Trump tried to bully the Pope — and failed spectacularly: NYT analysis

One thing that the ongoing spat between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV did was expose the hollow core of the Christian nationalism in his administration, one columnist argued on Thursday. The New York Times' David French wrote that the spat between Trump and Pope Leo "may be the most important theological debate of my lifetime" for revealing how the administration's faith serves as a political prop but crumbles when confronted with actual Christian doctrine on war and morality. Writing as the Pope finished up his packed 10-day trip across Africa, French explained that the one thing the new pontiff has exposed is that there is no real Christianity in Christian Nationalism. His back and forth with Trump made it clear where he stands on war and peace, and his speeches across Africa on "global moral responsibility," aid for the poor, mentally ill, prisoners and others hammered the message home. He urged unity among all people, not just Catholics, calling on Christians in Algeria to strengthen ties with Muslims. The result of Trump treating the pope "the way he would a freshman Republican congressman — trying to bully and bluster him into silence—" was outright failure, French said. Trump brought the pope to the center of a national conversation about the war. A trip across Africa wouldn't normally have garnered much attention outside of religious publications and those who already follow it. But thanks to Trump, every word the pope said on the trip was reported, broke into the mainstream, and laid bare the "profound contrast between the two men.""In this contest between a pope and a president, the president looks weak and erratic. He looks small. Between Trump and Pope Leo, there is only one man who is demonstrating strength and moral consistency on the world stage," French said. The debate also made it clear that, despite its memes and public prayers, when the Christian part of "Christian nationalism" comes into conflict with the nationalist part, the latter prevails. French cited Jesus’ words in Matthew 15: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.”Further, the columnist said, Pope Leo raised the level of debate about war beyond Catholics, with a public debate about philosophy and religion regarding the nuances of "just war theory." French pointed to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, making the theory clear: “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.”He then compared it to the Department of Defense's Law of War Manual, which describes the "just war doctrine" as part of a “philosophical foundation” of the law of war.“The just war tradition remains relevant for decisions to employ U.S. military forces and in warfighting," the manual says. French cited Edward Feser, a Catholic philosophy professor, who penned a piece not long after the war began, to explain how Trump's decision failed the just war test. Even if there was a "just" reason for the war as a preemptive strike to protect future people, the administration hasn't made that case. "If you’re going to argue that you intend to liberate the Iranian people, you have to show how your intervention — no matter how well intentioned — won’t actually increase their suffering," said French. While it might focus on Iran now, it goes beyond just war doctrine and international law because it can bind nations in a moral alliance if they agree to follow only that doctrine. "It helps bind together alliances. It enhances the effectiveness of the armed forces. American history demonstrates that national unity in a conflict is almost directionally proportionate to the justice of the cause. Contrast, for example, the unambiguous virtue of defending ourselves from Imperial Japanese and Nazi aggression with the far hazier justifications for our extended war in Vietnam," wrote French. He noted that if a just war can bring allies together, then an unjust war can certainly tear them apart. A good example is NATO's response to Trump's Iran war compared to NATO's willingness to help the U.S. after Sept. 11, 2001. All of this draws a clear line between the rhetoric that the Trump administration uses about Christianity to justify "corrupt and lawless actions" and the realities of Christian theology. "The administration wants all the benefits of religion and none of the burdens. It wants to be seen as godly while acting godlessly," French closed.