Just as Obama Denounced Rev. Wright, Catholics Should Denounce Trump
The 44th president made a tough call for the sake of his campaign. Trump supporters should make a similar one for their own salvation.
By Carron J. Phillips
If he isn’t the Antichrist, he’s giving it his best shot.
In the latest episode of “You can’t do that, but we can,” Catholics and MAGA members who believe in God and voted for Donald Trump are in yet another predicament that is exposing their flawed beliefs.
The president’s attack on Pope Leo XIV, his posting of a now-deleted image depicting himself as Jesus healing people, and his cancelation of $11 million in contracts that helped Catholic Charities shelter and care for migrant children are stories that aren’t going away as quickly as other catastrophes from this administration. They’re also reminders of how Trump’s presence in American politics has stripped the decency and decorum previously associated with the highest office in the land.
In his initial presidential run, Barack Obama had to do some soul-searching. He ultimately decided to do what was best for his chances at becoming America’s first Black president: denounce his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who had a history of saying uncomfortable things.
Wright once suggested that HIV was invented by the government to use against minorities. “Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,” he said. Wright also insinuated that Obama participated in political rhetoric. “If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected,” he declared. “Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.”
Eighteen years ago, this country wasn’t cool with a Black pastor from Chicago (who had been Obama’s spiritual advisor) saying things like that. “I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday,” Obama said about Wright at the time.
In a country that supposedly values the separation of church and state, Obama chose his country over his pastor and his pastor’s sometimes radical views. Given that precedent set almost 20 years ago and the current president’s recent actions, it’s clear what Catholics and faith-based Christians who support this regime must do.
But will they?
Heavens, no.
“Pope Leo said things that are wrong,” Trump said when explaining why he won’t apologize to His Holiness. “He was very much against what I’m doing with regard to Iran.”
“I think he’s very weak on crime.”
The idea of the pope wanting peace with the potential of a nuclear war hanging over our heads and the president treating him as if he’s a Democrat who deserves condemnation is a terrible campaign message from the right. Especially when you realize that this is a political party that wants prayer and the Ten Commandments in schools while demanding the pope stay out of politics. However, that has not stopped the president’s allies from falling in line. Vice President JD Vance laughably believes that the situation is not “particularly newsworthy” and that the Vatican should stick to “matters of morality.” FOX News’ Sean Hannity questioned whether the pope “even reads the Bible.” And Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) didn’t have the fortitude to side with this heavenly father nor his political one.
“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic, and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” Pope Leo declared recently. He said the world is “being ravaged by a handful of tyrants” a day after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth quoted a fake Bible verse from “Pulp Fiction” at a Pentagon prayer service.
Unsurprisingly, there has yet to be a major public rebuke from a prominent Republican religious leader, as the words of Matthew 7:3-5 are playing out before us. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, however, released a statement defending one of their own in Pope Leo, in which they referenced the belief that a just war “must be a defense against another who actively wages war.” Consequently, Father Edward Beck, a Chaplain at Manhattan University, added further context during a recent appearance on CNN.
“I’m just really struck by the fact that you have the Pope visiting the poorest countries in Africa, the most war-torn regions, really being a follower of Christ, and you have a president who’s depicting himself as actually being Christ. It’s very ironic to me,” he explained.
An old comedian once said, “Black folks want to be ‘Christlike.’ White people want to be Jesus.”
Last fall, a book about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright focused “on his patriotic promotion of inclusion within the church and society.” For many, Wright is a minor footnote in history. But, at a time like this, he serves as a case study in what is deemed acceptable at the intersection of politics and religious doctrine, particularly while this country is being led by a man who once claimed that the Bible was his favorite book while being unable to share what his preferred verses and testaments were.
“The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.” — John 10:10.
Carron J. Phillips is an award-winning journalist who writes on race, culture, social issues, politics, and sports. He hails from Saginaw, Michigan, and is a graduate of Morehouse College and Syracuse University. Follow his personal Substack to keep up with more of his work.
The problem is abortion. I’m Catholic and I know many of my co-religionists think that the GOP is THE pro life party because they oppose abortion. They think that is the only issue they are required to consider when they vote, The fact that the GOP is willing to send people to concentration camps where they are treated inhumanely and take away people’s healthcare so people will literally die, or rescinding funds appropriated for the poorest of the poor through out the world doesn’t seem to click as pro life issues. When Pope Leo speaks out against these things makes them dislike the Pope, not Trump. It’s very sad because that’s not the teachings of Jesus I’ve encountered in the Bible. And, yes, Catholics read the Bible. In fact, the Catholic Church compiled the written Bible from stories handed down from the early generations of Christians. Every Catholic daily mass has at least 3 readings from various books of the Bible and 4 on Sunday. The Catholics don’t read the Bible trope is a shot across the bow dating back to the reformation.
Is the point of this article that 'Just as Obama Denounced Rev. Wright, Catholics Should Denounce Trump' as the headline says, or about the double standard 'in what is deemed acceptable at the intersection of politics and religious doctrine', as the last paragraph says? The writer doesn't seem sure.
Not only that, but the passage about Rev. Wright and Obama only shows Obama proving the reverend's point.
Take the two quotes from Rev. Wright given here at face value:
“Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,”
OK, there is no evidence to show that 'HIV was invented by the government to use against minorities'. But there are centuries of evidence that shows the US government's cruelty and violent oppression of Black people and indigenous people in this country, among others. There is also a long history of the US government not giving one iota about the millions of people here and around the world that have died from HIV/AIDS, especially in Africa. That same goverment did not care when gay men were dying left and right when HIV/AIDs first ravaged the US either.
There is also ample evidence of the same government committing barbarous acts through experimentation on humans and of using biological warfare, going back to giving Native Americans smallpox infected blankets in the first days of European colonization, not to mention centuries of human enslavement and genocide. Rev. Wright's comments about the Tuskegee experiment is of course true, and not an isolated incident.
Then the author writes and quotes:
'Wright also insinuated that Obama participated in political rhetoric. “If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected,” he declared. “Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.” '
It is of course 100% true that Obama, like practically all national level politicians, "participated in political rhetoric". There is nothing controversial about that charge at all.
“If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected,” is a bit vague but again, there is nothing controversial there. It is certainly far from some outrageous, slanderous falsehood.
“Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls.” is as true as it gets.
And, Obama exactly proved Wright's point, when he denounced 'the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his pastor for 20 years.' (quoted from the link given in the article above). Obama then said "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago".
Really? Did anyone honestly believe that, then or now, given how long Obama knew Rev. Wright? That all the sudden out of nowhere, the reverend said these supposedly outrageous things Obama couldn't live with, when he was now running for President? And that he was just shocked...shocked! to hear these comments?
All this is meant as a comparison to Trump, the author writing 'The 44th president made a tough call for the sake of his campaign. Trump supporters should make a similar one for their own salvation.'
This also makes no sense. comparing a presidential candidates denouncement of his past reverend, to the denouncement of an entire movement of people of a current President who has had a lifetime of lies and racism, is apples to blowing balls.
But then at the end, the writer states "(Rev. Wright) serves as a case study in what is deemed acceptable at the intersection of politics and religious doctrine", as if the double standard is the point here.
So which is it? Should we ask MAGA to follow Obama's lead? Or is the banishing of Rev. Wright when compared to Trump's continued power an example of American's racist double standard?
The second point makes a lot more sense, but the rest of the piece, or the headline, doesn't suggest this at all.
But even then, it isn't clear what the point is...above the writer claims 'Obama chose his country over his pastor' but then he says Obama made a 'tough call for the sake of his campaign', which is obviously not the same as 'choosing your country' and also again proves Wright's point.