When MAGA strategist Steve Bannon informed the Economist that Donald Trump was “a automobile of divine windfall” and “an instrument of divine will,” he was not being rhetorical. He was articulating a political theology: the declare {that a} chief, if chosen by God, stands above human regulation and temporal limits. That concept—as soon as (and nonetheless) the declare of monarchs—has reentered fashionable politics. What a decade in the past gave the impression to be a scatter of populist insurgencies now appears like a worldwide motion certain by shared metaphysics of grievance and future.
Throughout continents, actions that differ in creed converge in disposition. They sacralize exclusion, mistrust pluralism, and forged political opposition as ethical decay. In america, Christian nationalism presents itself because the protection of a persecuted majority. In Europe, Viktor Orban casts what he calls “intolerant democracy” as Christian civilization beneath siege. In South Asia, Hindu nationalism interprets majority anxiousness into divine mandate. In every case, the language of holiness serves energy: If the nation is sacred, dissent turns into blasphemy.
When MAGA strategist Steve Bannon informed the Economist that Donald Trump was “a automobile of divine windfall” and “an instrument of divine will,” he was not being rhetorical. He was articulating a political theology: the declare {that a} chief, if chosen by God, stands above human regulation and temporal limits. That concept—as soon as (and nonetheless) the declare of monarchs—has reentered fashionable politics. What a decade in the past gave the impression to be a scatter of populist insurgencies now appears like a worldwide motion certain by shared metaphysics of grievance and future.
Throughout continents, actions that differ in creed converge in disposition. They sacralize exclusion, mistrust pluralism, and forged political opposition as ethical decay. In america, Christian nationalism presents itself because the protection of a persecuted majority. In Europe, Viktor Orban casts what he calls “intolerant democracy” as Christian civilization beneath siege. In South Asia, Hindu nationalism interprets majority anxiousness into divine mandate. In every case, the language of holiness serves energy: If the nation is sacred, dissent turns into blasphemy.
The killing of Charlie Kirk accelerated this convergence. His dying remodeled him from a polarizing activist right into a unifying image throughout the nationalist proper. Bannon shortly anointed him “the America First martyr,” and conservative media framed his killing as proof that the enemies of Christian America had develop into enemies of the nation itself. Even inside the Catholic hierarchy, the language of sanctification crept in: Cardinal Timothy Dolan likened Kirk to St. Paul—the apostle who carried the Christian message throughout the traditional world. In dying, Kirk’s persona shifted from political operative to missionary determine, a vessel by which a broader motion narrated its struggling, righteousness, and international calling. Martyrdom gave Christian nationalism what it had lacked: a canonized story of sacrifice, usable by actions in america and past.
This isn’t a reprise of Nineteen Thirties fascism—there aren’t any single-party states or marching militias—however a twenty first century hybrid: digitally networked Christian soldiering, impassioned and morally justified. It thrives on nostalgia and resentment but claims transcendence. Its hazard lies in that fusion of grievance and sanctity, which renders compromise sinful and opponents demonic.
Into this area steps an unlikely actor: Pope Leo XIV.
A pope from america (as soon as thought of not possible), he was born within the Midwest and formed by years as a missionary in Peru. He’s fluent in English and the language of each U.S. conservatism and the social conscience of Latin America. He understands the emotional grammar of Christian nationalism as a result of he as soon as spoke elements of it. However his papacy has shortly signaled one other register: the hassle to reclaim Christian identification from its political captivity.
Leo’s early months have been marked by seemingly professional forma reflections on scripture and impromptu responses to media. He has denounced the weaponization of faith in wars of identification, defended migrants and refugees, and challenged those that name themselves pro-life whereas supporting the dying penalty or the “inhuman therapy of immigrants.” Talking by video hyperlink from the Vatican on Nov. 21, the pontiff took on the politicization of religion, warning roughly 15,000 cheering younger folks gathered in a stadium in Indianapolis for the Nationwide Catholic Youth Convention to “watch out to not use political classes to discuss religion,” including that “the church doesn’t belong to any political occasion.”
Beneath his quiet stress, the U.S. Convention of Catholic Bishops—lengthy divided and cautious, besides when it got here to the politically charged situation of abortion—voted overwhelmingly in Baltimore earlier this month to oppose the Trump administration’s mass deportations, calling present rhetoric and violence towards migrants “dehumanizing.” The vote modified no coverage but it surely did change posture: For the primary time in years, the church spoke with readability towards a politics of concern.
That second revealed Leo’s methodology. He acts institutionally however thinks theologically, restoring an ethical horizon to democratic life. The place nationalist actions declare divine sanction for energy, he insists that energy should reply to conscience. His mission is just not partisan resistance however ethical reorientation.
Historical past gives a precedent. When St. John Paul II returned to his native Poland in 1979, his message—“Be not afraid”—undermined a regime constructed on concern. He didn’t defeat communism alone, however he uncovered its non secular incoherence and weak spot. Leo faces a special adversary: not an ideology that seeks to abolish the non secular however reasonably to monopolize it. Each try to outline the human individual in their very own picture. Each require theological correction as a lot as political opposition.
Whether or not Leo can play that function will depend on credibility. The church’s unresolved failures—the exclusion of girls from ordination, the legacy of abuse and cover-up—shadow any ethical marketing campaign. If he confronts these wounds with candor, he strengthens his authority; if he evades them, he weakens it. However his instincts thus far counsel a pope prepared to threat controversy for conscience. He appears to know that the competition forward is over ethical authority itself: who has the fitting to outline advantage in public life.
That contest can be most acute in america. Among the many radicalized younger proper—the extremist “groypers,” ultra-traditionalists, and on-line agitators—spiritual language now fuses with political nihilism. They converse of windfall, future, and divine vengeance; they see Trump much less as president than as chosen instrument. As establishments fray and violence turns into thinkable, the concept the divine outranks the regulation is gaining adherents. If that theology takes root, democratic legitimacy will purchase a rival supply of authority.
The 2026 midterms could crystallize this collision. A polarized citizens, emboldened militias, and church buildings claiming non secular mandate may flip political battle into an ethical campaign. A papal pastoral go to wouldn’t merely be ceremonial. Think about the visible of Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the Holy Father aspect by aspect outdoors St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York Metropolis. Or Leo, the vicar of Christ, within the MAGA lion’s den—the gilded White Home palace with its outsized grand ballroom—face-to-face with a motion and a U.S. administration that claims Christianity whereas defying its ethic of mercy. His phrases may matter exactly as a result of they might converse from inside the identical custom, reclaiming its ethical vocabulary. He may remind believers that cruelty is just not braveness, that patriotism with out compassion is idolatry, and that concern has by no means been a Christian advantage.
Skeptics could dismiss such gestures as symbolic. But symbols form legitimacy. The battle towards Christian nationalism is not going to be gained by coverage papers or social media rebuttals however by re-anchoring ethical creativeness. The nationalist declare is that religion should shield order by exclusion; Leo’s counterclaim is that religion calls for justice by inclusion. Every gives a imaginative and prescient of human dignity and divine objective. Just one can prevail.
Past america, related theological contests are unfolding: Orthodox traditionalism in Russia, Pentecostal moralism in Africa, Hindu majoritarianism in India, Buddhist supremacism in Myanmar. Every asserts that pluralism is weak spot and that the state should guard non secular purity. In opposition to this mosaic of illiberalisms stands a diffuse however widening coalition—liberal democracies, civil society networks, reasonable religion leaders—united by the protection of human dignity however fragmented in language and technique. Leo XIV could develop into an sudden bridge amongst them, providing an ethical lexicon that transcends political alignment.
His problem—and maybe his historic alternative—is to revive the excellence between religion and energy with out surrendering both. If John Paul II helped dismantle a system that attempted to extinguish the spirit, Leo faces a motion that seeks to weaponize it. The hazard is subtler however no much less profound. When the sacred is conscripted for political ends, the outcome is just not holiness however the glorification of nationwide energy as divine mandate reasonably than an earthly electoral or constitutional one.
The collision that’s shaping up will take a look at establishments and imaginations alike. Its consequence will hinge on whether or not ethical authority can once more restrain political absolutism. Historical past seldom declares turning factors, but it surely generally gives warnings. We live in a single. The query is now not whether or not faith belongs in public life—it all the time has—however whether or not it should serve freedom or sanctify domination. Pope Leo XIV, improbably, could assist determine the matter.
