Victorious Chaos

Watching Trump’s moves regarding Iran, one might draw an interesting association with Bode Miller – one of the most unpredictable competitors in alpine skiing – known for his chaotic yet effective skiing style.

People said he often “stumbles” at the start, then spends the entire run chasing balance – and in the end sometimes almost inadvertently wins.

Trump gives a similar impression. His moves seem impulsive, unfinished, often even wrong – but he persists and escalates pressure to the point where others start reacting.

A Conflict That Reveals

This is even more evident in his communication with Pope Leo. Words that came too quickly led to an escalation of conflict that quickly became distasteful on Trump’s part.

The irony, however, is that this very “stumble” opened space for questions that would otherwise have remained unasked. The Vatican was thereby indirectly placed in a position to reflect on its own role, its past claims, and its position in the world today.

Who Still Gets to Preach

A pope who calls for peace from the safe and stable Vatican, or a political leader who makes decisions in the name of interests whose consequences are felt by the entire world?

The Vatican can (has the ability to) speak about peace today partly because it operates within a relatively safe system whose stability is largely enabled by precisely those Western military and political balances that it often criticizes.

Peace Is a Privilege of the Victors

The Vatican as a moral authority exists within a world whose stability (and prosperity) have been ensured for decades by precisely those mechanisms of power – military, political, and financial – that it often criticizes today. It is in this contradiction that a question opens up that can no longer be ignored.

The dispute between Donald Trump and the Vatican at first glance seems like yet another ordinary conflict between politics and religion. But it actually opens a question that can only arise when institutions make mistakes they should not have made.

How Trump Defends Himself

The Church made an important shift during COVID. Pope Francis described vaccination as “an act of love for one’s neighbor.” For Christians – whom Jesus commanded to love even their enemies, not just their neighbors – this was a strong and unambiguous message about how to act during a time of great uncertainty, represented on one hand by COVID and on the other by measures that sanctioned the unvaccinated and relieved the vaccinated.

When Morality Collides with Reality

The problem, however, is that reality later proved to be substantially more complex. Vaccines had their benefits, but also limitations. The decision was not unambiguous for all people, all ages, and all situations. Certain lawsuits related to conduct during vaccination are still ongoing today, and their outcomes remain open.

When an institution uses absolute moral language for a complex health issue, it risks losing part of its credibility later.

And that is exactly what happened.

The Morality of Theory and the Reality of Practice

Trump operates from a completely different logic. His view of the world is not moral, but interest-based. He speaks of power, influence, energy, and geopolitical balance. In such a framework, moralizing without concrete action seems empty to him – and therefore he “dares” to set boundaries for the Vatican.

Moralizing without power is babbling. Power without morality is destructive.

If we try to understand his perspective, he sees the world as a system of balances where passivity means loss of power. In this framework, issues such as Iran, energy resources, global currencies, and China’s influence are crucial for him. Trump often perceives his role as someone who acts while others talk – and therefore criticizes Europe, NATO, and even the Vatican as insufficiently decisive. Not necessarily because he is morally right, but because he operates in a logic where results count. Actions are needed, not words. But what then is the Vatican?

All Roads Lead to the Grave

Here an even deeper question opens up. Both Trump and the pope act with the implicit conviction that they are acting in accordance with a higher good – in the Christian world, this would also be called acting in accordance with Jesus’ teaching. But their paths are almost opposite.

One sees action, power, and decisiveness as necessary for protecting order and people. The other emphasizes prayer, dialogue, yielding, and seeking peace even at the cost of one’s own weakness. In this difference, however, a paradox emerges: each sees in the other’s actions a deviation from the true path.

This tension, however, is not limited to Trump and the Vatican. In the modern world, we see it elsewhere as well. In the context of the war in Ukraine, there have been cases where representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church, including the highest leadership, supported state policy and in certain cases participated in blessing soldiers and military equipment.

At the same time, other Orthodox priests sharply criticized such actions. This means that even within the same faith there is no unified answer to the question of how to act in a world of conflict – but rather very different interpretations of the same idea of “good.”

This does not yet mean that Trump is right. His decisions, especially if they involve military interventions without broader consensus, carry enormous responsibility. The entire world pays the price for these decisions.

But at the same time, his attack did not arise from nothing. It arose in a space where Western institutions – politics, NATO, and even the Church – often acted in a divided, cautious, or merely rhetorical manner. In such a vacuum, someone always appears who offers a “decisive” alternative.

Simplification Is the Devil’s Work

If we have followed the workings of the Vatican and popes in recent decades, we can observe a recurring pattern: Strong moral statements in areas where reality is complex and multilayered.

Even the idea of ‘good’ can lead to conflict if we understand it too simply.

This in itself is not a problem. The problem arises when complex issues are presented as morally simple. Then not only is the debate lost – trust also begins to be lost.

Therefore, it is not surprising that some believers today wonder to what extent they can trust such statements. This is not about rejecting faith, but about questioning the relationship between moral authority and reality.

If the Vatican wants to maintain its role in global debates, it will not be enough to speak about peace, bridges, and ethics. It will also have to reflect on moments when it spoke too quickly, too absolutely, and with too little awareness of the complexity of the world.

Trump’s actions will be judged by history and consequences.

The credibility of the Church on earth, however, will depend on its ability to first settle accounts with itself – and sometimes respond more slowly but more thoughtfully, rather than quickly and in a way that can harm precisely those who trust it most.

Who Gets to Cast the First Stone

In this context, another uncomfortable question opens up. If the Church acts as a moral authority that judges the actions of others, then the highest standard of its own consistency is expected of it.

In the Gospel we read: let him who is without sin cast the first stone. But this is precisely what raises doubt today – can an institution that itself did not maintain enough distance and humility at crucial moments still afford such direct moral judgment of others?

When moral authority loses credibility, even those who lack it begin to judge it.

Not because it should not speak. But because its word, if it wants to carry weight, must first be grounded in its own credibility.

---

The Final Question

If we look more broadly, we see that states and various interests often strive to influence the Church’s stance as well. The example of Russia shows how religious authority can connect with state policy and thus become part of a broader mechanism for shaping public opinion.

In this sense, the pope’s reaction is understandable – and in a certain respect also necessary. The attempt to maintain distance from the politics of power is what should distinguish the Church from other actors in the first place.

The moral credibility that would support such a stance has already been seriously undermined in the past – also due to overly hasty and overly absolute positions in complex situations. The reputation that Francis squandered in the eyes of part of the public now makes any moral positioning difficult for his successor. Therefore, more than the question of whether the pope is right, the relevant question is whether what he says still carries any weight at all.