Table of Contents
Recently Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited Rome to meet with Pope Leo. This was a smart move. The pope and the president have been verbally sparring for some weeks and there was oil to be poured on troubled waters. Who better to send than Rubio, a Catholic himself and a prominent and senior member of the Trump cabinet. Obviously, from the religious perspective, there would have been instant synergies. No doubt Rubio would have been delighted to visit the Vatican and Leo would have been delighted to have dialogue with a member of his Catholic family.
As I mentioned in a previous article, both church and state need to consider their roles in terms of where the boundaries of each sits. This is important because these boundaries are easy to mar but not easy to mend. It was initial remarks from Pope Leo that irked President Trump. The remarks were, among other things, that leaders who start wars have “hands full of blood”. That can only be taken as a reference to Trump. If it wasn’t, Leo must have recognised that this is how Trump would take it. Trump does not take kindly to personal criticism, but that does not mean he should not be open to criticism – of course he should.
Leo surely must have expected the type of response that came his way. Once Leo talked of leaders with blood on their hands, he stepped into the world of politics. In the interests of free speech, a right which we should all uphold, he is perfectly entitled to do so but he is inviting trouble. He might have got away with it with sleepy Joe (Biden) but not with Trump (even though the media like to portray him as near death). Trump’s response to Leo’s remarks are not to be excused either, even if they were entirely predictable.
Instead of advising Leo to concentrate on matters pertaining to religion, he snapped back that the pope was “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy”. These words only served to inflame the situation. Subsequently, while on a tour of Africa, Leo stated that the world is being “ravaged by a few tyrants” who spend billions on weapons while ignoring the needs for education and healing. While correct, this was widely taken as another jab at Trump. I’m not sure that was the case. If it was, I don’t think it was aimed at Trump in isolation.
Then there was Leo taking exception to Trump’s warning to Iran that “a whole civilisation will die”. While not excusing those remarks, that is ‘Trump being Trump’. It’s akin to him saying “I’m going to take Greenland”, which of course didn’t happen and most likely never will. As I have said previously, you have to understand Trump the man and the personality. I’m not saying Leo doesn’t have an understanding of Trump but he needs to realise the consequences of stepping onto Trump’s territory. It creates a situation that doesn’t end well for either side.
This is where Rubio comes in. He’s perfectly placed: capable and eminently suitable to undertake the task of establishing better relations between the White House and the Vatican, having a foot in both camps. His job will be to find a way to sort out and smooth over those differences. He takes a moderate but firm stance on most issues. We have is two reasonable like-minded men sitting down to find a solution acceptable to both.
Trump has accused Leo of being perfectly happy with Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. The pope has never said that and is of the view that no one should ever have a nuclear weapon. This is precisely where, for the pope, the rubber hits the road. If Leo is going to stray into the world of politics, holding the same view as Trump does with regard to nuclear weapons, what is his answer to stop them? I have yet to hear it. In effect, Leo is commenting on the wrongs of a particular situation without articulating the means by which to put them right. Criticising is the easy part: providing a solution is much harder.
Trump has to operate in the real world. Leo can talk about Trump’s end of Iranian civilisation comment, but what about the religious terror regime itself? They have already, at least partially, already started on that path, slaughtering up to 40,000 of their own. Leo doesn’t like Trump using religious language to justify the conflict stating that “God does not bless any conflict” and that “Jesus should not be invoked to justify war.” I agree but the question then is: why there have been so many religious wars over thousands of years. The current conflict with Iran IS a religious war. These are Muslim terrorists trying to impose their religion on everyone else, including the Catholic Church.
The vast majority of people would agree with the pope that nobody wants war and Leo needs to keep praying for the elusive peace but that’s not addressing or solving the problem that he, Trump and we all want, which is to stop Iran having a nuclear weapon. That is the problem and so far the only answer I’ve seen to preventing them is the action Trump has taken. Preaching from the pulpit is fine but it doesn’t change reality. This is something I think the church, as a whole, needs to be a little more cognisant of. More importantly, if each stayed in their own lane then a war of words would not need to be added to the physical war.
My criticism of the church in this area also extends to the weak leaders of NATO and Europe, including the United Kingdom. Where is the support that was evident following the horrific events of September 11, 2001? It was said at the time that with true justice we can rightly call it ‘the day that changed the world’. Do we want a repeat of that? Because that is precisely what is at stake if Iran is not stopped. If they had a nuclear weapon, make no mistake, when they consider the time is right, they would not hesitate to use it. The religious terrorists will stop at nothing in order to achieve their aims.
It is to be hoped that the talks between the secretary of state and the pope find common ground, because, as the 18th century English statesman Edmund Burke once wrote: “ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS THAT GOOD MEN DO NOTHING.” Doing nothing is something Trump can never be accused of. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of other world leaders. That is something they, and the church, need to reflect on.
