“`html 
For the initial occasion in history, the pontiff hails from America — specifically, Chicago. Moreover, akin to numerous Americans, Pope Leo XIV seems to relish expressing himself. Irrespective of whether the subject is President Donald Trump’s policies regarding immigration or the utilization of artificial intelligence within mainstream media, Leo has openly vocalized his opinions (remarking recently that he employs a distinct opening word each day when engaging with the New York Times’s Wordle puzzle game).
An American pontiff addressing matters pertinent to the US, and doing so in a fashion that seemingly hints at disapproval of the American president, would constitute substantial news in any era. Nevertheless, considering the current climate where “tradcath” adherents to Catholicism are wielding increasing sway — while simultaneously growing more incensed over perceived shifts toward “wokeness” within the Vatican — I surmised particular merit in conversing with a person who dedicates themselves to covering both the pope and the Vatican, in addition to Catholics involved in American governance.
What constitutes Catholic social doctrine?
Catholic social doctrine encompasses a compilation of customs, tenets, and convictions rooted in the Bible, universal principles, and papal documents. These resources articulate expectations for human conduct and societal structuring. Commonly, these tenets are distilled into seven focal areas:
- The sanctity of human existence is fundamental, possessing inherent esteem, which must act as the foundational element for society.
- People are encouraged to nurture families, foster communal ties, and actively participate in society.
- Humans are endowed with reciprocal rights and obligations toward one another.
- Attention should be prioritized toward the requirements of the impoverished and vulnerable.
- Economic frameworks must exist to benefit the populace, honoring the dignity of labor while safeguarding the rights of workers.
- Interpersonal solidarity necessitates the pursuit of justice and harmony.
- Humanity is summoned to serve as custodians of creation, thus necessitating environmental stewardship.
Therefore, I contacted Michael Sean Winters, a long-standing columnist at the National Catholic Reporter, intending to explore various facets of Pope Leo and to refine my understanding regarding the potential friction between the new head of the Church and the US president (including their respective supporters). Additionally, I aimed to delve deeper into Pope Leo’s seeming preoccupation with immigration issues, as well as his apparent apprehensions concerning the impending implications of AI. Certain segments of this dialogue have undergone adjustments for clarity and conciseness.
Lately, I’ve observed that individuals across the spectrum are interpreting Pope Leo’s statements as possessing an unusually political nature or a striking emphasis on matters of domestic policy within the US. Some sources even venture to insinuate that he’s counteracting the Trump administration. Do these observations hold substance?
I would present it from a slightly altered perspective. It’s certainly within the norm for popes to deliberate upon ethical standards that yield political repercussions. However, the divergence here lies in his capacity to articulate and respond in typical Midwestern English. What we are experiencing is direct communication from the pontiff, unfiltered by translation or intermediaries.
Previously, with Francis, we depended on an interpreter to convey his sentiments initially expressed in Spanish or Italian, rendering them in English. Yet, with Leo’s ability to speak in English, his words resonate with a different force. They more effectively penetrate secular media, thereby posing a unique set of complications for conservative Catholics accustomed to dismissing Pope Francis as an uninformed Argentine unfamiliar with the intricacies of the United States. This argument no longer stands. Therefore, the shift does not necessarily involve the pontiff expressing more, but rather, his expressions are received uniquely within the American church and the broader American culture compared to preceding popes.
Another factor merits consideration: Popes generally do not engage regularly with the press, limiting their interactions to airborne press conferences while traveling. However, Leo has established the pattern of addressing a few queries each Tuesday upon departing Castel Gandolfo [the papal palace] after his day of reprieve, which is a pragmatic element contributing to his increased media visibility.
How much of this perception of Pope Leo as an anti-MAGA figure is accurate versus liberal wishful interpretation?
I would not characterize it in such terms. It is not within a pastor’s purview to align with any particular political faction. Individuals within the congregations, practicing as baptized Catholics, may affiliate with MAGA. Fundamentally, as Catholics, we hold that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’s presence can manifest in the hearts of conservatives, liberals, and all individuals regardless of their affiliations.
I would argue that if we were observing an overtly pro-choice Democratic Catholic president, inquiries would revolve around this matter, eliciting feedback from the pope accordingly. The Church eludes easy categorization within any political alignment, transcending national boundaries or specific epochs, grounded in its essence as a religious institution. Our gaze consistently extends beyond the bounds of human insight and lived experience, engaging with distinct paradigms. Diminishing any religious stance, irrespective of its foundational beliefs, to a mere component of a political agenda invites oversight.
In light of that, do I believe that Leo opposes MAGA — at least insofar as MAGA does not achieve the truths articulated in Catholic social doctrine regarding the structuring of society? Yes. By extension, every pope opposes MAGA, mirroring their shared opposition to conflict.
Expanding on this, does this scenario reflect a dispute between the Vatican and MAGA-supporting Catholics, or does it signify MAGA-aligned Catholics voicing objections to the Holy See? Put differently, to what degree does the pope give consideration to their critique?
During my coverage of the US bishops’ conference meeting for the National Catholic Reporter, it became strikingly clear that certain conservative bishops within the United States demonstrated a muted enthusiasm for Pope Francis, citing varied motivations. They operated under the assumption that no pope governs perpetually, given Francis’s advanced age in his 80s. The common sentiment was that Francis represented transient adversity. The analogy recalls an old Italian saying, “Nothing is more certainly deceased than a deceased pope.”
Some conservative Catholic bishops privately hoped the cardinals would convene during the subsequent election cycle to nominate a successor drastically distinct from Francis. Some candidates were believed to meet this requirement. But Cardinal Prevost, who ultimately ascended to the papacy as Pope Leo, was not among these candidates. Instead, he stood as the candidate representing a continuation of Francis’s principles. And in the end, he won the election.
Now, these conservative bishops must grapple with their inability to dismiss Leo using the rationale, “Oh, he’s an Argentine incapable of grasping our cultural nuances,” which they utilized against Francis. Moreover, Leo is not merely an 88-year-old Argentine but an arguably “young” 70-year-old American, positioning him as their last pope.
How do you perceive their reaction to this?
They are making attempts to realign, and I anticipate that some will critically self-reflect, understanding that the responsibility to adjust rests with them. This is a sentiment that I would share with liberal Catholics previously disheartened by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.
Let’s discuss specifics regarding his noteworthy statements. Earlier in the year, he asserted: “If someone claims, ‘I oppose abortion, but I condone the inhumane treatment of immigrants within the United States,’ I question their claim of being pro-life.” That statement garnered significant attention, but was it a significant deviation from papal doctrine?
Not at all. For almost a century, the Church has been consistent about immigration. The initial formal teaching from popes concerning migrants and refugees originated from Pius XII — no liberal himself. He guided the Church during World War II, a period characterized by a refugee crisis. The basis of Catholic social teaching rests on acknowledging the inherent dignity of each individual. Our belief aligns with the Book of Genesis: mankind is created in the image of God and is uniquely created by God for his own sake.
That acts as a reference for the formulation of policy. Even when dealing with an adversary, one must acknowledge their human dignity. One notable feature of Leo’s commentary which resonates so much is how news outlets like Fox News consistently prefix the term “immigrant” with the descriptor “criminal.” Instead of referencing “migrants,” they speak of “criminal migrants.”
It is now quite evident that such individuals do not fit the definition of criminals. While they may have violated the terms of their visas, equating this to a parking citation, the proportionate response should not include deportation.
Leo recently supported a declaration issued by the US bishops, expressing their “concern at the atmosphere of apprehension and unease surrounding profiling and immigration enforcement among our people” and their “sadness” over the “vilification of immigrants.” Should we understand this declaration as an unusually frank challenge to a president’s policies?
“Indiscriminate mass deportation” is the wording they employed. That declaration certainly constituted a challenge.
Here lies one of my grievances: when addressing Democratic presidents or politicians, they explicitly mention them by name, referencing their administration by name for a duration of eight years, targeting their criticism at Obama by name.
Yet, this declaration omits any explicit reference to Trump.
That’s correct. They refrain from doing so with Trump. Likely, they perceive Trump as hypersensitive, thus avoiding antagonizing him. But it lies within their responsibilities to uphold consistency.
What’s your take on those defending the administration, arguing the Church objects on the basis of losing government grants?
That theory attributing financially motivated retribution is not accurate.
The Church’s involvement does not stem from prospective fiscal advantages. The Catholic Church has served migrants throughout this country since its foundation because the Church is fundamentally an institution built on migration.
Aside from the predominantly wealthy colonial English Catholics residing in Maryland before the Revolution, the origin of American Catholicism lies in places like Kilkenny, Regensburg, and Sicily. Today, these places also include Guadalajara and Celaya.
Switching gears, what are your views on Leo’s fondness for cinema? Bilge Ebiri of Vulture described Leo’s recent discussion of Hollywood and AI as “one of the most remarkable speeches I’ve ever heard coming from someone not directly involved in the movie industry.” Why does Leo concentrate on this topic?
The implications of AI are indeed at the forefront of his considerations. During his explanation of his papal name, he reflected that Leo XIII addressed the challenges stemming from the Industrial Revolution. Choosing the name Leo reflects our responsibility to address the current technological and informational shifts and to contemplate their influence on our understanding of the human experience.
Does he entirely oppose AI?
No, his opposition is not absolute.
His concern is twofold. First, AI, like other technologies, can serve beneficial or detrimental purposes, comparing nuclear power used in either weaponry or to produce energy.
The concern regarding AI extends beyond its potential misuse, delving into its influence on the definition of humanity and our perception of ourselves. AI prompts questions concerning our anthropological status unlike any other organization is asking.
Returning to Hollywood, in Leo’s mention of “below-the-line” workers, including makeup, props, and set design among the countless individuals participating in productions but not visible as actors or directors, is he expressing his intention to consider the impact of emerging technologies on laborers?
Assuredly. This consideration recalls his namesake, Leo XIII.
I often clarify that Catholic social doctrine stems from Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum, forged in the necessity of addressing the crises resulting from the Industrial Revolution.
While critiqued by some for its perceived “socialist” alignment, it explicitly condemns socialism while affirming workers’ entitlement to a living wage, which is defined such that workers are not burdened with multiple jobs to sustain their families and save a modest amount. The justice of a social contract depends on whether it forces workers to hold multiple jobs just to survive and put aside some savings.
“`
Source: vox.com
