is more aligned with Trump ideology? Is this an honest mistake or a project pursued?
I operate under the assumption that Vance’s conversion to Catholicism is due to Thiel’s influence over him. He also probably likes the idea of the Roman Catholic Church as a bastion of Western tradition versus the actual reality of what the Church is. He’s an Evangelical who fetishizes the aesthetics of the Roman Catholic Church.
i find it fascinating that so many Christians have abandoned the Jesus of the New Testament in favor of the
Old Testament thunder god.
Crazy to me too.
I was always taught the New Testament is where we are now and to take the OT with a grain of salt.
And the New Testament is supposed to be the new Covenant with God: radical and unconditional love for all.
Yes, but …
If I understood Carlson and Apffel correctly in the convo linked to above in my earlier comment, the way—the only way—to the Father is through the Son, i.e., Christianity, and those who take another path, well, it would follow that for them, something else is in store. Sounds kinda conditional to me, but maybe I’ve got that wrong and Christians love the heathen too. Considering Tucker’s obsession specifically with the treatment of Christians, whom he considers the most persecuted ever (he seriously said that), I wouldn’t place a big bet on it, though. Rewards of membership, I guess. But then, there are so many Christianities. Wouldn’t want to choose incorrectly!
He probably knows Irgun and Lehi were attacking Christians well before the Holocaust, before even the creation of the state of Israel, and that Irgun became modern day Likud, Netanyahu’s party. He can see where this came from and is going, as the recent attack on Beirut demonstrates.
The Pope is very much paying attention to what is going on right now.
“Absurd and inhuman violence is spreading ferociously through the sacred places of the Christian East, profaned by the blasphemy of war and the brutality of business, with no regard for people’s lives, which are considered at most collateral damage of self-interest. But no gain can be worth the life of the weakest, children, or families. No cause can justify the shedding of innocent blood.”
https://x.com/Pontifex/status/2042589665648099632
Stand up Chicago guy, this Pope. It takes guts to do this.
Pope Leo is doing his mission. Admonishing the sinners.
The whataboutism in those twitter responses is not surprising, but still disappointing. Tradlarpers need to get over they will never get their Middle Ages popes who yell “Deus vult”.
Per Wiki: Christianity in Lebanon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Lebanon
I would have liked to have a beer with him at Nick’s Sports Page in Dolton while watching a White Sox game.
Where’s Laura Loomer? Shouldn’t she be threatening investigations for foreign interference on all American Catholics? Isn’t the Vatican a country?
Good question. I was wondering the same about Leonard Leo.
The SC has been striking down T’s crazier legal attempts recently.
They struck down his tariffs. Look poised to strike down his attempt to end US birthright citizenship. T actually went to the Court to listen to the oral arguments. First time a sitting US pres has gone to the Court to watch oral arguments in a case the admin is presenting.
Ahead of the oral arguments, he referred to the Justices as “stupid people.” Didn’t help his argument.
From PBS Newhour, utube, ~10+ minutes.
Analyzing the arguments as Supreme Court hears birthright citizenship case
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7svW-c6l8oI
Thank you, Flora, for pointing those crazier legal attempts out. From what I’ve read about Leonard Leo, he plays the long game and chess very well and sits on the Project 2025 board. I think he’s testing the waters here. Only time will tell, I suppose.
As others have said, Trump is doing a heck of a job as uniter of the world. Of course, he’s uniting everyone against him and this administration.
Normally, I hate to see religion used in US politics.
However, in this case I’ll make an exception.
T and his military loyalists brought this on themselves. What an absolutely boneheaded move their part.
B had the auto-pen, which was bad. The auto-pen didn’t go around gratuitously insulting world leads.
T has the auto-Bibi. ‘Nuf said. /smh
Normally, I hate to see religion used in US politics.
As an outsider, I am having difficulty thinking of any states where religion has more influence , other than full–blown theocratic states like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Oh, possibly the Vatican.
Yes, much of the US populace does take their religious beliefs into account when assessing political candidates.
The direction of religions’ effects is supposed to be, how to put this, from the bottom up. From the people up to the govt. It is not supposed to be from the govt down. It is not supposed to be from the pres or his loyalists down to religious leaders. That smacks entirely too much of a violation of the separation of church and state in the Constitution. Not in the sense the govt is naming an official church or religion; in the sense the govt looks like it is trying to coerce a religious leader’s views and words.
The First Amendment to the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The T admin did not make a law or ask Congress to make a law concerning the Vatican. However, leaning on a religious leader to demand they get with the T program certainly seems to go against the spirit (if not the letter) of the 1st Amendment.
Typo: T has the auto-Bibi. –> Bibi has auto-Trump.
The Bush family really dialed in the religion.
The father GHW Bush was Episcopal.
Son GW Bush is Baptist (Texas).
Son Jeb Bush is Catholic (Florida).
Ok, I read the post early on, with 2 comments.
I have not read comments since. [not bomb Iran and so on and so forth, intervened]
Respect for all life must prevail.
Alice
I’ve been thinking about something for a while now … how this is yet another schism caused by Trump … it is effectively a proper schism of Clerical/Liturgical Christianity versus (tele-)Evangelical Christianity in America. The former has more empathy because of its roots in new Testament and Apostolic teachings; the latter is largely rooted in old testament teachings – fire and brimstone.
Exhibit A (via X)
Catholics/Lutherans/Episcopalians/Anglicans are more moved by seeing 15R43L destroy Christian sites in the Middle East because despite reformation, they relate to the shared history. Evangelicals don’t give a sh** about any of that. If there was a US-Style “Mega Church” in Lebanon and it got bombed, that might have moved the needle.
These shifts are happening in the populace that constitutes the base of both parties; the fact that Fabrizio is Catholic and Wiles is Episcopalian means nothing – they’re all a bunch of soulless, amoral ghouls at that level, and care about nothing but money and power.
And since we’re talking about Trump gaining/losing the Catholic vote, let’s remember Kamala’s refusal to attend the Al Smith Catholic Charity event in 2024 (via americanmagazine.org).
ChrisRUEcon: exactly.
The split between the liturgical churches, which I will divide as Catholic and Orthodox (Eastern) = faith, good works, tradition and Episcopalians/Anglicans/Lutherans = faith, less so the other two, and then the nonliturgical churches = salvation by faith alone and a whole lotta blabbery, is a major religious split, enough to offer to you idea that we are dealing with two different churches. Even the split between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhists isn’t quite as insurmountable.
Oddly, though, I discover that Mormons can be highly liturgical, although their spiritualism-based theology puts them in another realm.
For many of the nonliturgical churches, there isn’t even a concept of what an Orthodox church looks like. Heck, what’s an iconostasis? Isn’t it idolatry? Can we bomb it?
DJG, Reality Czar:
OMG, how could I forget the Orthodox?!! LOL
I’ve been saying all week that Easter ain’t over till the Orthodox celebrate on the 12th! Thanks for filling that gap in your comment. And yes, faith vs works!
It’s already tomorrow in Chocolate City, so (in my preferred Russian Orthodox greeting): христос воскрес!
I find Matthew Taylor’s framework in ‘The Violent Take It by Force
The Christian Movement That Is Threatening Our Democracy’ useful. He categorizes US protestant churches along two axes; denominational vs. non-denominational and charismatic vs. non-charismatic, defining four quadrants. He identifies the non-denominational charismatic churches and their members as influential in the Trump administration, e.g. Paula White, Doug Wilson, and Pete Hegseth all come from that quadrant.