I really like what I have seen about Pope Leo XIV thus far. Everything about him says that he is the embodiment of human dignity. Shortly after his election as pontiff last year, I wrote that his strong moral voice was badly needed in a world that seemed rudderless.
In his capacity, Pope Leo has every right to question both the legality and the wisdom of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran. His doing so has incurred the wrath of President Trump, who has used some pretty harsh words in response. That is unfortunate.
American presidents are routinely criticized, often strongly, for their decisions and actions. Even when they think they have been unfairly attacked, most presidents express their displeasure quietly and usually behind closed doors. President Trump operates in a completely different manner. He makes everything public.
Recently, I heard one of the president’s supporters accuse Pope Leo on television that he stayed silent when the Iranian regime massacred about 40,000 of its own citizens in a matter of days this past January. That statement caught my attention because I have personally been deeply troubled by the fact that such a mass atrocity garnered so little global attention.
Out of curiosity, I did some research to try to ascertain the validity of the claim made by the president’s ally. I was surprised to learn that his charge is one that several other people have leveled against Pope Leo. One Newsweek article I found said that the pontiff did speak about the mass protests in Iran and the brutal response of the regime, but added that his references to the events were oblique. The article went on to say that “While the Holy See does not intervene directly into the internal affairs of individual states, there were signs that Vatican officials were dismayed by the situation in Iran in January.”
That statement brought another question to mind. Does the pontiff refrain from sharing his thoughts forcefully on such grave matters out of concern that doing so would come across as meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign states?
My view has always been that the sovereignty principle should be respected as much as possible, but there should be limitations on claims made on its basis. The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a beautiful document. Its preamble contains the following recital: “Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people.”
The recital clearly states that citizens have a right to protest, regardless of their national culture, religion or form of government. That is the kind of world we were supposed to have entered. And yet, the UN has said little about the abomination in Iran.
Because of the transformational impact that education has had on my life, and that of my daughter, what the Taliban has done to female education in Afghanistan continues to be a source of great pain for me. The group has imposed restrictions that make it impossible for girls to obtain any education beyond basic level. Again, the UN has language in its documents about the universality of the right to education, but pretends as if it is unaware of what is happening in Afghanistan.
At the moment, Pope Leo, in my view, is the global leader with the clearest moral voice. It would be a great shame if indeed he feels hesitant to use that voice forcefully for fear of causing offense.