Pope Leo Versus President Trump

Leo acts in accord with his understanding of Catholic teaching derived from biblical revelation. But the pope is human, hence, no less susceptible to biases and errors. 

J. Robert Smith | April 16, 2026

There’s a misconception among non-Catholics -- actually, among plenty of Catholics, too: That a pope is a monarch imbued with divine right. Or he believes he is. Any pronouncement made by a pope is Church law, goes the misconception.

In the Roman Catholic Church, there’s a mechanism that a pope can employ involving dogma related strictly to faith and morals. He can speak or write ex cathedra. When doing so concerning the aforementioned, then that binds Catholics. But that power is used sparingly.

Pope Leo’s statements on the Iran war aren’t writ. He’s making a policy pronouncement of sorts in the context of his “ordinary magisterium” -- or in his capacity as chief instructor of the Catholic Church, to simplify it. Catholics are free to hold contrary opinions and dissent in this case. When they disagree, they should do so as acts of conscience. Popes -- clerics of whatever stripe -- aren’t infallible. Certainly not when it comes to politics and current events. Certainly not pertaining to the purpose for the Iran war, which is imperative and moral.

President Trump’s remarks about Leo and his politics were vintage Trump: unvarnished, tough. We expect something other from Trump? George Patton wasn’t going to cuss?

Observers decry Trump’s lack of respect for the papacy. Diversionary tripe. Trump didn’t comment on the office. He gave his trademark dressing down of an opponent. The object was Leo’s stances, which clearly dovetail with Western European elites’ politics.

Those politics are in the process undermining Western Civilization in Europe. Exaggeration? Plunging birthrates have led to a demographic death spiral. Decades of welfare statism have dulled sensibilities. Europeans have lived comfortably while the U.S. heavy-lifted their collective defense.

Then there’s Western Europe’s importation of Muslims. Islam’s entire history is driven by conquest -- that’s with the sword, though Europeans are making it easy for Muslims to dispense with swords this time. Islam is intrinsically aggressive. That isn’t supposition. It’s not debatable. It’s evidence-based observation. Short of historic revolts -- short of the second coming of Charles Martel -- the influx of baby-making Muslims will transform Western Europe into a minaret-studded landscape. Eastern Europe is resisting and may prove a repository of Western values and beliefs.

The late, esteemed professor Bernard Lewis made famous an observation by Syrian philosopher Sadiq al-Azm. Europe’s future will be one or the other: “an Islamized Europe, or a Europeanized Islam.” Alas, Lewis was pessimistic. He believed the former was likely. An Islamized Europe means militancy, which means trouble for the world.

Trump’s appraisal of Leo’s politics wasn’t apropos of nothing. Leo reportedly doesn’t like the president or agree with his politics and policies -- this well before ascending to the papacy. That means Leo isn’t blameless. Clerics have very human biases. Leo didn’t surrender his humanness when he entered the Vatican.

Leo’s disapproval of the Iran war and counselling peace is no surprise. Christians are taught to abhor war, though there are times war becomes necessary. The Catholic Church recognizes just wars. The Church hews to Just War Doctrine. Leo evidently doesn’t believe the Iran war is right. But there’s ample room for disagreement and debate.

The heart of Just War Doctrine is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, here summarized by a website called Catholic Conscience:

(2309) The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

There must be serious prospects of success;

The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. the power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

“Damage inflicted” is open to interpretation. Should the U.S. and its allies wait for Iran to use nuclear weapons before responding? Or does preemption aimed at safeguarding innocent lives fit the definition?

Bill O’Reilly answers the question. Per Overton at X, O’Reilly said this, in part, to Leland Vittert at News Nation, April 13:

O’REILLY: “I could mediate a settlement between the Pope and Donald Trump, I could do it.” “But in such a mediation I would have to ask his holiness very frankly… you had 30,000 people gunned down in Iran just a few weeks ago, we heard nothing from the Vatican on that at all.” “NOTHING!” “You have a terror, a government, close to a nuclear weapon... Is it acceptable for the Catholic church to look away from that?” [SNIP] “How would you think that Pope Leo would answer that question? Very simple question.” “Is the Catholic church okay with the mullahs having a nuclear weapon?” “Your holiness, yes or no? ...I’m a Catholic, I’d like to know the answer.” “The Pope will never address that.” “And that frustrates Donald Trump because the Pope is also an open border guy.”

O’REILLY: “I could mediate a settlement between the Pope and Donald Trump, I could do it.”

“But in such a mediation I would have to ask his holiness very frankly… you had 30,000 people gunned down in Iran just a few weeks ago, we heard nothing from the Vatican on that at all.” “NOTHING!”

“You have a terror, a government, close to a nuclear weapon... Is it acceptable for the Catholic church to look away from that?”

“How would you think that Pope Leo would answer that question? Very simple question.”

“Is the Catholic church okay with the mullahs having a nuclear weapon?”

“Your holiness, yes or no? ...I’m a Catholic, I’d like to know the answer.”

“The Pope will never address that.”

“And that frustrates Donald Trump because the Pope is also an open border guy.”

Simple common sense dictates that stopping Iran’s rogue Islamic regime from possessing nuclear weapons is morally compelling. Forty-seven years of Iranian sponsorship of terrorism resulting in the deaths of many thousands of innocents and its frequent declarations of hatred for the U.S., Israel, and others should sufficiently persuade. But Leo seems blinkered.

As O’Reilly mentions, the pope is an open borders champion. Trump adamantly opposes open borders -- as do most Americans and most American Catholics. The president has closed U.S. borders with remarkably beneficial results. Leo frames his support for open borders in terms of Christian charity, and doubtless he’s sincere, but Catholics can certainly argue that dismantling borders is anything but charitable. In fact, evidence supports the president and opponents of open borders.

Open borders are dangerous. They’re harmful. Crime spreads. Public costs spiral, squeezing healthcare, education, and other critical public services. Charity for Third World peoples needs to happen in their homelands. Importing troubles and costs isn’t compassionate -- certainly not for the existing downtrodden. Not for the poor, the homeless, the sick, the old, the drug-addicted, the unemployed, the mentally ill…

America is blessed with unprecedented bounty. Americans are the most generous people on earth. But the bounty isn’t limitless. And charity does, in fact, begin at home.

Surely, Leo acts in accord with his understanding of Catholic teaching derived from biblical revelation. But the pope is human, hence, no less susceptible to biases and errors. His perspective on the Iran war may be instructive and may serve as a guide for Catholics, but his understanding isn’t Church law. It’s open to challenge. A pope is intended to be an instrument of God -- but so are all clerics, Catholic and Protestant. God Almighty may choose anyone to be His instrument.

President Trump, in vanquishing a wicked regime hellbent on possessing nuclear weapons, is serving as an instrument of God, too. Leo surely doesn’t agree. That’s his prerogative. But with the ripeness of time, and with the benefit of hindsight, clarity will emerge. Trump, then, very likely will be regarded as the right man who acted at the right time to prevent a great evil. If that doesn’t make him an instrument of God, what does?

J. Robert Smith can be found at X. His handle is @JRobertSmith1. At Gab, @JRobertSmith. Also at Truth Social, @JRobertSmith. He blogs occasionally at Flyover.

SUPPORT AMERICAN THINKER

Now more than ever, the ability to speak our minds is crucial to the republic we cherish. If what you see on American Thinker resonates with you, please consider supporting our work with a donation of as much or as little as you can give. Every dollar contributed helps us pay our staff and keep our ideas heard and our voices strong. Thank you.

© American Thinker