Three prominent U.S. Catholic cardinals on Monday issued an unusually strong joint statement calling for a reorientation of American foreign policy, citing recent global events and Pope Leo XIV's address to diplomats earlier in January as "moral foundations for change," Vatican News reported.
Translation: The cardinals not only denounced, without mentioning, President Donald Trump; they also indirectly called the president immoral. Overstepping a bit? Of course — and then some.
Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago, Robert McElroy of Washington, and Joseph Tobin of Newark claimed in their statement that the U.S. is involved in “the most profound and searing debate about the moral foundation for America’s actions in the world since the end of the Cold War.” The trio also questioned how the U.S. uses military force to seek peace.
"Moral foundation?" By whose definition, and based on what grounds or principles?
Though their statement avoids specifics — the informed among us know exactly who, and what, they were referencing — their message is crystal clear: the trio doesn't believe Trump's foreign policy is rooted in “moral clarity” and “human dignity.”
Look, as a constitutional conservative, I believe that moral clarity begins with strength.
Why?
Because true peace isn't achieved through weakness, appeasement, or simply turning one's head away and pretending everything is copacetic in the world order, specifically as it relates to America's genuine national interests: defending freedom, deterring or eliminating tyranny, and standing firm for religious liberty — vs. surrendering to global consensus.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not going all Lindsey Graham — who never saw a war he didn't want to enter or start — here, but reasonability and resolve are necessary in today's destabilized world.
ALSO CHECK OUT: Renowned Climatologist Pope Leo Chides Bishops Attending UN Climate Summit for Lack of 'Political Will'
Tom Homan Takes Catholic Bishops to School After They Release Video Attacking Immigration Policy
The cardinals wrote:
In 2026, the United States has entered into the most profound and searing debate about the moral foundation for America’s actions in the world since the end of the Cold War. The events in Venezuela, Ukraine and Greenland have raised basic questions about the use of military force and the meaning of peace.
The sovereign rights of nations to self-determination appear all too fragile in a world of ever greater conflagrations. The balancing of national interest with the common good is being framed within starkly polarized terms.
Our country’s moral role in confronting evil around the world, sustaining the right to life and human dignity, and supporting religious liberty are all under examination. And the building of just and sustainable peace, so crucial to humanity’s well-being now and in the future, is being reduced to partisan categories that encourage polarization and destructive policies.
Where to begin?
"Basic questions about ... the meaning of peace?" Are we talking about the absence of war? Sure sounds like it. Or, should we (they) be talking about the presence of freedom, free speech, and freedom from political persecution and worse?
The cardinals also wrote:
We renounce war as an instrument for narrow national interests and proclaim that military action must be seen only as a last resort in extreme situations, not a normal instrument of national policy.
Again, whose definition of "narrow national interests" are we talking about?
And not to nitpick, but when was the last time the Catholic Church renounced the "narrow interests" of radical Islam and/or Sharia law? Can't recall? Me, neither.
Here's more:
They called for a foreign policy that "respects and advances the right to human life, religious liberty, and the enhancement of human dignity throughout the world."
The statement draws heavily on themes from the Pope's recent address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, where he lamented what he described as a global retreat from diplomacy and a rush toward militarized solutions to conflict.
"War is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading," Leo told ambassadors in Rome, warning that the post-World War II principle barring nations from using force to violate others' borders "has been completely undermined" and that peace is increasingly sought through weapons rather than dialogue.
"In conclusion," wrote Vatican News, "the three Cardinals said Pope Leo has offered the United States a prism through which to overcome 'the polarization, partisanship, and narrow economic and social interests' that currently inhibit the country’s debate on its own moral foundation."
The Bottom Line
I’ve said before — somewhat wryly —and I'll say it again: the pope should stick to poping and steer clear of meddling in U.S. foreign policy. The same advice goes for the cardinals.
After all, I don't recall President Trump attempting to rewrite Catholic dogma.
