There is something almost monastic in the way Pope Leo XIV, at least in the public imagination, seems to deal with Donald Trump, no thunderbolts, no ringing condemnations, no dramatic excommunications hurled from the balcony of Saint Peter’s. Instead, there is distance. Protocol thickened into fog. Invitations that never quite materialize. Language polished until it reflects nothing. To some observers this restraint looks like weakness or indecision. To others, myself included, it resembles an older, colder strategy: containment. Not the kind built with stone and barbed wire, but the kind the Church has long practiced when confronted with figures it considers spiritually radioactive. The heretic was not always burned; sometimes he was simply isolated until his voice echoed only inside his own skull.
Trump, of course, is not a theologian wandering into doctrinal error. He is a political animal, loud, transactional, allergic to humility. Yet the resemblance is uncanny. Leo XIV does not argue with him, flatter him, or try to convert him into a model Catholic statesman. He treats him as a weather system, something to be monitored, prepared for, and never invited indoors. This is not moral cowardice. It is an institutional reflex born of two thousand years of surviving emperors, warlords, messiahs, and self-anointed saviours. The Church learned long ago that some personalities feed on resistance. They metabolize outrage into legitimacy. Starve them instead, and they begin to consume themselves.
What unsettles Trump is not criticism but irrelevance. He thrives on spectacle, on being framed as either adored or persecuted. The Pope’s silence offers neither. It is a velvet rope around a man who expects red carpets. Each careful non-statement, each diplomatic shrug, each homily that floats just wide of his name but close enough to singe his hairstyle, becomes another brick in a wall that says: you may be powerful, but you are not central. For someone whose theology consists largely of his own reflection, this is a deeper insult than any public rebuke. It denies him the sacramental oxygen of attention.
There is also something faintly medieval in this approach. The Church once dealt with dangerous preachers by surrounding them with procedures, councils, letters, delays, and layers of authority so thick they could barely move. They were not crushed; they were wrapped. The modern version is subtler but familiar: drown the personality in process. Trump speaks in slogans; the Vatican replies in footnotes. He improvises; it drafts. He seeks conflict; it schedules meetings for three months from now and then reschedules them again. In this mismatch, charisma bleeds out.
Critics will argue that this is moral evasion dressed up as prudence. They want fire, names, and a Pope who points directly at the man and calls him what he is: corrosive, divisive, intoxicated by his own mythology. I understand the hunger for clarity. But clarity is not always volume. Sometimes it is architecture. By refusing to recognize Trump as a legitimate moral counterpart, Leo XIV frames him as something else entirely: a disruptive force to be managed, not a leader to be engaged. That is a theological downgrade disguised as courtesy.
The comparison to how the Church once handled cult leaders is uncomfortable but revealing. Cult leaders demand total loyalty, invent their own truths, and replace shared reality with a narrative centered on themselves. Sound familiar? The Vatican’s classic response was never debate; debate flatters the cult by implying equivalence. Instead, it was separation, protect the community, limit contact, reduce contamination. You do not wrestle the fever; you quarantine it. In that sense, the Pope’s distance is not political strategy but ecclesiastical instinct.
Whether this wall is working is another question. Trump still commands millions. He still bends news cycles around his moods. The Vatican’s quiet does not weaken him in polls. But it does something slower and stranger. It strips him of transcendence. It refuses to let him cosplay as a persecuted prophet or misunderstood saviour. In the long memory of institutions, that matters. Empires fall, personalities fade, but archives remain. And in those archives, Trump may end up not as a rival to the Church, nor even as its enemy, but as a footnote: a noisy layman the Pope declined to dignify.
So yes, it does look like a wall. Not dramatic, not photogenic, not built for television. A wall of etiquette, delay, ritual, and deliberate dullness. A wall that does not shout “you are wrong,” but murmurs, “you are not essential.” In the vocabulary of Rome, that is not indifference. It is judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment