The Pope, the Party, and the President
The second Trump administration has surfaced a growing divide. No, it is not the President’s quarrel with former “Governor” Justin Trudeau of the 51st state. Nor is it the long-documented divide between MAGA and the “swamp” establishment. Though typically shrouded in colloquial nuance, the advent of a new conservative administration in the United States has highlighted the divide between American Catholics and the Roman Church.
One need look no further than Pope Francis’s admonishment of Catholic-convert Vice President Vance. Vance’s offense was expressing the longstanding Catholic view that a hierarchy of importance exists — an ordo amoris — for faithful Christians when deciding whether to protect their family or strangers. The Vatican has also criticized the President’s policies, particularly on promoting life, geopolitics, and, most notably, immigration. While the Church has historically offered political guidance, it has largely stayed out of direct engagement with American domestic policies. Pope Francis has upended this norm.
And perhaps that is fine — after all he is the head of state for a 1.4-billion-person empire, including 61 million Americans. But which subjects of his empire should receive the most rebuke for their political acts? In theory, the Vatican is the counsel to all who stray from His righteous path. Yet, there is an unspoken exception: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Recent developments between the Vatican and the West’s chief adversary reveal that the Church is willing to overlook blatantly immoral policies that contradict its foundational teachings to obtain political power. If such realpolitik indifference is possible, why apply it selectively?
The Church’s absence from secular politics is a recent development. In 312 A.D., Emperor Constantine, after securing control of Rome through military victory, declared himself Christian. In a single calculated move, he united the empire behind a new faith based on the belief that God’s law was universally inscribed on every human heart. This Katholikos ideology, reinforced by Saint Paul’s writings, spread rapidly across Europe. A Universal (or Catholic) Church, founded by Saint Peter, became an institution for both paupers and kings, the meek and the mighty. After its cultural and spiritual split from the Eastern Roman Empire in Constantinople, the Catholic Church became the political bedrock of a fractured Western Europe.
The political landscape of the post-Roman world was dire, but the Church, led by the Pope and administered locally by bishops, provided stability. From the seventh to the twelfth century, the Pope wielded immense religious and secular influence over medieval life. Even powerful rulers like Charlemagne ceded significant political authority to the Pope and his bishops. Charlemagne’s role as Holy Roman Emperor emerged as a political solution to help the Church manage secular affairs, with the emperor answering only to the Pontiff.
While this structure granted the Church indirect political power, as seen during Pope Urban II’s reign, it also created tensions. By the late thirteenth century, sovereign rulers grew weary of seeking approval from bishops and Rome. This culminated in Emperor Henry IV’s invasion of the Vatican, signaling the Church’s waning control over secular governance. The resulting peace settlement shifted bishop selection from papal appointment to local “elections,” often favoring wealthy nobles over Rome’s direct influence.
The Church’s loss of appointment power led to widespread corruption. As local clergymen abused their positions through scandalous conduct, the foundations of faith in Europe were shaken. Despite Pope Gregory VII’s efforts to curb these abuses, the sale of Church positions not only strained political influence but also eroded spiritual authority. The desire to correct this decline sparked the Reformation, marking the first major ideological split in the West since the fall of the Caesars.
In the following centuries, the Church was largely confined to administering Catholic doctrine rather than governing domestic affairs. As European and later New World nations embraced Protestantism and distanced themselves from Rome, secular leaders lost interest in appointing bishops, leading to a twentieth century return to Church-led selections. Ultimately, the Church became what it was always meant to be — a beacon of spiritual guidance rather than sovereign political authority.
Today’s global affairs are as fractious as in the seventh century, with secular leaders continuing to create political crises at home and abroad. As in medieval times, the Church can still provide spiritual stability and guidance. However, the Vatican’s 2024 decision to allow the Chinese Communist Party to appoint its own bishops marks a troubling regression. This move echoes the Church’s past attempts to secure indirect political influence, as seen under Henry IV. By appeasing one of the world’s most notorious human rights abusers while harshly criticizing the West, the Vatican risks repeating the compromises that eroded its foundational values in the thirteenth century.
The realpolitik stance the Papacy is taking towards China while also offering rebuke of American domestic policy is politically calculated, but spiritually risky. A storied and vital institution like the Church should remain above domestic politics, offering something far more significant — salvation. The Vatican should be consistent, either holding the CCP to account or clearing all its U.S. Bishop appointments with President Trump. History proves that a Church untainted by secular strife holds the greatest hope for humanity.
