Sunday, April 19, 2026

Deus Non Vult? - Pope Leo XIV, Donald Trump, Clermont, and Lepanto

Medal showing Pope St. Pius V struck in honor of the victory of the Holy League at Lepanto.
Last week's blow-up between the Roman Catholic Pontiff and the American President generated considerable heat, but not very much light. Every pundit and influencer on every side registered an opinion, and most of them were ill-informed, facile, or just plain wrong.

Does the Pope have a right to sound off on political questions, even when his opinions are directly critical of a given country's current policies and actions? Of course he does. Popes have been doing this for centuries, millennia even, sometimes at tremendous cost to themselves. Many modern critics of the Papacy have often attacked Popes in hindsight for not sounding off loudly enough or soon enough on such issues.

Should Catholics be surprised if the Holy Father receives return-fire when he wades into political issues? No, we should not, particularly in the United States. There may be many Catholics in the U.S. but the vast majority of the country is not Catholic. When the Pope steps into the political arena, no Catholic should expect meek acquiescence from non-Catholic political figures who, rightly or wrongly, feel targeted.

Were Mr. Trump's broadsides against the Holy Father appropriate? I would say "yes" but only to the extent that Mr. Trump is a non-Catholic political figure who lives in a country where freedom of speech is enshrined as a civil right. Trump takes full advantage of that freedom, having made his reputation as a blunt-talking political street-fighter. There is very little nuance in what Mr. Trump says. If you say or do things he doesn't like, he won't pretend to be polite to your face and throw ashtrays in private. He'll tell you straight out what he thinks, vulgarities included. While this kind of talk tends to make America grate again on the world stage, it's hard to deny that his style has been a political success. Compared to the duplicity of most political figures, Trumps transparency is seen as refreshing by many. 

Trump's TruthSocial post calling Leo "WEAK on crime and terrible for foreign policy," was crass, provocative, and not thoughtfully presented. But coming as it did from a non-Catholic political figure who has no particular love or respect for the Papacy as an institution, it was not inappropriate. If you asked me whether Trump's obloquy was smart or effective, my answer is an emphatic "no" on both counts. Trump's attacks on Leo generated only expressions of horror, dismay, or misguided defense from his Catholic supporters, infighting amongst Catholics more generally, and joy from the anti-Catholic political Left who were only too happy to amplify the comments to foment division within the Church. 

In short, the Pope has the right and the duty to speak publicly and forcefully on pressing political issues. At the same time, he must realize that such comments will be polarizing and may engender or exacerbate exactly the types of conflict he's hoping to ameliorate. 

With the polemics flying last week, there was one statement by the Holy Father that caused some needless confusion among Catholics. It is this: 

"God does not bless any conflict. Anyone who is a disciple of Christ, the Prince of Peace, is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs. Military action will not create space for freedom or times of #Peace, which comes only from the patient promotion of coexistence and dialogue among peoples." [Pope Leo XIV, on X, April 10, 2026]

Posted as a stand-alone statement on social media, this statement seems to contradict the teachings of most of the previous Popes until very recently. By way of example, here is an excerpt from Blessed Pope Urban II's speech at Clermont in AD 1095, as recorded by Balderick of Dol:

Click for more info.
"If, forsooth, you wish to be mindful of your souls, either lay down the girdle of such knighthood, or advance boldly, as knights of Christ, and rush as quickly as you can to the defence of the Eastern Church. For she it is from whom the joys of your whole salvation have come forth, who poured into your mouths the milk of divine wisdom, who set before you the holy teachings of the Gospels. We say this, brethren, that you may restrain your murderous hands from the destruction of your brothers, and in behalf of your relatives in the faith oppose yourselves to the Gentiles. Under Jesus Christ, our Leader, may you struggle for your Jerusalem, in Christian battle-line, most invincible line, even more successfully than did the sons of Jacob of old — struggle, that you may assail and drive out the Turks, more execrable than the Jebusites, who are in this land, and may you deem it a beautiful thing to die for Christ in that city in which He died for us. But if it befall you to die this side of it, be sure that to have died on the way is of equal value, if Christ shall find you in His army. God pays with the same shilling, whether at the first or eleventh hour. You should shudder, brethren, you should shudder at raising a violent hand against Christians; it is less wicked to brandish your sword against Saracens. It is the only warfare that is righteous, for it is charity to risk your life for your brothers." [Krey: The First Crusade, p 35].

Later, in this same account, we see Bishop Adhemar of Puy receive the blessing of Pope Urban and undertake his commission as official Papal legate of the crusaders. 

As those present were thus clearly informed by these and other words of this kind from the apostolic lord, the eyes of some were bathed in tears; some trembled, and yet others discussed the matter. However, in the presence of all at that same council, and as we looked on, the Bishop of Puy, a man of great renown and of highest ability, went to the Pope with joyful countenance and on bended knee sought and entreated blessing and permission to go. Over and above this, he won from the Pope the command that all should obey him, and that he should hold sway over all the army in behalf of the Pope, since all knew him to be a prelate of unusual energy and industry. [Balderic of Dol's account of Urban II's speech at Clermont in Krey: The First Crusade, p. 36].

15th century miniature of Pope Urban II presiding at Clermont. Upon his call for a crusade,
the assembled cried, "Deus Vult!" ~ God wills it!
About 500 years later, Pope Saint Pius V sent this letter to Don John of Austria who had been given command over the forces of the Holy League in AD 1571: 

To our well-beloved son in Christ, health and the apostolic benediction. Almighty God, the author of all good, has been pleased that, with his divine favour, the League should be concluded, which our right dear son in Christ the Catholic King of the Spains your brother, and the Illustrious Republic of the Venetians some months ago began to negotiate against the most cruel tyrant, the lord of the Turks; which having come to so good an issue, it appeared to us right to congratulate your nobleness on the occasion, as by these letters we do, being assured that our message will be welcome and agreeable to you, on account both of your piety towards God, and of your desire for the increase of the Christian world. Greatly do we rejoice to behold you thus prosperously navigating this our sea, that together with the fleets of the other members of the League you may make a beginning of the destruction of the common enemy; and therefore do we entreat and warn you in Christ our Lord, that, imitating the virtue of the captains-general, your predecessors, you use your discretion diligently both to provide all things requisite to the success of the expedition and to avoid delay, which, in affairs of war, is so important and so praiseworthy. We would further urge this upon you with many reasons, did we not know that the business carries with it its reward in the common benefit of the Christian world, and your particular honour, and that you need no further exhortation from our zealous and fatherly love, being assured that your nobleness will never be found wanting either to the one or to the other.  Given at Rome on the 24th of May 1571 [Taken from Maxwell, Don John of Austria, Volume 1, p. 352-353]

When the Holy League's ships were ready to sail to meet their destiny at the Battle of Lepanto in October of 1571, we are told:

The Papal Nuncio, in virtue of the powers which he had brought from Rome, proclaimed a jubilee; the officers and men thronged to the churches to confess and receive the sacrament; and, with great state and ceremony, the Pope's representative, in his master's name, bestowed upon the whole armament of the Holy League — princes, generals, soldiers, sailors, slaves, and shipping — the Apostolical benediction, and announced anew the indulgences which in past times had been conceded to the conquerors of the Holy Sepulchre. [Taken from Maxwell, Don John of Austria, Volume 1, p. 383]

Any student of history can find dozens if not hundreds of additional examples of Popes summoning and blessing those who would make war for the defense of Christendom. This leaves the devout Catholic at something of a loss. Pope Leo XIV's statement is general and unequivocal in a way that appears at odds with prior Church teachings, as well as the words and actions the two Popes aforementioned, one of whom is Blessed, and the other a Saint. This is, perhaps a simplistic reading of the Pope's words, but that is the way most Catholics will read it.

I say this as someone who is not in favor of the current ill-conceived war against Iran that the United States has embarked upon. The rationale for this conflict has been haphazardly explained, and I struggle to categorize it as a just war as traditionally understood by Catholic doctrine. Politically, it seems like a foolish, short-sighted decision, appearing to be more a crusade to ensure the safety of the secular state of Israel than any kind of defense of Christendom. That said, I am happy to be proved wrong on any of these points should the miracle of an unexpected peace emerge in the chronically war-ravaged Middle East as a result of these actions. 

Lack of clarity and consistency in teaching, particularly on moral issues, was an unfortunate hallmark of the previous Papacy. One hopes and prays that Leo XIV will steer the course of thoughtful, prayerful nuance and consistency with his predecessors when offering his observations on political and foreign policy issues in the future. The last thing the world needs is a Pope who creates novel, contradictory doctrines which force Catholics into a position of having to side either with the current occupant of the See of St. Peter, or sainted Popes from history. 

As for Mr. Trump, he sees himself as an American patriot, and I do believe that his ultimate desire is for peace and prosperity among nations, even if, paradoxically, he thinks it takes B-2s and cruise missiles to accomplish the goal. He needs our prayers. I won't suggest that Mr. Trump attempt to be more nuanced in his public statements on social media—that will never happen. But perhaps Mr. Trump would do well to pray sincerely before he posts. A little humility would go a long way.

A better course of action for both the Holy Father and the American President would be to refrain from firing rhetorical fusillades at each other, and instead offer prayers that Almighty God will grant them both wisdom and charity. Based on the Holy Father's most recent statement, it seems like he wasn't intending to get into a shouting match with President Trump, and has declared that many of his statements have been misinterpreted by the media. In response, Vice President Vance has written a conciliatory post about the Holy Father, saying: "He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we'll be in his."

These are good signs. 

Leo XIV has only been Pope for about a year. He deserves an opportunity to grow into the role, and not be hammered for every diplomatic stumble. 

May Christ grant him the wisdom to be zealous and saintly Pope!

Friday, April 10, 2026

The Avignon Papacy at Mar-a-Lago? ~ Is the Trump Administration attempting to capture Pope Leo XIV?

Cardinal Pierre and Undersecretary Colby share a heated and contentious handshake
during their meeting in January 2026 (courtesy of DOW Rapid Response)
It is being reported with breathless enthusiasm by the normally Catholic-phobic Left-media that a meeting between Vatican US representative Cardinal Christophe Pierre and Undersecretary of Defense Elbridge Colby back in January of 2026 went sideways in dramatic fashion. Anonymously-sourced reports say that Colby threatened Cardinal Pierre that the US, "has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side." 

As if that wasn't bad enough, it was reported that "one official present" made reference to the Avignon Papacy — a period spanning nearly 70 years when the Papacy was captured and controlled by the French crown. The so-called Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy lasted from AD 1309 through 1376 and encompassed the reigns of seven recognized Popes, five anti-Popes, and three French kings. 

Since this news was first reported, both the Vatican and the Trump Administration have issued vigorous denials, stating that things were completely cordial at the meeting. That said, it seems clear that something happened to make certain parties freak out, but perhaps not the bombshell shouting match between US officials and Vatican liaisons that Left-media wishful thinking attempted to insinuate.

Of course, the historically illiterate or purposely obtuse Left-media immediately made much of the alleged mention of the Avignon Papacy. Stripping the claim of context, they imagined it to be some sort of threat by the US to capture Leo XIV and set him up as Pope-in-Exile under US control, perhaps at Mar-a-Lago. 

Assuming that the reference to Avignon happened at all — perhaps a stretch considering how readily the Left-media lies and exaggerates as a matter of course — I have a different interpretation. Perhaps the "one official present" mentioned the Avignon Papacy in the sense that the Papacy has already been captured, and has been in a state of captivity by globalist elites since 2013. 

Now admittedly, that may also be a stretch, but let's consider a few facts:

And finally...

Again, I admit that this is all pure speculation. But just perhaps, the Trump administration took LifeSite's suggestion seriously, investigated the Obama administration's role in Benedict XVI's resignation and the election of Francis, and discovered some rather unsettling things.

If Obama Administration officials were implicated in forcing the resignation of a Pope and pushed for the installation of a hand-picked successor, that might create a scenario at least somewhat similar to the politics of the Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy in 14th century Avignon. 

So to answer the question posed in the title of this article: No, the Trump administration is not attempting to capture Pope Leo XIV. The administration may, however, be willing to reveal to the world that some parties within the Vatican are more loyal to global politicians than they are to the Holy Father. Such a scenario would explain the freak out and flurry of anonymous leaks to the Left-media about this story.

We shall have to wait and see what, if anything, comes out.

May Almighty God reveal the truth as He sees fit.

Thursday, April 02, 2026

"The Easter Hare is Inexplicable to Me" ~ Is the Easter Bunny a Christian or a heathen?

The Easter Bunny as imagined by Johann Conrad Gilbert in the late 18th century.  
OK, I admit it. I have never liked the Easter Bunny. 

Of course, as a kid I did enjoy getting a basket full of malted milk chocolate eggs on Easter Sunday. But the idea that those delicious chocolate eggs with the rich creamery filling made by Cadbury were actually laid by a fat, white, clucking lagomorph—that was a bridge too far.

Then, there was also the iconic lazy Easter Rabbit of Looney Tunes fame (Easter Yeggs, 1946), who tricked Bugs Bunny into delivering the eggs for him. Part of me rooted for Elmer Fudd when he said, "I'm waiting for the Easter Wabbit. When he comes in looking so fwuffy and cute with his wittle basket of Easter eggs... BANG! Easter Wabbit stew." 

My own kids were absolutely terrified of the grown men dressed up in giant bunny outfits hopping around in malls and other places during Easter-time. Honestly, who could blame them?

Lastly, before I knew better, I just took it for granted that those folks were correct who claimed that the Easter Bunny was yet another echo of pre-Christian paganism that had been absorbed into the Paschal feast by Catholics, thereby introducing an inappropriate element of the absurd into the celebration of Christ's resurrection.

But then I dug up some interesting facts that have made me have a slightly different view of the Easter Bunny and his "technicolor hen-fruit" as Bugs called it.

At the top of this post is a drawing of the Easter Bunny made by Johann Conrad Gilbert (1734-1812), a first-generation American whose parents emigrated from Baden-WĂ¼rttemberg, Germany in the 1730s. The Gilbert family were authentic Pennsylvania Dutch, and the town of Gilbertsville, Pennsylvania was named for them. Johann was a Lutheran schoolmaster who would be posted to various schools around Berks and Schuylkill Counties in PA throughout the late 18th century. According to Find-a-Grave, he was married to Anna Elizabeth nee Stoltz and was the father of eight children (though his will lists ten). During the Revolutionary War, he served on a pair of armed vessels of war, Eagle and Vulture.

So the earliest reference to the Easter Bunny in America comes from good old southeastern PA. And if the Bunny has pagan roots, it's not the fault of Catholics. Mr. Gilbert was very much a Protestant. 

But of course, the Bunny doesn't really have pagan roots. That theory follows a very tenuous thread that begins with Venerable Bede, runs through the Brothers Grimm, is frayed by the German philologist Adolph Holtzmann, and then subsequently metastasized into a myriad of fanciful legends depicting the Bunny as the magical familiar of a Teutonic goddess. 

The story begins with a single short passage in St. Bede's work entitled De Ratione Temporum, which runs as follows:

Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated "Paschal month", and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month.  Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance. [Taken from "Bede on 'Eostre'" on Tertullian.org]

Readers of this blog will realize that this is not a shocking revelation given that Pope Saint Gregory the Great encouraged his missionaries in England to retain those festal or cultural practices of the people which are neutral or universal. That the Anglo-Saxon Christians in England retained the name of a pagan goddess in their common word for the month of April, and thereby transferred it to the Paschal Feast is no more shocking than a modern Christian celebrating Holy Thursday or Good Friday. I suspect not many modern Christians attend the Liturgy of the Lord's supper with the Norse god of thunder (Thor) secretly in mind. Nor do they imagine the Norse goddess, Frigg, among the women of Jerusalem during Christ's passion.

St. Bede's fleeting mention of Eostre was forgotten for over a millennium. Eostre is not mentioned anywhere else at any time.

By contrast, rabbits and hares had been mentioned occasionally in early Christian literature, and normally not in a laudatory way. They were most commonly presented as a symbol of either sexual profligacy due to the rabbit's awesome procreative powers, or as an metaphor for prey, cowardice and timidity. Writing in the late 2nd century AD, Tertullian compares his contemporary Christian community to hares due to persecution, saying, "We ourselves, having been appointed for pursuit, are like hares being hemmed in from a distance." [Tertullian, Scorpiace, Chapter 1]

Writing some two centuries later, Saint Augustine admits his timidity, but acknowledges his one hope of safety: 

For I will confess mine infirmity, to the end that I may be timid like a hare, because I am full of thorns like a hedgehog. And as in another Psalm [104:18] is said, "The rock is a refuge for the hedgehogs and the hares:" but the Rock was Christ. [Augustine of Hippo, Exposition on Psalm 71]

During the Middle Ages, literary rabbits developed into more fearsome creatures, occasionally inhabiting the margins of illuminated manuscripts bearing weapons or inflicting damage on someone deserving it. These images were meant to convey a certain sense of good-natured irony, and given how popular they are in our own times (see this article from the British Library), I would have to say that the monks who drew them have successfully conveyed their whimsical sense of humor across the centuries. 

14th century manuscript showing two rough coneys abusing a hunter. (source)

It wasn't until sometime in the late 17th century, however, that the legend of the Easter Bunny emerged onto the world scene. In a work entitled, Satyrae medicae, continuatio XVIII. Disputatione ordinaria disquirens de ovis paschalibus von Oster-Eyern (or Medical Satires, Continuation XVIII. Investigating in a formal disputation concerning Easter eggs), German physician and botanist, Georg Franck von Franckenau, wrote the following:

In Upper Germany, our own Palatinate, Alsace and neighboring locations, as well as in Westphalia, these are called "Easter-Hare-Eggs" (die Haseneier) because of a story with which they deceive the simpler folk and children: that a Hare (The Easter Hare) hatches eggs of this sort and hides them in gardens in the grass, bushes, etc., so that they may be sought out more eagerly by the children, to the laughter and delight of their elders. [Satyrae Medica de von Franckenau, p. 6 - When searching the Latin, look for the phrase: "In Germania Superiore, Palatinatu nostrate, Alsatia & vicinis locis..."]

Based on this, it seems that the Easter Bunny was an established tradition in certain areas of Germany by this time. It should be remembered, however, that Germany was not a single country in the late 17th century, but a patchwork of petty kingdoms and dutchies held together very loosely by a common tongue. What was traditional in Westphalia may not have even been known in Prussia or Bavaria.

It is safe to assume that the artist who created or Easter Bunny image at the top of this post, Johann Gilbert, was born into this tradition and his family carried it with them to Britain's American colonies when they arrived in the early 18th century.

About a century after Gilbert's birth, Jacob Grimm, one half of the Brothers Grimm of fairy tale fame, rediscovered the passage from Venerable Bede and mentioned "Eostre" (whom he called "Ostara") in his work, Deutsche Mythologie (Teutonic Mythology in English). Grimm added his own speculative embellishments saying: 

Ostara, Edstre seems therefore to have been the divinity of the radiant dawn, of upspringing light, a spectacle that brings joy and blessing, whose meaning could be easily adapted to the resurrection-day of the Christian's God. [Grimm: Teutonic Mythology, p. 291]

It should be stressed, however, that Grimm discovered no new mentions of Eostre in the historical literature. His assumptions are completely theoretical.

But theoretical though they may be, Grimm's elaborations of Eostre/Ostara were latched onto by another German, Adolph Holtzmann, in the later 19th century. It is Holtzmann who, in his 1874 work which was also entitled Deutsche Mythologie, proposed a speculative relationship between the Easter Hare and Eostre/Ostara. Holtzmann wrote:

The Easter Hare (Osterhase) is inexplicable to me; probably the hare is the animal of Ostara....However, in German mythology thus far, a hare appears nowhere...Moreover, the hare must have been a bird, since it lays eggs; perhaps Easter eggs do not even date back to paganism at all; for with Easter, the fasts end, and it is an old custom to consecrate eggs and meat in the church on Easter Eve, and children then receive such consecrated eggs. But the fact that one makes a nest for the children the evening before so that the hare can lay the eggs in it—that does seem to be a pagan idea. [Holtzmann: Deutsche Mythologie, p. 141]

All other connections between the Easter Bunny and neo-paganism emerge from this point onwards with no solid tie to antiquity.  

So to sum up, the Easter Bunny is a fun, humorous tradition that emerged in Germany and spread to other places around the world. There is no concrete evidence that he originated as a pagan spirit animal, only very tentative modern speculation and subsequent embellishment. And even if the mythical egg-laying hare had been part of a pagan German myth at some point in murky antiquity, the legend was religiously neutral enough to be adopted into Christian German cultural traditions with nary a trace of its origins remaining at all. 

Furthermore, it's worth emphasizing that however the legend developed, the Easter Bunny was not a Catholic tradition, but one that originated from German Protestants. 

But let there be no mistake -- the purpose of this article was not to give our lop-eared egg courier a bad name, so if like Bugs you've already got some bad names for the Easter Rabbit, maybe just reconsider calling him a sinister crypto-pagan or a demonic witch-pet. Given the connection cited by Holtzmann above, he was probably a good Christian fur-bearing critter, delivering eggs to those celebrating the end of their Lenten fasts and the making of all things new by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Also, if the Bunny tradition in the US originated from southeastern PA, that makes him a home-boy, and we always root for the home team around here.