Pope Leo vs US Evangelicals

[BisiBodi]

So, I just read a long Bluesky thread, extremely long, explaining how the new Pope's first sermon is 100% aimed at US Bishops and Christians who think US-style endtimes fascism is okay, and he's gonna fight 'em.

His Homily was just one BANG POW BIFF after another and I didn't realise how much until I read all of this. I was raised Catholic and knew some of the background, but BOY HOWDY was I not prepared.

The short version (this is actually the short version!) is: US Bishops are not normal, and it's not just that Pope Leo grew up American and is aware of them because of that, they're actually a constant giant problem for the Vatican globally. I'll get into why in a minute, but first I'll try to tackle the explanation in the order the original poster did (@ rahaeli.bsky.social who happens to be the co-founder of Dreamwidth).

The phrase "shining city on a hill" is something that Brits occasionally hear Americans say, but it has meant two different things over the years. It's from Matthew 5:4 and the puritans used it to mean "Everyone's watching and waiting for us to mess up, don't mess up". JFK used it that way in a speech too. Then Ronald fucking Reagan came in and swapped it to mean "Americans have a destiny and everything we do is right".

He was able to do that because things like the Flag, the Constitution, the Founding Fathers have crossed over from civil to become religious symbols. Sociologist Robert Bellah noticed this in 1967 and called it "American Civil Religion". The merging in people's minds is partly why the Evangelical Right was able to come so easily into politics with Reagan, and why people think the US is a "Christian nation" - the holiness of the civil bit has been increasing next to the Christian bit.

But "don't mess up" vs "you're special and automatically can't mess up" is actually a Christian problem from way back: whether you need to do Good Works to deserve to go to Heaven, or whether having Faith is enough and you don't have to take any action. Traditionally Catholics have said you need the actions (feed the poor etc) while Protestants were more towards "only faith" (although this is a wild simplification). The image of US evangelicals saying "Just believe in Jesus and you will be saaaaved!" is the extreme of this.

And it's the evangelicals that are the problem, because their ideas also affected US Catholicism. Not just the ideas on Works vs Not, but what the original poster calls "The US Heresy". This is the kerraazy racist End-Times evangelical stuff that they describe in the long version as "Right-wing Christo-fascist dispensational pre-millennialist apocalyptic evangelical supersessionist covenentalist Biblical-inerrantist evangelicalism", but we're gonna use "the US Heresy" for short. And yes, unfortunately every one of those big words is accurate and needs to be there. The US Heresy and the Republican party started merging hard in the 80s and really went for it during George W Bush's time.

So you've got this "US heresy" and it's pretty bad. In their view, if you say the magic words, not only do you not need to do the Work part, you can even take bad actions and still be saved. Actions are completely separate from Being Right. And Being Right is strongly linked to US symbols like the Flag, the President, the Republican party and being white. If you're not those things, you can't have faith / be saved even if you do believe, because you're Bad and disqualified regardless of your thoughts / actions. It's very important to punish the bad / outsider people.

...And then Obama became President and these guys lost their shit in a religious way. Being an "American Patriot" became more and more being against the (Muslim maybe? Born elsewhere maybe?) black guy in office. Can't ever be good if you're on the Bad list.

Pope Francis turned up and starting fighting this. He hadn't been influenced by these (mostly purely American) ideas but he could change the Catholic Church part of the equation, and so he did. He was a big believer in the Works side of things (y'know, actual Catholicism) where it's a journey and you need to at least try to act without sin to earn redemption, and he was also a believer in not punishing people who weren't perfect Catholics. Forgiving them, even. Francis was a Jesuit, he wasn't going to play the same game as the US Heresy lot.
And they haaaaaated him. Hated him so much. Why wasn't he punishing the outcasts, such as people who were Democrats or got divorced or were queer? On top of this there's a whole load more, including the US Catholics who straight-up refuse to acknowledge any Pope after 1958 because they think "Vatican II" can get in the bin, etc etc.

This is only half the picture of the giant opposition between the Vatican and some US Bishops and US movements. (Some of the rest is how the US Bishops think it's fine to be egomaniacal numpties, or need to move the Church's money around to avoid sex crimes lawsuits, basically the Vatican is VERY aware of the US Church even on a purely administrative level).

And now we have Pope Leo, who is highly educated on this "Vatican vs US Heresy" stuff. He has a doctorate in canon law (ie: how to apply Church law and teachings). He's watched a lot of this American culture war happen as he was growing up. He's also spent a lot of time in Peru, where it doesn't work the same way, so he's got perspective.
So two years ago, Pope Francis made Leo the guy who handles Problems with Bishops, as head of the office that researches new candidates for Bishop but also deals with existing Problem Bishops. Francis / Leo then hired three women to work in that department for the first time ever, which was progressive and also annoyed exactly the people you'd expect.

Leo immediately had to deal with Texan Bishop Joseph Strickland who was very, very US Heresy. Strickland said the Vatican had a "Deep State" and that Pope Francis' support for civil unions was "confusing and very dangerous". In 2022 he retweeted a video called Pope Francis a "diabolically disoriented clown". In 2023 he directly accused the Pope of undermining the Catholic scriptures and tradition. Later in 2023 he went further and backed a letter that basically said Francis had illegitimately pushed out the previous Pope Benedict, and loads of other stuff.

Incidentally Strickland also described Joe Biden as "evil" and in 2020 agreed with one of those "we don't recognise the Pope after 1958" guys saying that "you can't be a Catholic and a Democrat". He was also a covid sceptic and antivax. So that's the kind of US Heresy dude we're dealing with here.
Now usually the process is a Bishop is asked to resign by the Vatican office that Leo was head of (there's rules about being 75 and who asks who, so an outright "please resign" is a strong statement). Leo did ask Strickland to resign, Strickland said no, and Leo promptly fired his ass. This new Pope does not play around.

So now we get to the point: Pope Leo's first sermon. He does a couple of things:

• Starts with Matthew 16:16 which reminds everyone that the Pope is an unbroken line from Peter (this directly fights the "no real Popes since 1958" guys). He explains the teachings behind it and cites Vatican II to back it up (and they hate Vatican II! So much! And he puts it in the 3rd paragraph!)
• He then talks about Jesus in a way that says "it's not enough to say his name and ignore your actions, the Works part is real". Then he says it AGAIN: Peter showed "the gift of God and the path to follow in order to allow himself to be changed by that gift. They are two inseparable aspects of salvation entrusted to the Church to be proclaimed for the good of the human race." The "path", the journey you have to work at, is inseparable from the faith.
• Then he brings up the "City on a hill" line and says that the church "may be ever more fully a city set on a hill" "through the holiness of her members". (ie: through the Works part).

But! Buuuuut...

He didn't use the Matthew version of "City on a hill". He used the Revelation 21:10 version, and that's another BIFF POW SOCK to the US Heresy lot, because they love taking Revelation 21 out of context for their literal "trigger the apocalypse" checklist. That's THEIR favourite writing, and the Pope is saying here that it contains the Works bit and the previous Pope Francis (who they hated) was right. Pope Leo is saying "people who are lying to you about there being an End Times checklist are wrong, you have an ongoing duty to Do Good Works."

* Then Leo talks about helping the poor, refugees, Jesus and Peter talking about these topics while wealth is being hoarded, reminding people that they should do better. (This is again "Pope Francis was right").

All of which sounds pretty fighty, eh? Nope. Because then he delivers the two lines which SPECIFICALLY target the US Heresy assholes.
"Today, too, there are many settings in which Jesus, although appreciated as a man, is reduced to a kind of charismatic leader or superman. This is true not only among non-believers but also among many baptized Christians, who thus end up living, at this level, in a state of practical atheism".

I mean, in this year of Trump's return, he's saying that charismatic leaders are bad and Jesus won't solve it all for you, you have to be a good person. That's... firing all guns. That's canons during the 1812 overture.

And then he makes it clear HE ESPECIALLY MEANS THE BISHOPS, with a reminder "for all those in the Church who exercise a ministry of authority" that they must "move aside so that Christ may remain, to make oneself small so that he may be known and glorified." (Stop with the Bishop Strickland type ego and ambition, and, as the original poster on bsky said, "go feed a hungry refugee so as to be a force for good in the world.")

And the Bishops KNOW he's talking to them, because they're aware of all the history mentioned above too.
This guy's a fighter, and the Trump evangelicals are going to haaaaate him.

Interesting! There's certainly a lot going on under the surface in US policy especially towards Israel with regard to some pretty out there Evangelical beliefs. Will be interesting to see how it pans out, though I'm not sure what he can ultimately do. (Though obviously you will get a lot of people here saying something along the lines of imaginary friend spaghetti monster etc!)

This is really interesting - thank you for sharing. As a lifelong atheist, I'm basically tone-deaf to the nuances of scripture and doctrine, so I really appreciate this explainer.

Since we live in a world where organised religion is a huge influence for billions - it would be awesome to see someone with worldwide authority and lifelong tenure take on the insanity of Donald Trump :-)

Thank you for this @BisiBodi . I’m finding myself drawn to the Catholic faith in recent times because of Pope Francis and now Pope Leo. These are powerful words.

This was a fascinating read, thank you. I don't like religion as whole because it brings out the worst in a lot of people, but it is interesting to see the former and current pope being much more forward thinking, and strong in their approach.

American here. Evangelicals in America spend exactly zero time caring about what the pope thinks.

I heard on a podcast recently (The Rest Is Politics USA if anyone is interested) that 25% of those registered to vote in the US are Catholic. I don’t know how many are of the Protestant churches that form the Evangelical wing. I’d be really interested in how the average Catholic American sees all this. I have American Catholic family who remain traditionally Catholic in their outlook and dislike Trump but I have no idea how representative they are.

I suspect Catholics such as JDV spend some time thinking about the pope though.

Thank you for this @BisiBodi it's really interesting.

Lapsed Catholic here. Even i know that If you don't accept that the primacy of the Pope you aren't a Catholic. Go leave and set up your own church.

Great summary indeed.
I have to say that every American I know who is interested in politics (and not part of MAGA world) has cheered on the appointment of Leo - including non-Catholics. I think there are something like 60 or 70 million Catholics in the US, maybe 30 or 40 of which are eligible to vote so I think he's going to be a moral and political force to be reckoned with.

Interesting thread OP. Nice to see a good meaty theological discussion on MN. 😁

I’m a Christian and went to theological college. I’m a Brit and have also lived in the US, both as a child and as an adult and so can see things from both sides. As a British child living in the US, we had to do three pledges every week at school. We first of all pledged our allegiance to the American flag, then to the Christian flag and then to the Bible. You can look up the pledges online, they’re quite interesting.

But as a person now back in the UK church and watching all the twists of US politics, I think the term ‘evangelical’ is often misunderstood and can be used as a ‘dirty word’ for anyone who seems religiously crazy. Evangelicalism is really just a solid belief that the Bible is God’s infallible Word and that as Christians we’re to do what it says. There’s plenty of very normal evangelicals (honestly!!) both here and in the US who don’t ascribe to Christian nationalism. I’m part of an evangelical denomination and people’s personal politics range from Right to Left…there’s very few political echo chambers and that’s just the way I like it.

Also I’d say that while Protestantism/evangelicalism does teach that its ’salvation by God alone’, our belief is that this is evidenced by good works. The good works won’t earn your salvation but if you’re a believer, the natural consequence is good works (if that makes sense).

In evangelicalism, Jesus and the Kingdom of God is the centre and the focus of all we do. Human politics and our system of democracy is probably our best way of organising ourselves but it’s deeply flawed. Our view is that we live in this world and we live by the law but ultimately, we’re ’citizens of Heaven/Kingdom of God’.

Christian nationalism on the other hand has somehow turned a political party into ‘the kingdom of God’ which is theologically twisted. I follow a lot of similar people on X and was surprised to see that many think the US Constitution is equal to the Bible in terms of spiritual authority. True Evangelicalism would absolutely reject that idea - nothing is equal to the authority of scripture. And then somewhere down the line, parts of Christian nationalism have been invaded by hard core racists who have determined that Jesus was a white man and by default, all his followers are nice white, picket-fence believers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ultimately a lot of this comes down to the belief about the Bible. Is it God’s unchanging Word or is it a set of guidelines designed to help us navigate our own path? How people interpret scripture is the big point of division. A conservative evangelical would say ‘it’s infallible and inerrant and cannot be changed’ whereas a progressive which I imagine Pope Leo is, would apply scripture to a contemporary culture context and say ‘the world has changed, we must too’. If you believe God’s word never changes, then there’s the sticking point right there.

Much of what I’ve written is a segue off your main point (sorry!) but I do find the whole conversation very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I think there is also a difference between evangelical Protestantism and the Catholic Church which needs taking into account. One of the key differences between the two has been that overall (and I know I'm massively generalising here) there is a stronger reliance on scriptures in Protestantism because it was literally a protest against the power of the RC church. Whilst Catholics view the word of God as infallible and for all ages, the Pope's role (and that of the Church at large) is to bring God's message to the masses - therefore to do so within the context of their time (hence Vatican II). There's a subtle but major difference in approach here.

But you are ignoring the very large very important to republicans Latino/Cuban catholic vote and they do give a shot what the pope says

Thank you! Everyone thinks evangelism is clapping and singing and big stages!

Interesting blog post on a similar theme, particularly contrasting Vance's Catholicism with Pope Leo's. https://greattransformation.substack.com/p/how-pope-leos-election-shields-catholicism?utm_source=app-post-stats-page&triedRedirect=true

Yes, agreed. In my tradition we affirm ‘sola scriptura’ - the belief the Bible is the ultimate authority and so we’re encouraged to read it, learn it, use it. From what I understand of Catholic theology, it’s a mix of both scripture and church tradition with the Pope being seen as the one with a God-given role to interpret both. Someone correct me if I’m wrong on that.

So again in terms of politics, much of the clashes in politics come down to how you see scripture in today’s world. I’m massively over simplifying it I know but that’s what I think the core issue is.

Such an interesting and informative thread. Thank you!

Thats very interesting OP, I had always associated that "saved so we can do what we like" belief with extremist protestants during the 30 Years War so rather scary seeing it pop up hundreds of years later but does make sense of some of the more bonkers things I've seen lately.

Were they the same type of extremist Protestants who headed off to America on the Mayflower?

I dont think so, I think they were Calvinists not Lutherians but tbh it's a long time since I read about it.

Its safe to say the mayflower pilgrims were extremists by our standards but not the kind to gleefully murder whole towns of christians in the most despicable ways

Interesting thread, I was raised catholic (I'm from a mixed Catholic and Jewish family background) and still identify as such DH is also catholic and we do still go to mass but not every week.

I have noticed in recent years that in the US and the UK Catholicism has been seen as more inline with the political right, see Jordan Peterson's recent move towards Catholicism, J.D. Vance. Figures in the UK such as Jacob Rees Mogg or Iain Duncan Smith being Catholic. Also the apparent increase in popularity of Catholicism amongst young right leaning men looking for meaning, structure and virginal brides. I have to say I have not witnessed an influx of young converts at my own church.

While Catholicism is culturally conservative I don't see it being a natural fit with right wing politics, neoliberalism or free market economics. Pope Francis and Pope Leo both seem to have at least some respect for Liberation Theology and seemed and seem to want to resist the assimilation of Catholicism into the American right wing.

In his book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Max Weber suggests that Capitalism arose out of the protestant notion of being "saved" by God, i.e. the concept that God has a plan for us all and that we are already chosen by him from before we are born while others are dammed. So the good protestant would want to look for signs that they had been chosen by God to be saved and one of the signs would be status and material wealth, so they would work hard and try to make money in order to reassure themselves and their peers that they were indeed good and pre-saved by God. This is where the concept of "protestant work ethic" comes from.

On the other hand in Catholicism almost the opposite was true in that poverty and suffering could be the very things that might allow one entry into the kingdom of heaven and also the notion that God will forgive anyone who confesses and sincerely repents.

I suppose I always wondered if this notion that suffering was in someway godly meant that it could be used to keep people down i.e. to say, just offer your suffering to Christ and you will get your reward in heaven but Liberation theology has been closely associated with revolutionary movements in South America so perhaps there is possibility for the revolutionary or Marxist Catholic!

I also notice that here in the UK It seems that even between Labour and Conservatives it seems that the vote is somewhat split along religious grounds with Hindu's more likely to vote conservative and Muslims more likely to vote Labour. British Jews tend to be split in a similar way to the general British public, I would generally consider my Jewish family as more left leaning and American Jews I know are all democrats. I do know in my neck of the woods growing up Catholics voted Labour and Protestants voted Tory but that is possibly quite specific to the Glasgow area and I think its different now due to the rise of the SNP.

Anyway, very interesting discussion.

Sorry if I'm misunderstood (I've only quickly read the OP) but I was born into Catholicism and I am practising...Catholics don't believe they can work their way into heaven. Salvation is a gift from God that no human efforts can earn.

Salvation is a gift from God that no human efforts can earn.
Except it is not preordained in Catholicism. You have to back this up with good deeds and true repentance for your sins as well. I think one of the key differences between Catholicism and Calvinism of the Puritan type is that the former has forgiveness and repentance at the heart of its doctrine whereas the latter does not. In fact, Puritans considered that the notion of forgiveness was too close to 'second-guessing' God's plans. Hence a much more Old Testament approach. I think there are some influences of that left in the US. The prosperity gospel idea for example plays on the notion that material riches are a sign of righteousness. It's all preordained anyway, right? So if God decides whether or not you're saved and there's nothing you can do about it, why not determine such things like your prosperity? I've always found it bizarrely at odds with the idea of the American Dream itself, but I guess those who 'make it' can also argue it was all in God's plans... So basically what's left is: it's both your fault and God's will if you're poor. Double whammy.

@Standfirm of course you should back it up with good deeds. Good works are the fruit of the Catholic faith; demonstrating love and obedience to God.

You can't pick and choose parts of religion to suit your beliefs or values. If Jesus was alive today he would have very little in common with many of the Christian groups in the US. I should imagine jesus would be shunned and labelled a loser by Trump.

I think these are very dangerous times.....