The Pope and the Pentagon

 This week, a news report broke which claimed that the Pentagon had demanded a meeting with the Vatican's US envoy, Cardinal Christophe Pierre; wherein they threatened the Roman Church unless the Pope "fell in line" with the President's administration's ideas.  On the surface that seems a fairly salacious and horrifying thing, yes?   But when we read the story further, it begins to fall apart at the seams. 

Firstly, it was reported by "Free Press", not known for being a bastion of journalistic integrity to begin with.  Secondly, they name that famous person who knows all, sees all, hears all, as their source for the report- Anonymous Source.  There are no more deceptive words used in journalism than the lines "Anonymous sources report"  and "it is reported".  Neither require proof, they require no facts, they don't even require citation; putting journalistic integrity beneath high school and college term/ research papers, which get docked for points if you don't cite every single source even for just use of a singular term. 

Thirdly, this meeting took place at the beginning of January.  3 months ago, and yet all of a sudden it's news?  I suppose with the prospect of the war in Iran coming to a conclusion and the very real possibility of actual change coming to the Middle East and soon, the press was having a slow couple of news days and needed a scandal.  If such things had happened at the meeting between the Vatican envoy and the Pentagon in January, we would have heard about it LOOOOOONG ago.  They claim that this is the reason why Pope Leo has decided against visiting the US in 2026; despite the Bishop of Rome stating several times in 2025 that he had no plans to go to the US in the coming year.  

Fourth and what should be final, all of the individuals who were actually involved in the meeting have agreed and publicly stated that the claims about the meeting's purpose and context has been grossly misstated and misrepresented.  While I do not doubt that there was concern on the part of the Pentagon for national security, in the instance that an American Pope should make public denouncements against an American president and cause potential acts of violence (similar to when Islamic leaders call for the death of western personages); to say that the Pentagon "threatened them with the Avignon papacy" shows both a lack of understanding of history, as well as lack of insight into how diplomatic exchanges work. 

Firstly, though in the 14th century there was substantial pressure on the papacy from the French crown, there was equally substantial pressure from every western nation from England to Spain as well.  That, coupled with infighting and consistent violence from Italian nobles and political factions, led Pope Clement V to settle the Roman Curia in a Dominican priory (as he himself was a Dominican) in Avignon.  The Pope chose a location that placed the church's administration out of the hands of the political factions, into the hands of a kingdom where they were promised protection.  Avignon was not under the thumb of the French king in any respect apart from proximity; as the counts of Avignon who were the secular authority in the area, were actually Papal Vassals, under the Pope's authority.  Did the kings of France have influence over the papacy during this period?  Of course.  However to suggest that they were keeping the Pope as prisoner there, is a VAST overstatement.  In truth, the Pope was quite at liberty to do whatever pleased him; even returning to Rome when Gregory XI decided it was time to do so, freely.   So, Avignon is less a threat than it is a lesson in why people should not invoke historical periods that they don't understand.  

BUT, even if the Pentagon had indeed threatened the Pope, would that not be foolish?  Indeed it would.  This is why it is inconceivable that anyone who would be knowledgeable enough to invoke the Avignon papacy period, would do so as a threat against the Pope.   In short, the Pope has the authority to impose something called a Papal Interdict wherever he chooses; an act which commands that no sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church may take place in the mentioned territory, until the Pope says they can resume.  The Pope of Rome is not defenseless, and has such weapons which can bring severe blows to a sovereign nation if he uses them.  So to threaten him would not only be supremely stupid from a political perspective, but would also be a point which anyone who knows the history of the Catholic Church would be well aware of.   

Logically speaking, and not looking at things in an all too popular emotional manner as modern "journalists" are wanton to do, the entire accusation of the Pentagon 'threatening' the Pope simply does not pass muster.  Apart from the plain and simple fact that the Vatican's own ambassador (who was the one allegedly threatened) saying it didn't happen, there are the logical and substantial fallacies in the purported reasoning of the press reports claiming it did.   

As Edgar Allen Poe once said: "Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see".