Transcription
And welcome back. I am joined here with Christopher Hail. We're going to be talking about the parents of the Iranian school children, uh, who were recently killed. The parents have now written a letter thanking Pope Leo for speaking up about the war. And Christopher, uh, put out an article, really not necessarily breaking the story, but certainly giving it a great deal of prominence and notoriety. And so I wanted to invite him to come on and talk about it. Welcome to the show, Christopher. How are you?
>> Thank you for having me. I appreciate being on. I'm well. Yourself?
>> Doing well. Now, I think you told me that you didn't actually break the story, but I saw everyone quoting you on that.
>> Well, it's, um, the, I think what we have seen in this war again and again is you have, um, Iranian reporters who have, who, who are not really connected to the Western media sources. And so, um, I have been in contact with quite a few of them, uh, particularly since the incident, uh, on Palm Sunday, uh, if you recall the incident where Cardinal Petala was refused entry into the holy church of Holy Supplr.
>> Um, and there's been a, there's been a blackout of sorts, I think, a while with Western media about reporters on the ground. We even saw that again. Um, it took a while for that story about IDF destroying the crucifix in southern Lebanon to actually get any kind of pickup in the Western media. So I think that, um, yes, so the original sourcing of it was from, um, an Iranian reporter. Um, it has been, it has been validated. I cannot say how far, like if it's, who whose hands it got to, but I do know it was sent to Rome and sorted. So yes, uh, that I, I definitely was helped, uh, lift the story in Western media, but I cannot take credit with actually originally finding the letter.
>> So tell me about the letter and what you wrote about it.
>> Sure. So this letter was written from the victims of the, the bombing. As you might know, as your readers, listeners should know, um, on the first day of this war, on February 2, uh, February 28th, um, there was a bombing of a school in Minav, Iran, and it killed over a 100 school children. Um, and, um, it was a deeply distressing circumstances behind it. We, uh, the United States has yet to take, um, responsibility for it. However, high-ranking officials in the Pentagon have acknowledged that the United States did it. Even, uh, your states, your United States Senator John Kennedy has acknowledged that in fact, this was done by the United States. And so I think it becomes a testimony in a lot of ways to what the unjust nature of this war and the tragedy of it is. And so they wrote this beautiful letter, um, to Pope Leo the 14th. Um, Pope Leo the 14th has been, of course, as you've been covering on your show, the most vocal, one of the most vocal opponents to this war, though some in the Episcopacy of the United States seem to try to downplay it. And, um, the le, the letter itself, I thought was so beautiful. It was written by the parents of the 168 children. And so I just want to read a portion of it to your, to your listeners. And this is the part that really struck me the most.
>> "Today, the empty chairs of the classrooms of Anob are bitter testaments to this very truth. A two, a truth brought out by the making of American bombs directed by illogical warmongers. We thank you, that's Pope Leo, that amidst this torment of war, you have become the voice of righteousness and reminded everyone that lasting peace and tranquility are achieved not through force and weapons, but through the path of dialogue and genuine search for a solution for all."
And I think what's remarkable and what's strikes me about this is a lot of times, um, the US has really spoken about, we're doing this for the people of Iran. They've talked correctly about these, um, protests that caused, um, that were, that were against the regime in January, where unfortunately the Iranian regime retaliated, killing hundreds, if not thousands of their own citizens. But there's always the victims of war, nevertheless. And I think that that is really what Pope Leo the 14th has tried again and again and again to say, it's about the innocent children, the innocent victims of this war. And that's what he's most concerned about. And on the first day that we execute this war, our bombs do this. And so I think the letter is poignant. I think as well, um, just in terms of working in politics as I do, I think it's poignant that the Iranian regime has tried, and citizens have really tried to lift up Pope Leo the 14th as a champion of peace, while our president here at home has, has obviously detracted the, the Pope Leo's appeals for peace. And we, of course, we have these situations with Israel as well, with his anti-Christian, uh, actions done by IDF and of course, the police in Jerusalem.
>> Yeah, it's a pretty stark contrast. We see the president of the United States openly opposing the Pope. But then we saw the Iranian president actually write, um, on Twitter or on X, thanking Pope Leo and speaking very well of him and even defending him and apologizing for how Trump has spoken to him. It's quite the difference.
>> It is. And so, and I think that it really represents a dangerous game that the president of the United States is playing here. Um, we, um, in the Middle East, they know that the support of Western Christians is so tantamount and so important when these conflicts occur. Obviously, the Israeli, uh, regime has tried for 40, 50 years in the United States, through really through the evangelical right and through Catholics as well, to get support of the Christian community for their cause. And so when you open up these divides like this, when you create situations like this, where you have a chance for the Iranian regime to say, actually, no, we stand with the Pope, you do not. That creates a dangerous game for the president of the United States. New polling came out just today. I don't have the sourcing of the poll. I believe it was through YouGov, and I believe NBC has similar polling as well, that President Trump's attacks on Pope Leo the 14th have brought down his numbers a little bit. And I think that is expected. His numbers are in the 60s or so support, that's pretty low for a Pope. But we saw, we saw it in being the age before, but his attacks on Pope Leo the 14th have not brought him down to making him a partisan figure. He is still not a partisan figure. He's above the fray. So appeals to the Pope, even half of MAGA supporters say they still support Pope Leo the 14th. Um, appeals to the Pope in trying to to wrap yourself as supporting the Pope still matter. And I think that you're going to see that this is going to hurt the president's support among his base, but also among the electorate at large for this war. Also though, I think in Iran as well, it gives a righteousness to their cause. Um, obviously the Iranian regime has done horrific things, but if it can convince its people that it's having support from the Catholic Church, that it has supporters across the globe, it gives a sense of mission and I think it allows them to continue on longer and longer.
>> So what do you make of figures like JD Vance openly professing to be a Catholic, a committed Catholic, and yet not only contradicting the Pope, but attempting to lecture him on theology, telling him to stay out of politics, stick to faith and morals, as if there's a contradiction and a diametric opposition between the two? What do you make of this?
>> You know, even just yesterday, Pope Leo the 14th said there's no difference between the spiritual realm and the political realm. He said they're one, one and the same. And I think that what struck me about it was he didn't just say, I disagree with the church, which, you know, look, my party, obviously I'm a Democrat, everyone knows that, has profound disagreements with the church that I disagree with them on, on abortion in particular. But I say that my party at least says that they disagree with the church. They don't try to say the church is wrong. They don't try to mis, miscalculate or mischaracterize the church's teaching. And so I think it's really a, a dark hole that he's sent himself down to, to, to offer perhaps that he understood just war doctrine or Catholic teaching better than the Pope did. And so to, so there's really two possibilities. One was he understood it better, or two, does it actually have impact? And I think that either of those statements are, are non-starters in Catholic theology. Perhaps we'll talk about this a little bit as well. I mean, it seems like Bishop Robert Barron really went with the second understanding, that the church itself cannot declare, is what he said in his tweet yesterday, whether or not a war is just or unjust. And that seems to me to be incorrect. I mean, I think Archbishop Brogio himself, who is the, the Archbishop of Military Services in the United States, has said explicitly time and again, this is an unjust war.
>> Yeah. Um, it's kind of a shocking statement to make, right? That the church is not able to determine and declare whether a war is right or wrong. That would seem to assume that wars don't impact faith and morals, um, which of course is false. I mean, the magisterium has consistently taught, uh, that wars do, uh, touch on faith and morals, and that's why the church can speak about matters of politics and war. The catechism of the Catholic Church notes this. So it, it seems like there's a faulty assumption in there.
>> Yes. And I think it shows with Bishop Barron time and again, I, you know, um, I grew up in a Catholic church that we did not have great catechism. You know, uh, it was, I was born in '89. Um, I really came to faith in a lot of ways throughout my undergraduate experience and then postgraduate experience from a lot of what Bishop Barron did, like the Catholicism series in 2011. I, that premiered on PBS. These were beautiful testaments and apology, apologia for the Catholic faith. I fear in the past few years that he's really gone away from that, um, apologist mentality of catechizing, of evangelizing for the faith, and really becoming an evangelist, I think, for, for MAGA, for Donald Trump. And it seems that his willingness to sidestep church teaching and to downplay its impact if it negatively impacts the, um, presidency of Donald Trump is on full display here. He's a smart man. I mean, he's a very well-educated, erudite man. So it's, he's not, he's not naive. He's not dumb. I could make maybe that argument for JD Vance. He's only been in Catholicism for now seven years, but I can't make the same argument for, for Bishop Barron. Um, this, he knows better. He knows that the church can and ought to take moral stances on these because, as you said, they affect, they affect faith and morals. These are not, um, these are not questions of narrow policy disputes that are only in the credential realm. The church should and ought to speak on this. I think that it, it shows a pattern again with Bishop Barron. We, I think you covered that he, he really downplayed, uh, I know you had a little back and forth between the comments in YouTube, but he really downplayed what Pope Leo himself had been saying on this war. So he, he, he took the Pope's clear denunciations of what was going on and tried to downplay it to Ben Shapiro. And so it's just a very strange pattern that we've been seeing really for the past months and years with Bishop Barron. I miss the old Bishop Barron. I, I miss, I miss a man who created the catechism, the Catholicism series. I miss the great evangelist who was true to the magisterium and did not put politics first.
>> It seems like there's also an assumption on part of many that credential judgments are somehow in a different category as faith and morals. But credential judgments are judgments of faith and morals. They're just taking principles that are general and they're applying them to the specific, but they do touch on faith and morals. And so I've been hearing people say, "Well, this is a credential judgment of the Pope, so I'm free to disagree with it." It's not that simple. Credential judgments require religious submission of intellect and will because they are not somehow opposed to faith and morals. They are a judgment of faith and morals, and these are authentic acts of the ordinary Magisterium. In very, very rare cases does Donatus say a theologian under very extreme circumstances can withhold assent. But those are again, very exceptional. But I've noticed that it seems like a lot of people are operating with the assumption that, hey, all of this, it's just credential judgments. It's not faith and morals. And so I could take it or leave it when it comes to the Pope's judgments. And it seems to me that's a misreading of the magisterium.
>> And I think it shows that there's a real question of what comes first. Um, Americanism, um, from its core, has had tremendous skepticism, even among the Catholic community, about the primacy of Peter, about, uh, the Petrine ministry, and how much he should impact our daily lives and our politics. Um, and in the United States, I see here that there's really a question I have, um, as an American Catholic, as a citizen of the United States, about how we go back and forth on whether or not we assent, we assent to the teaching of the church. And it seems to me that the unfortunate reality is, we've known, um, from my own party, that cafeteria Catholicism was wide, heavily open, um, on, on issues of family life, of abortion, of marriage, etc. I think what we're seeing is the cafeteria is open on the other side of the aisle as well, that there's an unwillingness to, to, um, defer to the teachings of the church, if it goes against the president of the United States. And I want to go back to what I said earlier, Michael. I think that from, I've looked at these numbers for a long time. The lowest numbers we ever saw for a papal approval rating in this country was about 68% with Benedict the 16th. Um, that was really in after the, the re-upping of the sex abuse scandal in 2010 with Ireland. Um, he left with about 75% approval ratings. Uh, Benedict, so Benedict had 75, Leo's at 78, Francis has 78, somewhere around there. It's a very common approval rating for the Pope. But if we were to believe these new numbers today, that gone down to 60, Donald Trump's attacking of the Pope does have impacts. And it concerns me too, because you see his approval ratings going around the down among Catholic Republicans as well. And so I think it really challenges all of us on the left or the right to ask ourselves, where is our first home? Where is our first, uh, privilege? Where is our first authority? Um, because if we allow politics to become first and foremost in our fidelity, we're going to get situations like this. I always remember what Benedict the 16th said. He said, in truth and intolerance, I'm misquoting him, but he says that when politics attempts, attempts to be messianic, it attempts to be, uh, divine, it actually becomes demonic. And I think that's what we've had to happen here is we, we've actually idolized politics, our leaders on the left and the right, and allowed their views to usurp the teachings of the church.
>> This also reminds me of something I've noticed with, um, more Democrats and and and liberals. Um, it seems like Biden and others who profess Catholicism, uh, would attempt to make a distinction between their personal convictions on say, matters of abortion, and their policies. It, it seems to me that that's now going on with figures like JD Vance and the Republican party. It seems that they're also trying to make a radical distinction there. Although in this case, JD Vance is not saying that he agrees with the Pope theologically, but he is trying to, on the one hand, one hand, um, play both sides of the fence. He's trying to ultimately appease Trump over and against the very Catholic profession that he professes. So it seems like it's becoming two sides to the same coin.
>> It is. And I think what's a challenge for us, for those who are Catholics in partisan life, like myself, for my colleagues on the right, is I think I believe that our faith challenges us to change the mold of our parties. Like I want the Cath, I want the Democratic party to look more like the social magisterium of the Catholic Church. And when those are in contest, um, I have to, I think, as a faithful Catholic, know that and be clear about that and acknowledge that and attempt to change it, attempt to change it, attempt to modify the Democratic Party of the United States to be more faithful to what our faith teaches. I find that I think that I'm in the minority in my party of saying that. Um, I think that what you said is exactly right. There's an attempt that essentially I will agree and, um, and profess and honor what the Catholic Church teaches and holds until it affects the partisan politics that I involve myself in. And what I found so interesting about JD Vance's claims, it reminded me of John Kennedy's, uh, speech to the Houston ministers, Baptist ministers in the 1960s. Obviously, anti-Catholicism was so core, um, to the American experiment then, even more so than now. Al Smith probably lost the presidency for being Catholic. Um, and he, as your listeners know, he's basically said that I won't take orders from Rome. I won't take, um, any kind of, um, uh, Rome will, Rome will deal with religion, I will deal with politics. And, um, Rick Santorum, when he was running for president in 2012, a Republican, said that that speech quote made him want to puke. And so I don't know if it made anyone want to puke, but it, it struck me as an overcorrection for what he feared of of anti-Catholicism. He was trying to win an election, no doubt about it.
>> It seems to me that JD Vance was doing the exact same speech, uh, a week ago, and now it's coming from the right. Um, and it strikes me as particularly profound that he did it when there's an American Pope. This is not someone who doesn't understand the United States. Pope Leo the 14th is a very learned, smart, intrepid leader. He knows what he's doing. Um, unlike what, what Bishop Barron said, he's not, we're not misunderstanding him, or he's not, he's not asking us to, he knows exactly what he's saying and doing. We don't have to, um, we don't have to coddle him and pretend like he's not telling us what he's telling us. And so I felt that was a rebirth to 1960, but of course, this time it's coming from the right.
>> I was thinking the exact same thing about JFK. I'm glad that, uh, others are noticing the similarity there as well. I want to bring it back to something that you mentioned at the very beginning, and that is this idea of soldiers attacking a crucifix, a statue of Jesus. I think you said that the media was kind of slow to, uh, get this story. When did it actually happen?
>> We don't know. So, we know that photo appeared originally sometime over the weekend, but from my understanding, that the, the sledgehammer to, to the crucifix happened a few days ago. And also too, we're just getting word there's a lot of IDF, um, activities that are anti-Christian that they, they've, they've done in southern Lebanon. Of course, I mean, guess what? About a month ago, we lost a priest. A priest was killed, um, from IDF bombs in southern Lebanon. It seems these stories are slow to get out to, to the West. And I don't know the reason why. I think there's a few. Let's give the most plaus, let's give the biggest, um, the media the fence is they don't have sources on the ground in southern Lebanon. So they can't trust or know who these people are reporting it. But I find too that there does seem to be a, a cover-up of sorts, or a, a playing down of any kind of anti-Christian actions in the Middle East. I think that it's an uncomfortable part of the Israel nation-state that occurs, and I think a lot of reporters in the United States, a lot of the press in the United States is uncomfortable reporting on it. And so I think that's why it gets pushed down. I think I've been lucky to kind of be on this. My background is in partisan politics, but I'm very close with, um, I guess you would say drivers and influencers of the news in the United States, and obviously I care about deeply about anti-Christian actions in the Middle East, but also too, obviously the Democratic party has probably maybe not been on the forefront of their mind historically. I think now that Trump's executing this war, the uncomfortable truth is that they care more about it. I think that they care more about it because they don't like who's, who's, um, proliferating the war. And so I think that's been, I think I've been able to kind of stand in that margins of sorts and get those stories out and maybe get some more of the people on the left to care about, and thus maybe media to care about it as well. If that makes sense.
>> It does. And I think what's going on here in part could be that it appears the media, for various reasons, is very pro-Zionist, pro-Israel, at least traditional media. And look, it's no secret that Christian Zionism is what's funding this war. So if you just add those two together, it would make sense why the media wants to hide any anti-Christian elements from the IDF because again, who is paying for this war and paying for the IDF to do these things? Christian Zionists. Mostly evangelicals, right?
>> So, not all evangelicals do, but
>> No.
>> Uh, but I think this is why
>> it strikes me that a moment. So I, I'll tell you, so your users, your listeners can go and so I wrote an article for Fox News, of all places, in short, October 7th attacks. And I felt that a lot of people in my party, I think there is an anti-Semitic streak in the Democratic party. I think it exists in the Republican parties. It's part of culture at large. And I said that I, I was talking about Rashida Talib and, um, Ilhan Omar, they made comments that I thought were anti-Semitic after the October 7th attacks. So my own vista, my own perspective of support for Israel as a nation state was quite high after October 7th, after the terrorist attacks of October 7th, and remained quite high for some time. I have found that there were two big moments for me where I started wondering if that support was misplaced, deeply misplaced, and both of them actually happened over the summer. And I, and I wonder if you felt in conservative circles, you saw this the same way. The Tucker Carlson interview with Ted Cruz, uh, last summer, that during the first strikes, um, that President Trump executed on Iran was fascinating. Obviously, I'm not a huge fan of either man, but the realization that I don't think I understood Christian Zionism, I don't think I actually understood what it meant, that they actually thought there was a biblical equivalence of Israel with the nation state of Israel. And to be able to see Tucker Carlson undress, uh, Ted Cruz in such a profound way, that was a moment that got a lot of attention in my communities on the left, even though there's two right-wing actors, at least historically. And then the second one, of course, I think maybe struck you as well, was the bombing of Holy Family Parish, Father Gabriel's parish, who Pope Francis famously called every night these last 18 months of his, his pontificate. And those were moments where I started wondering that perhaps we were not getting the full story of what was going on. That there was more to be told that what I thought was kind of some left-wing cranks, honestly, in my own, my own movement, knew more what they were talking about, that we weren't getting the full story of what was happening in Gaza at the time, um, and now in Iran. And so my skepticism has grown significantly over time. Even that story of the bombing, um, in of the church in, in Gaza, I don't think got enough coverage. I mean, it's a very big deal that the only Catholic parish in Gaza was accidentally, they'll use IDF's claim, but was targeted and hit by a bomb. And so, I think that I've grown in your skepticism of the, the objectivity and the correct spotlighting of the coverage of, of the media in the United States of what's going on.
>> I commend you for that. And also for anybody who's still just kind of new to the conversation, you know, I just interviewed last week right here on the channel, Dr. Zachary King, a historian of Palestine, and he walks us through pretty much from the 1800s until the present and goes over the history before October 7th and all the atrocities that Israel committed against the Palestinian people before October 7th. That helps put October 7th into perspective without justifying or excusing anything. It helps show all of the October 7th that Israel committed before October 7th against the Palestinians and after October 7th against the Palestinians. So, um, anybody who's fi wants to become more familiar with the history, I would encourage that. And also, I did this lecture, um, it's at rtcourses.com. That's where I put most of my lectures. And I did this lecture on rhetoric in the media, and especially end times rhetoric in the media. And I go over the question of, um, this idea of Christian Zionism driving a lot of the rhetoric that we see in the media, um, in support of this war with Iran, and how they're attempting to put this in eschatological terms. And I go through what the theological perspective is, and then I critique it. And so I would recommend people check that out as well, because I think when you understand the theology behind what's going on, and you also understand the history of what's going on and what the Israeli state has done, you end up coming to a very different conclusion than the one that traditional media is going to want you to arrive at, as well as Israel. Very different conclusion. Without excusing anything, without defending anything, you'll still come to a very, very radically different conclusion. And so I encourage people to just dig deeper into this. And, you know, I had to do some growing myself. I had to do some learning myself. So we're all there, and it's still, still a process. So, but I, I want to thank you for kind of growing here and and starting to reexamine things, especially in light of the situation with the snipers in Israel killing these nuns. I mean, that was a big one for me as well. That really was. And and then they came out and said, "Oh, well, we're investigating it." Do you know that we still have no conclusion to that investigation?
>> I had no clue on it. And I think that maybe, tell me if you think this is true. So, I think that Pope Leo has been prophetic. I think his predecessor Francis has been prophetic, too. I do think that the last two pontificates have been a little different than John Paul II and Benedict the 16th for two reasons. I think the, the scourge, the horrors of the Holocaust, both men, both John Paul II, um, in Poland, and Benedict the 16th in Germany, experienced those in the flesh. And so I think that a lot of their pontificates actually had a higher view of Israel than the, the historic, uh, their predecessors in the papacy, and that they had a higher view of Israel and they were less critical of the Israel nation state than both Francis and Leo the 14th have been. So I wonder if a lot of us Catholics are actually hearing the rhetoric of Leo the 14th and then Francis before him, um, fighting back against Israel's, uh, wars in a way that we didn't hear growing up in the same way.
>> Yeah, that that certainly could be part of it. And I think that also what we're witnessing in the, um, last two pontificates, especially at the end of the previous pontificate with, uh, Pope Francis, is is a new Holocaust, right? And so it puts everything else into perspective. And I think that what we're noticing is that the state of Israel wants to talk about the Holocaust, the Holocaust, the Holocaust, while engaging in modern Holocausts. And they're attempting to use the Holocaust card as a deflection tactic to get our eyes off of what they're doing. And I think the Popes have been seeing through that, and they, they see what's going on. So I think that that's probably also a factor here. Um, I don't know, ju, just some thoughts. What, what do you think?
>> Yeah, I'm not 100% sure. I do know that the, that the Holocaust is now 80 years old. We're now a full two generations, three generations beyond. And so I, I see the numbers. It's remarkable to me. Um, I'm 37. Uh, in my own party and in the Republican party, under my age, support for Israel as a nation state is DOA. It's, it does not exist. And it's collapsing. And so I think illusions to the Holocaust, if they, if they're not having impact on 35-year-olds, they're not having impact on 25-year-olds and 18-year-olds. So I just think that this is a new reality. I think the likely scenario is, I, and JD Vance is obviously calculating this as we watch in real time, is that, um, standing up to Israel will be a, has to be a prerequisite for both the Democratic nominee, Yeah.
>> and the Republican nominee going forward in this country.
>> That's, that's most certain. And, and you know, I have to say this, um, just kind of wrapping things up here. I grew up in Israel. They emphasize the atrocities of the Holocaust all the time. So, I get it. Um, but it's precisely because of what Israel taught me about the atrocities of the Holocaust that I now condemn the state of Israel in its new Holocaust. It's precisely because of what they taught me. They taught me the difference between right and wrong. They taught me what a Holocaust is and showed me how bad it was. And it's because of what they taught me, precisely for that reason, that I stand against what they're doing now with this new Holocaust. And so I don't think that they maybe realize that by playing the Holocaust card, you're just condemning the state of Israel more and more and more for the new Holocaust of our era that we're witnessing today. Christopher, I want to thank you so much for coming on and thank you so much for doing that article, um, revealing what the parents of the Iranian school children wrote to Pope Leo. I wasn't aware of that until you broke that story. And so, thank you so much for putting that out, and I'd love to have you back on. Hey, uh, put in a plug for your work. Where can the audience go to learn more about you?
>> Yeah, I run the Letters from Leo. It's the lettersfromleo.com. You can sign up. Look, I have a political perspective. I don't deny it. I put it straight out there. Um, but we have a big community. We have a community of Catholics and non-Catholics, of conservatives and liberals. Um, we, we digest what the Holy Father is talking about and how it matters to our life here in the United States. So I really enjoy, uh, talking with anyone of all, all colors, of all perspectives. So I really appreciate you being on and I would love for your folks to, uh, check us out and, uh, see if there's anything there you'd like.
>> Absolutely. I'll put a link to Letters, uh, from Leo. I think it's lettersfromleo, right?
>> Yes. You can find about that. So, yes. Yeah, I, I'll put that in the, uh, comment section as well as your, uh, Twitter account. Once again, thank you so much for coming on. You're always welcome to come back.
>> Appreciate it. Thank you.
>> We'll see you later, everybody. Thank y'all so much for watching. Hit the subscribe button. Troubles.