Trump’s attack on the papacy is likely to backfire

[Vouthon]

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/1485/trump-s-attack-on-the-papacy-is-likely-to-backfire

With a single tweet, President Donald Trump has put the relationship between the United States and the Holy See under strain while potentially jeopardising his support among Catholics.

Yesterday the US president highlighted an endorsement he received from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal envoy to Washington DC who in 2018 took the extraordinary step of calling on Pope Francis to resign.

Trump told his 82 million followers about an “incredible” letter written by the archbishop which argues the Black Lives Matter protests and the Coronavirus lockdowns are part of an apocalyptic campaign by the “children of darkness” against the “children of light.”

There are two immediate implications arising from the president's support for Viganò. The first is the difficulty it poses for the US relationship with the papacy and the headquarters of the world’s largest religion.

Although the president and the Pope have had disagreements, the Holy See has always kept good channels of dialogue with Trump administration and have worked with them on issues such as freedom of religion.

But where does the latest development leave US Ambassador to the Vatican, Callista Gingrich, if her boss has backed someone who doesn’t think the Pope should be in office? Does the president expect her to convey his support of Viganò to the Holy See?

Then there is the ambassador’s husband, Newt Gingrich, who is one of the president’s most vocal cheerleaders. The former house speaker scrupulously avoids Vatican politics, but his consistent support for Trump becomes something of an elephant in the room in the Holy See now that the president is all in with Viganò.

The Viganò tweet was not the first time the president has attacked the Pope on Twitter: in 2013 Trump (then just a businessman and reality TV star) criticised Francis for paying the bill at the guesthouse he stayed in before the conclave. "It's not pope-like!" the future president said. Tensions reached a fever pitch ahead of the 2016 election when the Pope said the plan by the then-presidential candidate to build a wall between the US and Mexico was "not Christian".

The Vatican has made no official comment on the latest tweet, although Fr Antonio Spadaro, the editor of the journal the Holy See-backed La Civilta Cattolica, linked to a 2017 article he co-authored with Marcelo Figueroa on how Catholic and Evangelical groups were advancing an “ecumenism of hate.” It argued faith was being used to push a right-wing political agenda and that President Trump had tapped into this by promoting “apocalyptic geopolitics.”

Although that article came under heavy criticism when it was published, with one senior US prelate describing it as “wilfully ignorant”, the Viganò letter, and the president’s promotion of it, makes that 2017 intervention now look prophetic.

Figueroa, a Protestant pastor who the Pope asked to oversee the Argentine version of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, responded to Trump by tweeting a part of that 2017 article: “this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil.”

The second implication of this latest episode, and perhaps more concerning for the president, is what backing Viganò means for Trump’s US Catholic base. Although it was white Catholics in swing states that handed the president his extraordinary 2016 election victory, polls show he is losing support. Any attempt to weaponise Viganò and his theories to go after the papacy and Church leaders during the 2020 campaign is likely to trouble the consciences of Catholics who have previously supported the president.

“Trump is on dangerous terrain with white Catholics,” says David Gibson, Director of Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture. “Catholics who support him may not love Francis, but if they see the president attack the Pope they may not be happy.”

A number of high-profile Catholics who have thrown their support the president are also in an awkward position. How can they now claim to be loyal to the papacy and Trump?

More troubling still is that the president’s Viganò tweet came a day after he suggested that a Catholic peace activist, shoved to the ground by police, was an “Antifa provocateur.” Two officers were later suspended and charged with assault.

“This is more about the Catholic advisers around Trump. The fact people are feeding him information from Lifesite news shows you where he gets his view of the Catholic Church,” the Fordham director explained.

Any glance at the history of the papacy shows it is littered with conflicts and entanglements with the worldly powers of the day, from the early Popes who were martyred to the disputes with the French crown which led to the Avignon popes. Despite crises and attacks that should have overwhelmed it, the Chair of St Peter has survived.

“The republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy and the republic of Venice is gone – but the Papacy remains,” wrote Lord Macaulay (Thomas Babington), an English protestant historian in 1840.

Before he launches any further salvos against the 266th Successor of St Peter, President Trump may wish to consider the durability of the office that he is being encouraged to attack.​

 

[Vouthon]

Trump should choose his enemies more wisely.

 

[Lyndon]

i look forward to Trump alienating more and more of his former voters

 

[Revoltingest]

Having the Pope as an enemy.
I could live with that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/1485/trump-s-attack-on-the-papacy-is-likely-to-backfire

With a single tweet, President Donald Trump has put the relationship between the United States and the Holy See under strain while potentially jeopardising his support among Catholics.

Yesterday the US president highlighted an endorsement he received from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal envoy to Washington DC who in 2018 took the extraordinary step of calling on Pope Francis to resign.

Trump told his 82 million followers about an “incredible” letter written by the archbishop which argues the Black Lives Matter protests and the Coronavirus lockdowns are part of an apocalyptic campaign by the “children of darkness” against the “children of light.”

There are two immediate implications arising from the president's support for Viganò. The first is the difficulty it poses for the US relationship with the papacy and the headquarters of the world’s largest religion.

Although the president and the Pope have had disagreements, the Holy See has always kept good channels of dialogue with Trump administration and have worked with them on issues such as freedom of religion.

But where does the latest development leave US Ambassador to the Vatican, Callista Gingrich, if her boss has backed someone who doesn’t think the Pope should be in office? Does the president expect her to convey his support of Viganò to the Holy See?

Then there is the ambassador’s husband, Newt Gingrich, who is one of the president’s most vocal cheerleaders. The former house speaker scrupulously avoids Vatican politics, but his consistent support for Trump becomes something of an elephant in the room in the Holy See now that the president is all in with Viganò.

The Viganò tweet was not the first time the president has attacked the Pope on Twitter: in 2013 Trump (then just a businessman and reality TV star) criticised Francis for paying the bill at the guesthouse he stayed in before the conclave. "It's not pope-like!" the future president said. Tensions reached a fever pitch ahead of the 2016 election when the Pope said the plan by the then-presidential candidate to build a wall between the US and Mexico was "not Christian".

The Vatican has made no official comment on the latest tweet, although Fr Antonio Spadaro, the editor of the journal the Holy See-backed La Civilta Cattolica, linked to a 2017 article he co-authored with Marcelo Figueroa on how Catholic and Evangelical groups were advancing an “ecumenism of hate.” It argued faith was being used to push a right-wing political agenda and that President Trump had tapped into this by promoting “apocalyptic geopolitics.”

Although that article came under heavy criticism when it was published, with one senior US prelate describing it as “wilfully ignorant”, the Viganò letter, and the president’s promotion of it, makes that 2017 intervention now look prophetic.

Figueroa, a Protestant pastor who the Pope asked to oversee the Argentine version of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, responded to Trump by tweeting a part of that 2017 article: “this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil.”

The second implication of this latest episode, and perhaps more concerning for the president, is what backing Viganò means for Trump’s US Catholic base. Although it was white Catholics in swing states that handed the president his extraordinary 2016 election victory, polls show he is losing support. Any attempt to weaponise Viganò and his theories to go after the papacy and Church leaders during the 2020 campaign is likely to trouble the consciences of Catholics who have previously supported the president.

“Trump is on dangerous terrain with white Catholics,” says David Gibson, Director of Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture. “Catholics who support him may not love Francis, but if they see the president attack the Pope they may not be happy.”

A number of high-profile Catholics who have thrown their support the president are also in an awkward position. How can they now claim to be loyal to the papacy and Trump?

More troubling still is that the president’s Viganò tweet came a day after he suggested that a Catholic peace activist, shoved to the ground by police, was an “Antifa provocateur.” Two officers were later suspended and charged with assault.

“This is more about the Catholic advisers around Trump. The fact people are feeding him information from Lifesite news shows you where he gets his view of the Catholic Church,” the Fordham director explained.

Any glance at the history of the papacy shows it is littered with conflicts and entanglements with the worldly powers of the day, from the early Popes who were martyred to the disputes with the French crown which led to the Avignon popes. Despite crises and attacks that should have overwhelmed it, the Chair of St Peter has survived.

“The republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy and the republic of Venice is gone – but the Papacy remains,” wrote Lord Macaulay (Thomas Babington), an English protestant historian in 1840.

Before he launches any further salvos against the 266th Successor of St Peter, President Trump may wish to consider the durability of the office that he is being encouraged to attack.​

I'd be willing to be that in the Venn diagram of American Catholics, the "people who vote for Trump" region and "people who think the Pope is too liberal" region overlap nearly completely. I don't think Trump will lose much support from Catholics for siding against the Pope on this issue.

Now... if it sours the relationship between the White House and Vatican City, this will probably be a good outcome for bad reasons.

Churches should be treated by legitimate nations as actual churches, not as quasi-nation-states with ambassadors and the like. If this ends up with the Ambassador to Vatican City recalled and the post never filled again, that will be a silver lining here, IMO.

 

[Vouthon]

I'd be willing to be that in the Venn diagram of American Catholics, the "people who vote for Trump" region and "people who think the Pope is too liberal" region overlap nearly completely. I don't think Trump will lose much support from Catholics for siding against the Pope on this issue.

Does the most recent polling data support that conclusion, though?


Survey: Support for Trump dips among white Catholics amid pandemic and protests

While 41 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of President Donald Trump, according to a new poll, his support among white Catholics, a demographic he won in 2016 and one that his re-election campaign is courting in key battleground states, appears to be slipping.

About 37 percent of white Catholics now hold favorable views of Mr. Trump, according to a report published June 4 by P.R.R.I., down from the 49 percent of white Catholics who held that view in an average of P.R.R.I. polls taken throughout 2019. The report suggests that the president’s approval among white Catholics is on “a substantial downward trend,” peaking at 60 percent in March and then falling to 48 percent in April.​

The P.R.R.I. surveys show Mr. Trump’s support falling most steeply among white Catholics in May.
​

When it comes down to it, most Catholics harbour a subliminal and defensive regard for the Papacy, no matter their view of the occupant.

If they feel that the Pope is being undermined and that Trump is interfering within internal ecclesiastical matters, I would not bank on your verdict.

Hubris aside, political pragmatism might tell a politician aspiring for re-election that publicly supporting the greatest critic of the leader of a religious group whose practitioners form a key bellwether voting demographic for your re-election campaign, might not be the wisest of strategies.

Trump appears to be on substantial decline amongst white Catholics and I doubt his most recent acts are going to reverse that downward trend.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

With a little bit of luck, an increasing number of Trump voters will increasing search for reasons to jump ship. May this help some of them.

 

[Vouthon]

Churches should be treated by legitimate nations as actual churches, not as quasi-nation-states with ambassadors and the like. If this ends up with the Ambassador to Vatican City recalled and the post never filled again, that will be a silver lining here, IMO.

That will not happen, on either side, given that both have too much to lose from the relationship, however strained it has become under Trump and Francis.

If Trump initiated a full breakdown in diplomatic relations, you can bet your bottom dollar that every church attending Catholic in America would see it as an insult to the Vatican as an institution, not to Pope Francis merely as the occupant.

And presidents can't afford to lose the Catholic vote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...residential-elections/?utm_term=.1e28628956eb

Conservatives target Catholic voters

From Pew:


The Catholic “Swing” Vote

Catholics are often identified as a major “swing” voting group in American politics. In recent presidential elections Catholics have made up roughly a quarter of the electorate, and, indeed, they have been closely divided between the two parties.

The only group of Catholics that has been divided in recent elections is white Catholics who identify as moderates; they were closely divided in both 2000 and 2004 before swinging strongly in the Democratic direction in 2008.

White Catholic moderates are a large group, accounting for 32% of the Catholic vote in 2008 and 8% of voters overall.

​

It remains one of the most decisive bellwether constituencies for both Republicans and Democrats.

As an aggregate, a majority of Catholics have voted for the winner of the popular vote in practically every presidential election this century.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does the most recent polling data support that conclusion, though?


Survey: Support for Trump dips among white Catholics amid pandemic and protests

While 41 percent of Americans hold a favorable view of President Donald Trump, according to a new poll, his support among white Catholics, a demographic he won in 2016 and one that his re-election campaign is courting in key battleground states, appears to be slipping.

About 37 percent of white Catholics now hold favorable views of Mr. Trump, according to a report published June 4 by P.R.R.I., down from the 49 percent of white Catholics who held that view in an average of P.R.R.I. polls taken throughout 2019. The report suggests that the president’s approval among white Catholics is on “a substantial downward trend,” peaking at 60 percent in March and then falling to 48 percent in April.​

The P.R.R.I. surveys show Mr. Trump’s support falling most steeply among white Catholics in May.
​

When it comes down to it, most Catholics harbour a subliminal and defensive regard for the Papacy, no matter their view of the occupant.

If they feel that the Pope is being undermined and that Trump is interfering within internal ecclesiastical matters, I would not bank on your verdict.

Hubris aside, political pragmatism might tell a politician aspiring for re-election that publicly supporting the greatest critic of the leader of a religious group whose practitioners form a key bellwether voting demographic for your re-election campaign, might not be the wisest of strategies.

Trump appears to be on substantial decline amongst white Catholics and I doubt his most recent acts are going to reverse that downward trend.

That polling data - which only goes through May - says nothing at all on the issue of Trump's tweets from early June.

Even with more recent polling data, it's going to be hard to distinguish the effect of Trump's endorsement of Viganò's views from the effect of other things that Catholics might care about that happened around the same time, like having tear gas lobbed at peaceful priests* or using a Catholic shrine as a prop for a photo op.


*Episcopalian, not Catholic, but I imagine this will be a wake-up call across denominations. I don't think that any Catholic with a lick of sense is saying to themselves "he might gas law-abiding Episcopalian clergy, but there's no way he'd treat Catholic clergy that way!"

 

[Vouthon]

That polling data - which only goes through May - says nothing at all on the issue of Trump's tweets from early June

You did see the part above where I wrote, "Trump appears to be on substantial decline amongst white Catholics and I doubt his most recent acts are going to reverse that downward trend."

Future polls will show whether his recent acts further cement that trend. I was not citing the polling data as indicative of their response to those most recent acts, as no polls for that have yet been conducted, obviously.

I personally believe they will, however, further cement the current trajectory.

 

[Vouthon]

Episcopalian, not Catholic, but I imagine this will be a wake-up call across denominations. I don't think that any Catholic with a lick of sense is saying to themselves "he might gas law-abiding Episcopalian clergy, but there's no way he'd treat Catholic clergy that way!"

A very good point.

But that's actually what I'm saying: Trump has been guilty of a reckless pattern of behaviour which has led to appreciable declines in his support from certain religious groups, most significantly white Catholics amongst whom he has lost the most support (their previously being a key demographic for him alongside Evangelicals).

In my opinion, his instigation of open verbal warfare directly with the Vatican and interference in internal ecclesiastical affairs will not help reverse that trend for him but is likely to embolden it amidst the other factors spurring the decline - and that trend should be worrying him (if he is at all a rational actor on some level).

 

[Vouthon]

There's also this which has sparked outrage and is referred to in the OP article:


Pax Christi USA response to Trump tweet about Catholic protester | ICN

Pax Christi USA has issued the following statement regarding President Trump's attack on 75 year-old Catholic peace activist Martin Gugino who was injured by two police officers during a peaceful protest last week in Buffalo, New York.

Last week, Martin Gugino, a 75 year-old Catholic peace activist from Buffalo, New York was shoved by two police officers during a peaceful protest, resulting in a fall that left him unconscious and bleeding from his head. The two officers have been suspended and charged with assault. Following the incident, the president tweeted about Mr Gugino, insinuating that he was an "antifa provocateur".

Pax Christi USA has long been involved in public protests and celebrates the right of people in our country to gather to air their opinions and stand up for the values which they believe in. The treatment of Mr Gugino, who is motivated by his deep Catholic faith, is inexcusable and shines a further light on the importance of protecting the rights of people to peacefully protest. Furthermore, the president's tweet is just another example of his determination to sow confusion and division, to attack the character of people with whom he disagrees, and to threaten people who exercise their rights as citizens of this country.

Pax Christi USA extends our appreciation to Mr Gugino for his actions and prays for his quick recovery. We are also appreciative of the short comment he gave in response to reporters who informed him of the president's tweet.

"No comment other than Black lives matter," Gugino said.​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You did see the part above where I wrote, "Trump appears to be on substantial decline amongst white Catholics and I doubt his most recent acts are going to reverse that downward trend."

Future polls will show whether his recent acts further cement that trend. I was not citing the polling data as indicative of their response to those most recent acts, as no polls for that have yet been conducted, obviously.

I personally believe they will, however, further cement the current trajectory.

I guess I'm having trouble seeing the trend you describe.

Francis has been critical of Trump and his policies for a long time, but according to that article, Trump's support among white Catholics rose significantly from 2019 to March 2020. This suggests to me that there may be no correlation at all, or at the very least that there are other confounding variables.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's also this which has sparked outrage and is referred to in the OP article:


Pax Christi USA response to Trump tweet about Catholic protester | ICN

Pax Christi USA has issued the following statement regarding President Trump's attack on 75 year-old Catholic peace activist Martin Gugino who was injured by two police officers during a peaceful protest last week in Buffalo, New York.

Last week, Martin Gugino, a 75 year-old Catholic peace activist from Buffalo, New York was shoved by two police officers during a peaceful protest, resulting in a fall that left him unconscious and bleeding from his head. The two officers have been suspended and charged with assault. Following the incident, the president tweeted about Mr Gugino, insinuating that he was an "antifa provocateur".

Pax Christi USA has long been involved in public protests and celebrates the right of people in our country to gather to air their opinions and stand up for the values which they believe in. The treatment of Mr Gugino, who is motivated by his deep Catholic faith, is inexcusable and shines a further light on the importance of protecting the rights of people to peacefully protest. Furthermore, the president's tweet is just another example of his determination to sow confusion and division, to attack the character of people with whom he disagrees, and to threaten people who exercise their rights as citizens of this country.

Pax Christi USA extends our appreciation to Mr Gugino for his actions and prays for his quick recovery. We are also appreciative of the short comment he gave in response to reporters who informed him of the president's tweet.

"No comment other than Black lives matter," Gugino said.​

FWIW, until I read this thread, I had no idea that Gugino was even Catholic, let alone that he was at the protest as a member of a Catholic peace organization.

Stuff like this won't affect people's attitudes to Trump if they aren't even aware of it. I'll be interested to see how (and whether) this facet of the story gets picked up by mainstream news outlets over the next few days.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Emphasis mine:

In my opinion, his instigation of open verbal warfare directly with the Vatican and interference in internal ecclesiastical affairs will not help reverse that trend for him but is likely to embolden it amidst the other factors spurring the decline - and that trend should be worrying him (if he is at all a rational actor on some level).

That's quite the "if."

In poker, they say that you can't bluff someone into folding if they who don't know how to play, because they don't have the sense to know when the odds are against them.

I think that description could also sum up Trump's entire political career.

 

[Vouthon]

I guess I'm having trouble seeing the trend you describe.

Francis has been critical of Trump and his policies for a long time, but according to that article, Trump's support among white Catholics rose significantly from 2019 to March 2020. This suggests to me that there may be no correlation at all, or at the very least that there are other confounding variables.

There have been many fluctuations down the years but the most recent changes represent a steep and now increasingly sustained decline.

If we look at past "ups-and-downs", it is arguable that the relationship between the Presidency and the church hierarchy (both in America with the USCCB and abroad in Rome) has not been inconsequential in helping to provoke or at least shape these permutations.

One needs to remember that (Trump excepting), Catholics as a voting group traditionally find 'attractive' elements in the platforms of both parties - the social justice, welfare policies, immigration stances of the Democrats and the 'abortion' / 'family values' and pro-religious freedom stance of the GOP. (This is one of the reasons for Catholics being such a paradigmatic 'bellweather' for the nation as a whole, given that there's a 'cleavage' in loyalties for a large number of practising Catholics in the centreground of politics).

So, if one side is more 'effective' at one stage in playing up their respective strengths so far as Catholic teaching is concerned - and the 'hierarchy' is seen as approving of this given policy - there is evidence to suggest that this filters down to quite a number of Catholic voters and may exercise some influence on their electoral decisions:


Should Trump worry about white Catholic and mainline Protestant votes?

The back-and-forth among white mainline voters in particular has led some observers to suggest the group may be among partisan America’s last true "swing voters." The reason, Coffman suggested, may be that Trump simultaneously appeases and offends the demographic, letting its members keep more of their money by lowering taxes while at the same time "violating their church’s sense of social justice, and threatening their institutions," she said.

The fluctuations in support could also reflect the sustained criticism of the president from both faith groups' leaders.

Several Catholic bishops, for instance, have condemned the administration’s stance on immigration, and Pope Francis himself has feuded with Trump regarding his proposed border wall.​

So I would not treat the role that the hierarchy, of which Francis is at the head, can play in provoking this swing vote 'one way' or the 'other', as if it were inconsequential. The same applies to mainline Protestant churches with a clerical hierarchy, such as the Episcopalians.

Clearly, white Catholic voters have been dismayed enough by Trump of late to really drop off support from him.

If more modest swings in the past are any guide, the stances taken by the hierarchy of the church in times of abject crisis like the Black Lives Matter protests, are probably not inconsequential to that end - even if they aren't the main motivating factor. For Catholics, they are always "a" factor.

 

[Vouthon]

Stuff like this won't affect people's attitudes to Trump if they aren't even aware of it. I'll be interested to see how (and whether) this facet of the story gets picked up by mainstream news outlets over the next few days.

Catholic media outlets in America did make much of the man's religiously motivated protest as part of Pax Christi.

For Catholic voters who pay attention to such media in those circles, typically the more 'practising', then this could definetely exert influence.

 

[PureX]

Before he launches any further salvos against the 266th Successor of St Peter, President Trump may wish to consider the durability of the office that he is being encouraged to attack.

Trump wouldn't even know what "durability" means unless someone explains it to him.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

https://www.thetablet.co.uk/blogs/1/1485/trump-s-attack-on-the-papacy-is-likely-to-backfire

With a single tweet, President Donald Trump has put the relationship between the United States and the Holy See under strain while potentially jeopardising his support among Catholics.

Yesterday the US president highlighted an endorsement he received from Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal envoy to Washington DC who in 2018 took the extraordinary step of calling on Pope Francis to resign.

Trump told his 82 million followers about an “incredible” letter written by the archbishop which argues the Black Lives Matter protests and the Coronavirus lockdowns are part of an apocalyptic campaign by the “children of darkness” against the “children of light.”

There are two immediate implications arising from the president's support for Viganò. The first is the difficulty it poses for the US relationship with the papacy and the headquarters of the world’s largest religion.

Although the president and the Pope have had disagreements, the Holy See has always kept good channels of dialogue with Trump administration and have worked with them on issues such as freedom of religion.

But where does the latest development leave US Ambassador to the Vatican, Callista Gingrich, if her boss has backed someone who doesn’t think the Pope should be in office? Does the president expect her to convey his support of Viganò to the Holy See?

Then there is the ambassador’s husband, Newt Gingrich, who is one of the president’s most vocal cheerleaders. The former house speaker scrupulously avoids Vatican politics, but his consistent support for Trump becomes something of an elephant in the room in the Holy See now that the president is all in with Viganò.

The Viganò tweet was not the first time the president has attacked the Pope on Twitter: in 2013 Trump (then just a businessman and reality TV star) criticised Francis for paying the bill at the guesthouse he stayed in before the conclave. "It's not pope-like!" the future president said. Tensions reached a fever pitch ahead of the 2016 election when the Pope said the plan by the then-presidential candidate to build a wall between the US and Mexico was "not Christian".

The Vatican has made no official comment on the latest tweet, although Fr Antonio Spadaro, the editor of the journal the Holy See-backed La Civilta Cattolica, linked to a 2017 article he co-authored with Marcelo Figueroa on how Catholic and Evangelical groups were advancing an “ecumenism of hate.” It argued faith was being used to push a right-wing political agenda and that President Trump had tapped into this by promoting “apocalyptic geopolitics.”

Although that article came under heavy criticism when it was published, with one senior US prelate describing it as “wilfully ignorant”, the Viganò letter, and the president’s promotion of it, makes that 2017 intervention now look prophetic.

Figueroa, a Protestant pastor who the Pope asked to oversee the Argentine version of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, responded to Trump by tweeting a part of that 2017 article: “this mingling of politics, morals and religion has taken on a Manichaean language that divides reality between absolute Good and absolute Evil.”

The second implication of this latest episode, and perhaps more concerning for the president, is what backing Viganò means for Trump’s US Catholic base. Although it was white Catholics in swing states that handed the president his extraordinary 2016 election victory, polls show he is losing support. Any attempt to weaponise Viganò and his theories to go after the papacy and Church leaders during the 2020 campaign is likely to trouble the consciences of Catholics who have previously supported the president.

“Trump is on dangerous terrain with white Catholics,” says David Gibson, Director of Fordham University’s Center on Religion and Culture. “Catholics who support him may not love Francis, but if they see the president attack the Pope they may not be happy.”

A number of high-profile Catholics who have thrown their support the president are also in an awkward position. How can they now claim to be loyal to the papacy and Trump?

More troubling still is that the president’s Viganò tweet came a day after he suggested that a Catholic peace activist, shoved to the ground by police, was an “Antifa provocateur.” Two officers were later suspended and charged with assault.

“This is more about the Catholic advisers around Trump. The fact people are feeding him information from Lifesite news shows you where he gets his view of the Catholic Church,” the Fordham director explained.

Any glance at the history of the papacy shows it is littered with conflicts and entanglements with the worldly powers of the day, from the early Popes who were martyred to the disputes with the French crown which led to the Avignon popes. Despite crises and attacks that should have overwhelmed it, the Chair of St Peter has survived.

“The republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy and the republic of Venice is gone – but the Papacy remains,” wrote Lord Macaulay (Thomas Babington), an English protestant historian in 1840.

Before he launches any further salvos against the 266th Successor of St Peter, President Trump may wish to consider the durability of the office that he is being encouraged to attack.​

I remember using a similar logic with evangelicals the last time (a lot of us did). But, for this reason or that, they overlooked what would be unforgivable of others. We can't forget that, because it doesnt matter how contrary to Christ he gets or even if he disrespects a military family, people still supported him.

 

[Shaul]

Hey, I thought liberals espoused separation of church and state. Now there is a religious test for the Presidency?