We’ve already seen how Newsmax columnist Michael Dorstewitz believes he can lecture the pope about religion. Solange Reyner weighted in on President Trump’s beef with the pope in an April 17 article:
Tensions between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV are stirring unease among U.S. Catholics, exposing a familiar but deepening divide between political loyalty and religious leadership.
The latest flashpoint came Saturday when Pope Leo suggested during evening prayers at St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City that a “delusion of omnipotence” surrounded the Iran war.
“Enough of the idolatry of self and money! Enough of the display of power! Enough of war! True strength is shown in serving life,” Leo said.
Trump fired back on Truth Social with a lengthy post, blasting the Pope as “soft on crime” and accusing him of aligning with the “radical left.”
He later shared, and then deleted, an AI-generated image portraying himself as a Christ-like healer, a move that sparked backlash from both critics and some of his own supporters.
Newsmax appeared to take sides in a May 5 article by Michael Katz:
President Donald Trump escalated his public feud with Pope Leo XIV, suggesting the first American-born pontiff’s opposition to the U.S. conflict with Iran is putting Catholics in danger.
During a Monday appearance with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Trump was discussing whether he would raise the case of imprisoned Hong Kong journalist Jimmy Lai with Chinese President Xi Jinping during a planned visit to Beijing later this month. Trump said he would, and Hewitt added, “I wish the Pope would.”
“Well, the Pope would rather talk about the fact that it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” Trump said. “And I don’t think that’s very good. I think he’s endangering a lot of Catholics and a lot of people. But I guess if it’s up to the Pope … he thinks it’s just fine for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
Leo has been outspoken against the joint U.S.-Israeli military operation targeting Iran’s political leadership and military infrastructure. He has never publicly stated he wants the regime to have a nuclear weapon.
Katz did not offer any evidence to back up Trump’s claim the that the pope thinks “it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, though he did note the pope saying that “the Church has spoken out against all nuclear weapons, so there is no doubt on that point.” That would seem to discredit Trump, but Katz doesn’t seem to want to talk about that.
The next day, John Tantillo spent a column arguing that the real issue between the two is branding:
Branding principles can serve to illuminate the underlying motivations and strategies behind the “clash” between President Donald Trump and Pope Leo XIV, helping readers grasp the deeper dynamics at play.
Like it or not, marketers can help us understand what’s going on, shedding some light as to why both personalities are correct in the positions on issues they’ve taken.
Acknowledging and clarifying these brands’ roles can help readers feel more connected and see their relevance in this clash.
First, our nation’s 47th commander in chief’s brand is that of the leader of the free world, whose responsibilities include protecting, globally, those who seek to harm the innocent.
Pope Leo, on the other hand, has the brand of a holy man whose role is to educate and counsel his followers (the flock) on the best moral choices, especially when confronting complex ethical matters.
The pope’s brand, it may be argued, is one of an ideologist, challenging believers to act in the most moral way they can.
[…]For the partisan, there are plenty of arguments to support their position in the battle-of-the-brands debate. For the thoughtfulperson, it’s not that easy.
Here, one must address the brand issue, appreciate each brand and what it represents, and agree that both personalities’ positions have merit.
And that’s why it’s so much easier to evaluate moral/ethical matters when one has branding in mind.
Weird that Tantillo thinks Trump has a duty to protect the entire world and the pope doesn’t.