EWTN News portal reports on the diplomatic and public relations spat between U.S. President Donald Trump and the conciliar figurehead Leo XIV (Robert Prevost), following the latter’s criticism of the Iran war. Trump called Leo “weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy,” prompting a chorus of rebukes from the conciliar “bishops” of the USCCB, who demanded an apology and invoked “civility” and “dialogue.” The incident also involved Trump posting, then deleting, an AI-generated image of himself as Jesus Christ, which was widely condemned as blasphemous. The entire spectacle—a temporal ruler publicly insulting a claimant to the papacy, and the latter responding with diplomatic platitudes about “speaking Gospel truths”—is a perfect, tragicomic illustration of the complete inversion of the divine order, where the spiritual sword is subordinated to, and mocked by, the secular power, and both operate within a framework of naturalism utterly devoid of the supernatural reign of Christ the King.
The Scandal of the “Two Swords” Reversed
The foundational Catholic teaching on the relationship between spiritual and temporal power is unequivocal. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas (1925), established the Feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism,” which “began with the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations.” He stated: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… who are indeed the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church and contribute most to the expansion and establishment of Christ’s Kingdom.” Furthermore, he declared that “not only private individuals, but also rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.”
In this incident, we see the exact opposite. A temporal ruler, Donald Trump, publicly insults the claimant to the Chair of Peter. The response from the conciliar “bishops” is not a thunderous defense of the rights of God and the Church, a reminder of the primacy of the spiritual, or a call to repentance for the sin of blasphemy. Instead, it is a plea for “civility,” “respect,” and “dialogue.” Bishop Robert Barron, a prominent conciliar figure, said Trump’s comments “don’t contribute at all to a constructive conversation” and suggested arranging a meeting for “real dialogue.” This is the language of secular diplomacy, not of the Church Militant. It reduces the Vicar of Christ (or in this case, the claimant to that office) to just another worldly leader whose feelings have been hurt, rather than the representative of the King of Kings whose primary duty is to preach the truth without fear.
The Bankruptcy of Conciliar “Authority”
The conciliar “bishops'” reaction exposes the fundamental weakness and illegitimacy of their entire structure. They speak of “Catholic doctrine” and “the principles that govern the moral life,” but their authority to define and defend that doctrine has been systematically dismantled since the Second Vatican Council. The “Church” they represent is the very same “Church” that has embraced religious liberty, false ecumenism, and the democratization of the faith—errors condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (propositions 15, 18, 77, 78) and by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu and Pascendi Dominici Gregis.
When Leo XIV (Prevost) says, “I have no fear neither of the Trump administration nor of speaking out loudly about the message of the Gospel,” he is performing a pantomime of courage. The “Gospel” he preaches is the conciliar Gospel of “peace and multilateral dialogue,” a naturalistic, horizontal message stripped of the supernatural demands of conversion, the necessity of the sacraments, and the reality of eternal judgment. It is the Gospel of the “Church of the New Advent,” which, as Pope Pius IX warned, seeks to be “reconciled… with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Syllabus, Proposition 80). His “courage” is not in defending the immutable deposit of faith against the world, but in offering mild, diplomatic criticism of a foreign policy decision—a far cry from the prophetic denunciations of error by true popes like St. Pius X or Pius IX.
The Blasphemy of Caesar and the Silence on Idolatry
Trump’s AI-generated image of himself as Jesus Christ is a profound act of blasphemy, a visual representation of the sin of pride. Philosopher Edward Feser correctly quoted Daniel 11:36-37: “And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god.” This is a direct violation of the First Commandment and a manifestation of the spirit of the Antichrist, who “exalts himself and magnifies himself above every god” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).
Yet, the response from the conciliar “bishops” and their allies is telling. They focus their outrage on Trump’s words against Leo XIV, calling them “disrespectful” and “inappropriate.” The blasphemous image, while noted, is not the central point of their condemnation. This reveals their priorities: the dignity of their institutional leader is more important to them than the honor of God Himself. A true bishop, acting with the authority of the Chair of Peter, would have immediately and publicly excommunicated Trump for such a blasphemous act, following the example of Pope Celestine I, who declared that Nestorius “had already brought the divine judgment upon himself” the moment he began preaching heresy, even before any formal sentence. Instead, we get calls for “prayer” and “rosaries,” which, while pious in themselves, are a substitute for the exercise of judicial authority that Christ conferred upon the Church.
The Heresy of “Legitimate Disagreement”
Perhaps the most theologically dangerous statement in the entire article comes from Father Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute, who said: “Catholics can disagree with popes on prudential judgments, such as foreign policy or crime, which he said are not infallible: ‘The Church herself teaches that such applications of principle admit of legitimate debate.'”
This is a classic modernist error, condemned repeatedly by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. While it is true that not every papal statement is an ex cathedra definition, the teaching authority of the Pope extends far beyond matters of faith and morals strictly defined. Pope Leo XIII, in Immortale Dei, taught that the Church has the right and duty to pass judgment on “the whole range of human actions” insofar as they relate to salvation. To reduce the Pope’s pronouncements on war, peace, and the moral order to mere “prudential judgments” open to “legitimate debate” is to gut the papal magisterium of its authority and reduce it to the level of a political opinion column. It is the heresy of “moderate rationalism” condemned by Pope Pius IX (Syllabus, Propositions 8-14), which places human reason above the authority of the Church.
The Symptom of a Deeper Apostasy
This entire episode is not an isolated incident but a symptom of the deep apostasy that has consumed the conciliar structure. The “bishops” who protest Trump’s disrespect are the same men who have remained silent or complicit in the face of far greater evils: the systematic destruction of the liturgy, the propagation of heresy from the highest levels, the sacrilegious distribution of “Communion” to public sinners, and the promotion of idolatrous practices like the Pachamama worship in the Vatican. Their outrage is selective and political, not doctrinal and supernatural.
The “Catholic” politicians like JD Vance and Marco Rubio, who are conspicuously silent, demonstrate the practical result of conciliar teaching: a “Catholic” faith that is entirely privatized and subordinate to political allegiance. Their silence is a tacit admission that their first loyalty is to the secular state, not to the Church—a direct violation of the teaching of Pius XI that “rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.”
In the end, this spectacle reveals the complete bankruptcy of the conciliar project. It has produced a “Church” that cannot defend its own leader’s dignity without invoking secular norms of “civility,” cannot exercise its judicial authority against blasphemy, and cannot even articulate a coherent theological basis for its own existence. It is a “Church” that has traded the supernatural reign of Christ the King for a seat at the table of secular power, and now finds itself mocked and insulted by the very powers it sought to appease. The only path back to order is the rejection of this entire modernist edifice and a return to the immutable Tradition of the Catholic Church, where Christ truly reigns as King, and His Vicar speaks with the authority of the Apostles, not the timidity of a diplomat.
Source:
Trump’s comments on Pope Leo called ‘disrespectful’ as Americans react (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 13.04.2026