Jan 9

In a long, but somewhat narrow room, a crowd gathered in the Vatican's Apostolic Palace to hear words of Pope Leo XIV on the annual occasion of the Holy See's "State of the World" address. It was a first for the pontiff as he had been selected in May the prior year. This address was to the diplomats accredited to the Vatican. The 44 minute speech, on January 9, touched on a number of topics, but a few sentences in the speech seem to have set off a chain of events resonating into April. History is intractable, one never knows what will set off a chain of events that will resonate through the year, and beyond. This speech, or perhaps just a few sentences, triggered a series of events which are now, in mid-April, only coming to the public realm. 

Pope Leo Arriving to Speak to Diplomats

First, let us go back to January of this year. The speech was before the war in Iran, but after the US grabbed Nicholas Maduro, the then president of Venezuela. The US administration was also threatening to seize Greenland and make Canada the 51st state. He was making waves about the inadequacy of the NATO alliance, and the US abandoning its commitments. The NATO talk today is only worse after Europe has not become involved in the Iran conflict. The following seems to the part of the speech that has mostly drawn the ire of the US Administration.

In our time, the weakness of multilateralism is a particular cause for concern at the international level. A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force, by either individuals or groups of allies. War is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading. The principle established after the Second World War, which prohibited nations from using force to violate the borders of others, has been completely undermined. Peace is no longer sought as a gift and a desirable good in itself, or in the pursuit of “the establishment of the ordered universe willed by God, with a more perfect form of justice among men and women.” [4] Instead, peace is sought through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominion. This gravely threatens the rule of law, which is the foundation of all peaceful civil coexistence. (Bold by author)

I can only imagine the notes Brian Burch, the US Ambassador the Holy See was forming in his mind as he listened to the talk. It did not take him long to report back to his boss and how the words are counter to the Donroe doctrine. It is reported that the Pentagon took on a sentence by sentence analysis of the speech. On January 22, the then Vatican Nuncio, Cardinal Christophe Pierre, was summoned to the Pentagon. Pierre, 80 years of age, retired as nuncio in March. No notes exist for this meeting, and it is said to be highly unusual for the nuncio to be called to the Pentagon. It has been said this is likely the first visit of a nuncio to the Pentagon. This makes me wonder why the Pentagon and not the state department. Would the state department be too diplomatic? According to news reports, (following from National Catholic Reporter) "The cleric was, according to The Free Press, reportedly dressed down by officials, who insisted the Catholic Church take the U.S. government's side in military matters." It was more incendiary than that, according to "The New Republic" which quoted the original report  the US Undersecretary of War for Policy, Elbridge Colby said “The United States has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.” We now have the US engaged in yet another conflict in the Mid-East and after not asking, or building a coalition, Trump now complains that NATO countries have failed to help the US effort. Why the US needs help, if it can do whatever it wants militarily, is unanswered. 

One key point I picked up on is that on Saturday evening, April 11, Leo provided some remarks during the prayer vigil, he said two things that stand out to prove at least one aspect of the report. First, he said, Arrogance tramples upon others; second, "It is here that we find a bulwark against that delusion of omnipotence that surrounds us and is becoming increasingly unpredictable and aggressive." (bold by author). The bold portions, by author) are clearly a reference to Elbridge Colby's statement, “The United States has the military power to do whatever it wants in the world. The Catholic Church had better take its side.” 

Maybe the US is not as invincible as Colby said. After all, our military shoots down a few thousand dollar Iranian drone with multi-million dollar weapon systems. The US turned down Ukraine's offer for a system that will shoot them down that costs about $10,000. That sucking sound you hear is the military wasting money. Why be cost effective when a more expensive solution exists? Russia has been using Iranian drones in the Ukraine conflict, hence Ukraine saw the mother of invention. 

Pope Leo, 9 Jan 2026 arrives to speak to 
Diplomatic Corps

Yet, if the meeting of the Cardinal and the Undersecretary of War for Policy could get any worse, it did. One US attendee, not Colby, in what is said to be a calculated move referenced Avignon. Here is "The New Republic": 

One U.S. official present at the meeting brought up the Avignon papacy, a period in the fourteenth century in which the French monarchy bent the Catholic Church into submission, ordering an attack on Pope Boniface VIII that led to his downfall and subsequent death and forcing the papacy to relocate from Rome to Avignon, a region inside France.

Source: Chris Jansing Reports

The Avignon comment, according to the Financial Times quoted Francesco Sisci, co-founder of the Appia Institute — a geopolitical think-tank that closely tracks Vatican diplomacy, occurred after Cardinal Pierre said the Pope would be guided by his own course guided by Church values. 

Boniface, who was in office from 1294 to 1303, was in captivity for a time, and died a month later. After a short term of Benedict, the papacy moved to Avignon when Clement was elected due to machinations of the King of France. Newsweek reports the following: 

According to Mike Young, author of a newsletter on civic accountability, the mention of the “Avignon papacy” was a reference to “an implicit model for what happens to religious institutions that oppose state power.”

In a post on X, he wrote: “That’s not a slip of the tongue. That’s a studied historical reference deployed deliberately in a room with the Pope's senior diplomat. The message was not subtle.”

Christopher Hale, a former Obama campaign religion outreach official, had this quote in Newsweek: "The Vatican was so alarmed by the Pentagon’s warning that Pope Leo canceled his plans to visit the U.S. later in the year. Hale is further quoted as saying that "many in the Vatican saw the Pentagon’s reference to an Avignon papacy as a threat to use military force against the Holy See." A bit of hyperbole, perhaps, as the writer of the original article believes it absurd to think the US would use military force against the Vatican; although he thought it a clear signal from the US telling the Vatican what happens when a world power is crossed (see above comment from Mike Young). Yet, Sisci is further quoted in the Financial Times saying that the Vatican viewed this as the US setting up a rival pope as did France in the fourteenth century, if Leo did not follow the Trump line.  A Chicago News Station, NBC 5, reported that "A source close to Pope Leo XIV told NBC Chicago political reporter Mary Ann Ahern that the meeting between the Pentagon and Cardinal Christophe Pierre was 'most unpleasant and confrontational.'"  

I am not sure Trump is subtle on most anything. He is bombastic, and he likes it that way. The Pentagon dismisses the tense nature of the meeting and said it was a respectful and reasonable discussion. The US Ambassador to the Holy See said Pierre told him the meeting was frank. Pierre is a diplomat and asked now with the kerfuffle would be diplomatic about the whole situation. On Friday last week, the Vatican said the meeting was not fully as reported. I think Avignon was mentioned in the meeting, as I find it hard to believe a reporter make that reference up.  

Source: Chris Jansing Reports, quoting Vatican Official

Leo was invited to come to the US by the Trump Administration as part of the nation's 250th birthday celebration. On Feb 8, it was announced by the Vatican that he would not come to the US this year, and that on July 4 he would visit the island of Lampedusa, which was the first travel by Pope Francis. Lampedusa is an island off Sicily where many refugees arrive from Africa to get to Europe. I suspect it is a dig at the Trump Administration's immigration policies.

Whatever form this meeting took, Pierre is used to being marginalized and ignored, he and Francis' messages were often ignored by the USCCB, who had a kinder way of showing the two of them the middle finger than perhaps the DoW representatives. Many in the US episcopate were waiting out the Francis tenure. Thus, given the way Pierre was treated by US Bishops, his treatment by the Pentagon may not have seemed so bad. Francis, the US bishops said, "Did not understand the United States." I think Francis understood it better than the most US Bishops, many of whom helped create the man who sits in the oval office.

Christophe Pierre meeting with Eldridge Colby, 22 Jan 2026
It is supposed to show the cordiality between the two, but was likely 
taken before the meeting started. 
Source: The Pillar, via Dept of War

Perhaps, the Pentagon was a suitable location for the confrontation. Confrontation and war go together, and some wonder if that is what Secretary of War Hegseth is waging on the American Catholic Church. Two situations, beyond this, stand out. First, a Protestant Pastor and mentor to Hegseth said that ideally public Catholic processions, such as Marian and Eucharistic processions, should be banned as a public display of idolatry. Second, this past Good Friday, it was reported that for the first time in memory, the Pentagon did not have a Catholic Good Friday service. Invitations went out to Protestants for a Protestant service  and it said no Catholic mass (Good Friday is the only day there is not a mass, but there is a service, which was not held). This is of course after Pope Leo said that God does not listen to the prayers of persons who have blood on their hands. This statement has been refuted by some Protestant pastors, such as Franklin Graham.

While the report from Free Press may not be fully accurate, the fact that the meeting occurred, outside normal channels (Nunico to State Dept) says something about the meeting. Further, regardless of how it has been spun, the Avignon reference seems too implausible to be made up by a journalist. Further, Leo's statements about "arrogance tramples" and on "delusion of omnipotence" has a strong counter relationship to Colby's alleged comment that the US can militarily do what it wants. I think Leo is tipping is hand as to at least that part of the meeting.

Pope Leo after prayer vigil, 11 Apr 2026. Source: CNS via Vatican Media

The whole situation shows that reality is more bizarre than fiction. I don't think Dan Brown could even come up with such a scenario. Perhaps because in the end the Vatican looks like the adult in the room. Whatever the administration was hoping to accomplish with the Vatican they seemed not to have made many friends. Cardinal Parolin who this week is reported to have said that more voices are needed to back up Leo's comments on the injustice of war and the arms race and in favor the poor and marginalized. If the pope's voice is not supported, he said, it is simply a voice in the desert. A few words on January 9, to many, decent words, have set of a series of events that shows the intractability of history. History will be the judge. 

(Author Note: This post was written starting mid-last week, and completed Sunday afternoon, hence it does not capture the Trump Truth Social message or Pope Leo's response on way to Algeria.)

First two images from Vatican recorded broadcast of Leo's address on the State of the World, 9 Jan 2026.