..The Pope vs. the President. An unusual public rift has broken out between the first American Pope and the American President. This extraordinary row between the two most powerful Americans seems to have been ignited by the US Defence Secretary’s (or secretary for war) invoking of God in the ongoing US-Israel-Iran war. ALSO READ: US/Israel-Iran war and the Hormuz supply crunch Praying for American victory in Iran, the Defence Secretary said “May Almighty God continue to bless our troops in this fight’’ asking the American people to go on their ‘’bended knee and pray for victory in the name of Jesus Christ’’. This was a marked departure from one of America’s founding principles of separation of Church and State. In an apparent response to this unusual prayer, the Pontiff took it as his responsibility to define what humans are not allowed to do in Jesus’s name. “God does not listen to prayers of those who wage war,’’ he said, setting the stage for the next round of confrontation with the White House. When the US President threatened to wipe out “a whole civilization’’ in the Iran conflict, the Pope responded that that was “unacceptable’’. Then the President went on a full throttle attack on his Truth Social platform with post that shocked the Catholic community and entire world, calling the Pope “weak on crime’’, “weak on nuclear weapons’’ and “terrible on foreign policy’’. “I like his brother Louis much better than I like him,’’ the President wrote! In what looks like a calculated White House attack strategy, the US Vice President, a recent convert to the Catholic faith, weighed into the row warning the Pope to be “careful when talking about theology’’ and reminded him of “Just War’’ theory. Vatican News responded to the Vice President’s remarks, arguing that in recent decades, Catholic teaching has showed “how increasingly difficult it is to claim that a ‘Just war’ exists, especially in an atomic era. Therefore, the war of words continues over whether the war of bombs is just or unjust, and neither the Pope nor the White House seem keen to let go. “Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,’’ the Pope said in a speech in Cameroon, on his first African tour. “The world is being raved by a handful of tyrants, yet it is held together by a multitude of supportive brothers and sisters,’’ he added. This Pope will not be blamed for not speaking out. Until this rift broke out, a thought (rather a question) had lingered in my mind for some time: who holds the moral authority in this new world order? Moral authority refers to the recognized, earned ability to influence others or events based on integrity, character, and adherence to high ethical principles rather than formal power. The keyword here is ‘earned’. Unlike legal or positional authority, moral authority must be earned through consistent, trustworthy actions - ‘walking the talk’- and can be easily lost if the holder starts acting to the contrary. The Bible, in Proverbs 28:6, reminds us: “Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways.” In years past, we at least knew who claimed moral authority on democracy, good governance, human rights, and the rule of law. Religious figures had the space to counterbalance these claims - to speak truth to power. In a world where “conviction” political leaders, once championed by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, are increasingly scarce, where religious voices are sidelined, and humanitarian and ethical leaders are nearly voiceless, ordinary people have every reason to be concerned. The writer is a keen observer of global affairs.
