transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:04] It's Monday, April 20, 2026. I'm Albert Mohler, and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview. The controversy between the president of the United States and the Catholic Pope continues, and oddly enough, it's caught the attention of much of the watching world, it seems. The most immediate occasion is an exchange between the president and the pope. Some direct, some indirect, and you have now open criticism coming from the Speaker of the House, the Vice President of the United States, others in the administration, and of course, leading point in this is the president himself. Now, at this point, let's just make an historical observation. This is the most public conflict between a president of the United States and the pope of the Roman Catholic Church in all time. Nothing like this has ever happened before. Now, that's not to say that the papacy has not run into political conflict before because it certainly has. As a matter of fact, there were centuries of political conflict between the papacy and other kingdoms, most importantly, European kingdoms. You even had a time in which the papacy was in exile. You also had major developments such as the fact that by the time you get into the late medieval age and you go into centuries closer to us, and in particular, even the 19th century, you had the Pope as not only a religious but as a temporal authority over a significant amount of land. And so until 1870, in the aftermath of the Franco- Prussian War, you're looking at the Papal States as they were known, covering a good deal of territory that became incorporated into the Kingdom of Italy. But of course, even now, the Roman Catholic Church claims that the Vatican is in itself a sovereign state, and that the Pope is the monarch of that state and the monarch of the church. It's a unitary job. And thus, that sets the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church over apart any other religious leader on earth, certainly having any historic connection to Christianity. When it comes to relations between precedents of the United States and Popes, the bottom line is that for a century or more, there was basically no relationship. And that's simply because there was not much reason for a relationship. Now, that began to change with rising numbers of Catholic immigrants coming, particularly from nations such as Italy and Ireland, but also from Eastern Europe. And so, given the rising number and percentage of Roman Catholics in the United States, the Pope at least became a figure that was recognized as having larger cultural impact than had been the case in America's past. It is also important to recognize that you had major Popes in the modern age who were basically opposed to democracy, and indeed basically put the United States as a political project outside the bounds of what was considered acceptable by the Vatican. It wasn't really until Vatican II, in the second half of the 20th century, that the Roman Catholic Church developed a more explicitly positive view of democracy. And at least a part of that also had to do with a developing understanding of human rights. Those two, at least in part, went together. And that explains why, on the American political landscape, everything really changed in the middle of the 20th century. So when I say everything changed, what I mean is this. You had presidents and popes who had to develop a certain kind of unified front, especially in the aftermath of World War II, when you're looking at the emergence of the Cold War. Now, why would there have been a united front? Well, at least in part, it had to do with the preservation of democratic values and at least in part, that created a dynamic in which the Vatican was basically on the same side as the Allies during World War II, recognizing the danger of Nazi Germany. Now, because of the political realities of the Papacy, that position vis-a-vis Nazi Germany was a bit more clouded when it came to the Pope and to the Vatican. But by the time World War II comes to an end and the Cold War begins, that's when things get really, really interesting. Because during that time, what developed was a sort of partnership between the United States and the Vatican when it came to understanding the threat of atheistic communism. And that threat of atheistic communism was not just a theoretical, or if you could say this, even merely theological threat, it was a threat to religious liberty in the most basic sense. And so whether it was the Bolshevik Revolution and its full flower by the time you get to the high water mark of the power of the Soviet Union and its influence, repressive of Christianity and of the Church, by the time you get to the impact on Eastern Europe where there were significant Catholic populations, by the time you get to China and the Maoist Revolution in the end of the 1940s, into the 1950s, and this brought Mao Tse Tung's very harsh crackdown on all religious movements, and that included the Catholic Church, and it included the appropriation of property. You started having a closer alignment between the American president and the Roman Catholic pontiff. And so an example of that was the developing relationship between a president such as Harry Truman in the United States and the papacy. And so the recognition of the papacy politically, even sending a United States ambassador to the Vatican, that was very controversial at the time, especially among Protestants who saw this as a grave error, and the Catholics who championed it, of course. But in Truman's view, it was worth creating that kind of official communication and status in order to make clear something of a united front when it came to the democracies and the Vatican concerned with religious liberty and human rights. And that just grew deeper over time. There were some interesting developments. The election of John F. Kennedy in 1960s, the first Catholic president of the United States actually represented something of a step back in some of those relationships because President Kennedy was concerned with appearing too Catholic. He was quite open with his Catholicism, but he really didn't expand that much. Interestingly, the vast deepening of that relationship came under President Ronald Reagan at the very height of the Cold War. And it came with the joint efforts by Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister of Britain, along with others, including Brian Mulrooney, the Prime Minister of Canada, and several other figures, but most importantly, Reagan and Thatcher and Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II, famously the Polish Pope, had experienced communist repression firsthand in his native Poland, and he was a very brave opponent of communism, and regardless of, by the way, its form or its shape. And so you had a united front, Thatcher and Reagan and Pope John Paul II. And very much understood to be acting in concert. President Reagan saw it as important to have a United States ambassador to the Vatican. And so it was an even more important position during the Reagan administration and also thereafter. The breakup of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Soviet Union did change that a very great deal. Not so much under John Paul II's successor, Pope Benedict XVI, but rather under the next two popes. And that would mean Francis I and now Leo XIV. Okay, some interesting things here. Francis was much more liberal in terms of his politics and his social and moral theology than either John Paul II or Benedict XVI. And that was clearly understood. He was actually something of a proponent of liberation theology, which John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger later, Pope Benedict XVI, had sought avidly to expunge. A form of Marxism turned into theological thought, channeled through Roman Catholic orders, and in particular, very much an important factor on the ground in places such as Central and South America, as well as some parts of Asia, Africa, and elsewhere. But I'm talking here about a massive shift in the papacy, and that led to a reshaping of the political alignment between, just to take a concrete example, the presidents of the United States and Pope Francis, and later now, Pope Leo XIV. Now, what is the change? Well, before turning to President Trump, let's consider President Joe Biden, a Roman Catholic President of the United States, who along with then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, was a very liberal Catholic, actually holding political positions directly at odds with the moral teachings and moral requirements of the Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, they continually identified themselves as Catholic, basically dared Catholic authorities to take action against them. To his credit, the Archbishop in San Francisco did take action against former Speaker of the House Pelosi. When it came to President Biden, not so much. But President Biden, for instance, on abortion just turned on a dime as he was claiming the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. Even before then, he held a position that was basically pro-choice. In order to clench the 2020 Democratic nomination, he had to go a significant step further and endorse federal funding for abortions. And so you're looking here at the fact there were two liberal Catholics, and you also had a liberal Pope, and there seemed to be some commonality. When it came to the death of Francis and the election of now, the man known as Pope Leo XIV, he was understood to be a more significant insider in one sense, more traditional in terms of some of the forms of Catholicism. Nonetheless, it appears that he basically holds to a continuity when it comes to Catholic moral teaching. Now, we have no idea how that would really have, say, come into contact over time with a liberal democratic administration, because that's not what happened in terms of the 2024 election. In 2024, Donald J. Trump, the former president of the United States, was elected to a second term, and this was set up for what can only be described as a tempestuous relationship between the president and the Pope. To evangelicals in the United States and elsewhere, this just appears to be a very odd thing, because after all, the Pope is a religious figure, but he's being treated as a temporal leader and a head of state, and that's because at least according to its own claims and to diplomatic rules now accepted by the American presidents, you really have a situation in which the Roman Catholic leader, the supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Pope holds a position of both temporal and spiritual authority as recognized by the president of the United States. Let's just say from an evangelical perspective, that is quite awkward. That's an understatement. In Christian worldview perspective, we have some really interesting things to talk about here. So let's just leave the papacy for a moment and look at the controversy. The controversy in the main between President Trump and Pope Leo has a lot to do with Pope Leo's criticism and its implicit and explicit of many features related to the presidency of Donald Trump, even to Donald Trump himself. Most specifically, in recent weeks, it has been Pope Leo's very critical comments concerning the military action against Iran undertaken by the United States and Israel. But the president has spoken back to the pope. The pope has spoken back to the president. The pope has spoken about his leadership in the Roman Catholic Church, his understanding of Catholic moral theology is related to this, and President Trump and members of his administration are pressing back. Now, here's where things get even more interesting. The vice president of the United States, JD Vance, is just several years ago a convert to Roman Catholicism and to a very conservative understanding of Roman Catholicism. And by the way, what you have are political conservatives who become conservative Catholics, that doesn't mean they're actually identifying with the entire Catholic Church when it comes to the positions articulated by, say, bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, but it does mean they're associating most emphatically with what they see as a conservative vision of Catholicism. Just to put the matter bluntly, when you're looking at Vice President JD Vance and you're looking at Pope Leo XIV, I think it's fair to say they do not have the same conception of Catholic moral teaching. And that's one of the reasons why you had the statement that came just flying over the wires over the news services in the last several days, in which the Vice President of the United States was criticizing the Pope. And after all, you have people saying, well, you know, the Pope is ahead of the Catholic Church, so Vice President Vance just better get in line. But the Vice President of the United States was actually referring to concrete aspects of Catholic moral teaching, and in particular, what's known as just war theory. In terms of some of the comments that the Pope made, I must say that understanding even the Catholic version of just war theory, it isn't really clear the ground in which and the extent to which the Pope is condemning the American and Israeli actions. He did at one point, at least as represented by three American Archbishops communicate that he believed this is a war of choice, which means it didn't have to be fought, which means it fails in the beginning of Catholic moral theology when it comes to natural law and to just war theory. But you also have the President of the United States responding, well, rather hotly, let's just say, and rather comprehensively in terms of the Pope's leadership. But I do think you're looking at a genuine disagreement over the nature even of just war. And even as there will be two understandings of just war theory even present within the Roman Catholic Church, or at least two Roman Catholics, very prominent Roman Catholics, Pope Leo XIV and Vice President, Andy Vance, who disagree about how Catholic moral theology, and in particular just war theory, applies to the current conflict with Iran. This turns out to be really interesting. And not just for Catholics, it's really interesting for Protestants, for Evangelical Christians. What is just war theory? Just war theory is not the sole possession of Catholics. You can trace it back to all kinds of developmental stages in the Church. I guess the three most important would be, you look at Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo in North Africa. And there, let's just say, you're looking at the fourth, fifth centuries in terms of that massive impact. And then you're also looking at Thomas Aquinas in the Middle Ages. So you fast forward a matter of centuries. Both develop just war theory along the same lines. Aquinas, Thomas as he is known, of course, press that definition further. By the time you get to the 19th century, you have very classic expressions of just war theory. So what is it? Just war theory is the Christian understanding of when war is morally justified and how a morally justified war should be undertaken. Those are two very important questions, and not just to Catholics, not just to Protestants, but to anyone who wants to consider the Christian moral tradition and the biblical worldview when it comes to matters of war and peace. We are told to seek peace. That's absolutely fundamental for Christians, but we live in a sinful world in which violence happens. And in response to that violence, action often has to be taken. So what is just war theory? Let's just say that in its most mature form, there are basically at least seven parts. So this is more interesting than you might think. Seven different criteria that have to be met for a war to be just and justly fought. So what would they be? Number one, there must be just cause. You can't just declare war, certainly aggressively on another nation because you want its territory. You have to have just cause. There has to be some basic defensive move that is made necessary in terms of the use of violence. So repelling an invader is legitimate. Invading another country because you want their goods is not legitimate. Secondly, military action like this must be undertaken by legitimate authority. And so again, this means in the case of the United States, legitimate authority according to the legal precepts of the United States, the Constitution of the United States. Well, of course, that gets a little complicated. But then you're also talking, number three, about right intention. Okay, now this seems somewhat subjective. The intention in undertaking military action, the use of lethal force, it has to be driven by something that is righteous. Now remember, just war theory is about when war is just, when it is justified, when it meets the demands of justice. When you're looking at right intention, this means right as in righteous. There must be a righteous intention. And fourth, it must be the last resort. Other things have to be tried. Negotiation has to be tried. Diplomacy has to be tried. Some nonviolent, let's say, settlement of these differences ought to be tried. Now the fact is, however, in a fallen world, sometimes not only is such a thing impossible, it's made graphically impossible by something like a surprise attack. This is what happened in the case, of course, of Japan against the United States in 1941. There really at that point was no question that military action was a last resort. The next criterion, the fifth criterion, is that there must be a reasonable hope for success. And so that is to say, you don't just throw armies into a certain death, you do not waste human life if there's not a reasonable hope of success. Sixth, there must be proportionality when it comes to military operations. And that's to say, if one side, you know, shoots arrows, the other side doesn't have the right to drop an atomic bomb. That's an extreme example, but you get the point. There has to be proportionality. And then lastly, as you're looking at just war theory, there must be the establishment of a just peace on the other side. The war must be fought by just means with the goal of achieving a just peace. So, just in terms of those several criteria, that's a good skeletal starting point for understanding just war theory. But did you know something? A lot of these aren't as easily defined as you might like to think. So for example, when you're talking about just cause, President Trump is absolutely certain the United States and Israel had just cause for this military action against Iran. The Pope seems to suggest that he doesn't think there was a just cause. In this case, I think the president has an extremely strong hand. He can simply point to all the atrocities, all the terrorist actions, all the state-sponsored forms of subversion. And that means also the use of lethal force coming from Iran since 1979. Let's just say anyone looking at that over a period of time, I think we'd have to admit there was a just cause. Now, was there something immediately prior to this military action that alone justifies that? That's not at all clear. Legitimate authority? Well, I think the president of the United States as commander-in-chief clearly has the authority to initiate military activity. I said that very carefully, to initiate military activity. Congress is invested with the power to declare war. But in the modern age, the problem is that ever since 1941, it's been very difficult for this to function in terms of our constitutional order because of the danger of an immediate attack, of an invasion by foreign troops or of most importantly, the use of intercontinental ballistic missiles to start military action, in which case there'd be no time for Congress to respond. Also, in a modern media age, if the president of the United States had to go before Congress, if President Trump had gone before Congress weeks ago to ask for military action against Iran, that might well be simply now bogged down in political debate, getting nowhere. Furthermore, it would have alerted Iran to the entire picture. Okay, the third criteria was right intention. All right, that's a bit subjective. But let's just say that at least the stated intentions of the United States are number one, and this has been pretty consistent, to prevent Iran from obtaining a usable nuclear weapon. And that would appear to meet all the criteria for just war theory and for military action, especially if the president is right, that Iran was making progress toward that and had the intention of creating a nuclear weapon. I think that's pretty clear. That's unquestionable. It's not at all clear how the current pope would establish exactly what he means by this particular military action failing when it comes to right intention. And here's one of the major problems of the papacy. The pope can put out a statement that is filled with generalities. A president of the United States has to deal with particulars. He has to deal with a particular threat with forced or at least very limited options. The pope can make comments as he wills about just about anything that catches his attention. But he doesn't bear the same kind of responsibility regardless of the fact that he claims to be the leader of a sovereign state. When it comes to last resort, well, President Trump and Vice President Vance would respond. We're talking about a threat since 1979, hostile action since 1979. Last resort would appear to be a pretty strong argument by the time you get to 2026. Of course, the pope might respond, well, there was no immediate threat. Well, again, that could be a matter of difference when it comes to fact. It could be a matter of difference when it comes to judgment. A reasonable hope of success. Well, let's be clear, President Trump has been at least rather confusing about how he understands all the aims of this military action or exactly when he believes that a reasonable success would be achieved. But there is no question just in terms of the layout of the American military action that there is a reasonable hope for success on very limited aims. If you have much broader aims, well, that becomes more dubious. The proportionality, well, I think again, the president would simply say, look at how Iran continually fights back. Look at how it is refusing to take the action that it is required to take in terms of even just surrendering the radioactive material. When it comes to proportionality, that's something that's being lived out in real time. And lastly, when it comes to a just means in terms of a just in, you know, that's an open question, to be honest. And I think if this is a successful military action, the vast majority of people, including those familiar with just war theory, will say that it was probably justified by the success of limiting Iran's hostile actions against others and of especially putting a stop to those nuclear ambitions and gaining control of that radioactive material. If all that happens, all of this is going to look happier. If it doesn't happen, I think you're going to hear all kinds of criticism. And yet nonetheless, I simply want to say that when it comes to this conflict between the Pope and the White House, between the Pope and the US government, I'll simply say, I think in some cases, the US government has been more clear about just war theory and the just war doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church than the Pope himself. And that's the political nature of the papacy, and that's a bit of my frustration. The Pope can simply, claiming to be a fellow head of state, make all kinds of judgments which are actually based in some kind of theological rationale, and quite frankly, can make accusations that the United States, in terms of this action, has failed to meet the demands of just war theory, but he really hasn't helped to flesh that out. And by the way, his academic training means he certainly could if he wanted to, but he hasn't. That doesn't justify so many of the comments made by President Trump back to the Pope. This just doesn't fit the dignity of his office, and frankly, it's hard to imagine how it accomplishes even anything for him politically. But clearly, he's willing to take the Pope on, and it appears this Pope is willing to take the President on. Either way, this is very problematic from an evangelical perspective. You don't have other religious leaders simply set over against the President as if it's a one-to-one. And of course, even the press in doing this, they talk about the Pope's moral and theological authority is understood in the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, but they treat him as also the head of a sovereign state. That just creates a problem. It must be to the advantage of the Roman Catholic Church, in the way that Catholics understand it. And by the way, it meets their theology. Let's be honest, this fits their theological claims, their understanding of the papacy. It doesn't pass the evangelical test. And this is just another glaring example of why evangelicals, it's not so much we have a problem with this Pope, that's another issue. The problem is with the papacy. Leaving this immediate issue for just a moment as we close, let's just remember that there are plenty of other cases in which the question of just war theory applies. Most importantly, just consider the ongoing conflict after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And here's something important to remember. Even as Russian President Vladimir Putin gave public addresses concerning the war, he tried to argue that Russia was just in undertaking this effort. But that's a ridiculous claim. You're looking at Russia as an invading power seeking to gain Ukrainian territory and to seize it by force and to topple the Ukrainian regime by force, and then basically to incorporate it inside Russia. That is an openly, brazenly, aggressive act. Ukraine fighting back is fully justified by Christian just war theory. Russia's invasion was not. But it is important at this point to recognize, thus, the contrast between the American and Israeli action against Iran. The United States does not want Iranian territory. The United States does not want to rule Iran. The United States is not even seeking to extract riches from Iran. It simply wants to act in such a way that it puts an end to Iran's nuclear pretensions and reduces the threat of Iran not only to the United States and not only to Europe, by the way, a very ungrateful Europe, but also to the Gulf States and others. Iran's behavior has, in the great moral scheme of things, proved the point. But it's just also a profoundly Christian observation to understand that it takes some time for all these things to sift out and for the moral realities to be debated until there really is a good sense of exactly what happened and what it means, what in retrospect was justified and what was not. In a fallen world, and Christians understand this, there is a price to both action and inaction. And sometimes it's hard to tell which is the more dangerous. Sometimes it's hard to tell which is the more justified. In any event, we will be watching all these developments together because it's extremely unlikely that this coming week is going to be less interesting than the week that came before. Thanks for listening to The Briefing. For more information, go to my website at albertmohler.com. You can follow me on X or Twitter by going to x.com/albertmohler. For more information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to sbts.edu. For information on Boyce College, just go to boycecollege.com. I'm speaking to you from Raleigh, North Carolina, and I'll meet you again tomorrow for The Briefing.