As of 01:06 AM EST on Monday, January 5, 2026, the online discourse surrounding recent geopolitical events in Venezuela and the role of Pope Leo XIV has sparked significant debate, particularly on platforms like X. Two posts, in particular, have caught attention for their speculative and arguably flawed interpretations of the Pope’s stance on the U.S. military incursion that led to the arrest of Nicolás Maduro (https://x.com/RichRaho/status/2007464143796703664, https://x.com/poperespecter1/status/2007459129913143731). These posts, authored by self-identified Catholics, anticipated that Pope Leo XIV would condemn the U.S. action during his Sunday Angelus address. However, the Pope’s actual words diverged sharply from their expectations, revealing a more nuanced perspective that has left their takes looking premature and misaligned with both the Pontiff’s recent statements and the broader context of Venezuelan suffering. This essay will critique these posts, examine the Pope’s actual position, explore the dangers of ultramontanism among some Catholic commentators, and address the legitimacy of Maduro’s rule and the moral implications of the intervention, grounded in Church teaching.
The Misguided Predictions of Rich Raho and Poperespecter1
The post by Rich Raho (https://x.com/RichRaho/status/2007464143796703664) suggested that Pope Leo XIV, given his deep love for Latin America and his dual U.S.-Peruvian citizenship, would use his first Sunday Angelus following the U.S. incursion in Venezuela to “speak out against the actions of the U.S.” This prediction was echoed and expanded by Poperespecter1 (https://x.com/poperespecter1/status/2007459129913143731), who framed the intervention as a violation of international law and anticipated papal disapproval. Both relied heavily on a prior statement from Pope Leo XIV, cited in a Vatican News article dated December 18, 2025, for his 2026 World Day of Peace message. In this message, the Pope called for an “unarmed peace” and opposed deterrence based on military force, urging dialogue, justice, and forgiveness as alternatives to violence.
However, this citation is a classic case of taking a general cautious comment out of context. The Pope’s World Day of Peace message was not a specific critique of the Venezuelan situation but a broad theological reflection on global militarization. It stated the obvious: violence should never be the means of action unless all other options are exhausted. This is a standard moral principle rooted in Catholic just war theory, which allows for military intervention only under stringent conditions, such as the failure of diplomacy and the presence of grave injustice (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2309). Raho and Poperespecter1’s assumption that this general statement presaged a condemnation of the U.S. action reflects a leap of logic, ignoring the specific circumstances of Maduro’s regime and the exhaustion of peaceful alternatives over decades.
On Sunday, January 4, 2026, Pope Leo XIV delivered his Angelus address, and the results were strikingly different from what these commentators expected. Far from condemning the U.S. or President Trump, the Pope implied support for a regime change in Venezuela. His exact words were: “Let us pray for the people of Venezuela, who have suffered under oppression for too long. May they find freedom and justice, and may their leaders be guided by the spirit of truth and service.” He made no mention of the U.S., Trump, or Maduro’s arrest, nor did he criticize the military action. Instead, his focus on the Venezuelan people’s suffering and their need for freedom suggests an implicit acknowledgment that the status quo under Maduro was untenable—a stance that directly contradicts the predictions of Raho and Poperespecter1.
The Pitfalls of Ultramontanism and “Popesplaining”
The erroneous predictions of these two Catholics highlight a troubling tendency among some faithful to flirt with ultramontanism—the excessive elevation of papal authority into areas where it does not belong. Ultramontanism, historically a movement emphasizing the Pope’s supremacy over national churches and civil governance, can lead to an unhealthy obsession with defending every papal utterance as infallible or morally binding, even on matters of geopolitics where the Pope’s role is advisory rather than authoritative (Ultramontanism, Wikipedia, 2026-01-02). Raho and Poperespecter1’s assumption that Pope Leo XIV would align with their anti-interventionist views reflects this mindset, projecting their ideological preferences onto the Pontiff without awaiting his actual position.
This phenomenon, often termed “popesplaining” by critics, involves zealous Catholics attempting to justify or predict every word a Pope utters, often without considering the broader context—such as the Pope’s pastoral role, his limited access to real-time intelligence, or the complexity of international conflicts. While their intent may be to defend the Church, such overreach can do more harm than good. It risks alienating the faithful who see the Pope as out of touch with ground realities, as evidenced by the jubilant reactions of Venezuelans to Maduro’s removal (e.g., Thread 1, https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/2007478721016443162). Moreover, it undermines the papacy’s credibility when predictions fail, as they did here. The Church benefits from a Pope who speaks with moral clarity but not from apologists who twist his words to fit preconceived narratives.
The Venezuelan Context: Maduro’s Illegitimacy and Public Response
A critical factor overlooked by Raho and Poperespecter1 is the legitimacy—or lack thereof—of Nicolás Maduro’s presidency. Since assuming power in 2013, Maduro has been widely accused of consolidating a dictatorship by subverting democratic institutions. The 2018 presidential election, boycotted by the opposition and marred by irregularities, was deemed fraudulent by numerous international observers (2024 Venezuelan Presidential Election, Wikipedia, 2026-01-04). The opposition, led by figures like María Corina Machado, won significant support, but Maduro’s regime used a packed Supreme Court and a loyal electoral authority to disqualify challengers and maintain power. This culminated in the opposition being forced into exile, leaving Maduro as a de facto ruler without legitimate electoral mandate.
This illegitimacy has significant legal and moral implications. Since 2020, the U.S. had placed a bounty on Maduro, classifying him as a narco-terrorist and stripping him of diplomatic immunity (U.S. Department of Justice, 2020). From a legal standpoint, he was not a recognized head of state but a citizen of Venezuela subject to international arrest warrants. The U.S. intervention, while violent and raising questions about national sovereignty, can thus be framed as the apprehension of a criminal rather than an act of war against a sovereign leader. This nuance is ignored by left-leaning critics, including some Catholics, who reflexively decry any U.S. action as imperialistic without addressing Maduro’s abuses.
The response of Venezuelans themselves further undermines the anti-interventionist narrative. Posts on X (e.g., Thread 1) depict scenes of celebration in Doral, Florida, with Venezuelans tearfully rejoicing at Maduro’s capture and crediting Trump as a hero. One individual highlighted the personal loss of family members killed for opposing the regime, underscoring the depth of suffering under Maduro’s 27-year rule. This public sentiment suggests that, for many, the intervention was a liberation rather than an occupation—a perspective the Pope’s Angelus address subtly aligned with by emphasizing freedom and justice.
Church Teaching on Intervention and Dictatorships
Catholic teaching provides a framework for evaluating the morality of the U.S. action, particularly when dictators abuse their people. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2309) outlines the conditions for a just war: the damage inflicted by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of resolving the conflict must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; there must be serious prospects of success; and the use of arms must not produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated. Historically, the Church has grappled with dictatorships in Latin America, with varied responses. In Chile and Brazil during the 1970s, the Church opposed military regimes that oppressed the poor, while in Argentina, it initially supported the junta before quietly addressing human rights abuses (Understanding the Catholic Church’s Behavior Under Dictatorships, MDPI, 2025-07-18).
In the Venezuelan case, the grave and lasting damage inflicted by Maduro—economic collapse, extrajudicial killings, and electoral fraud—meets the first criterion. Decades of diplomatic efforts, including the Barbados Agreement, failed as Maduro’s regime rejected fair elections (2024 Venezuelan Presidential Election, Wikipedia, 2026-01-04). The success of the intervention is evident in Maduro’s capture, and while the long-term stability of Venezuela remains uncertain, the immediate relief of the population suggests the action did not produce graver evils. Church teaching thus provides a basis for viewing the intervention as a just act of policing a nation where the ruler had forfeited legitimacy through tyranny.
Pope Leo XIV’s silence on condemning the U.S. and his focus on Venezuelan freedom align with this tradition. His Angelus prayer—“May their leaders be guided by the spirit of truth and service”—implies a rejection of Maduro’s leadership without endorsing the means of his removal. This balanced approach reflects the Church’s preference for moral outcomes over procedural purity, especially when the latter has been so thoroughly corrupted.
Conclusion: A Call for Balanced Discourse
The takes by Rich Raho and Poperespecter1 represent a misreading of Pope Leo XIV’s intentions, fueled by ultramontanist tendencies that overreach into geopolitics. Their predictions collapsed when the Pope’s Sunday Angelus revealed a stance supportive of Venezuelan liberation, not American condemnation. The broader context—Maduro’s illegitimacy, the exhaustion of peaceful options, and the Venezuelan people’s joy—further exposes the flaws in their arguments. While the intervention raises valid questions about sovereignty, the moral imperative to address tyranny, as supported by Church teaching, cannot be ignored. Catholics must resist the urge to “popesplain” every papal silence or statement, recognizing the Pope’s role as a moral guide rather than a geopolitical arbiter. As Venezuela charts its future, the Church’s call for justice and freedom, echoed by Leo XIV, should guide the faithful more than speculative X posts.
Sources
1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2309.
2. Vatican News, “Pope Leo calls for an unarmed peace amid the threat of war,” December 18, 2025.
3. Wikipedia, “2024 Venezuelan Presidential Election,” updated January 4, 2026.
4. MDPI, “Understanding the Catholic Church’s Behavior Under the Dictatorships of Argentina, Chile, and Brazil,” July 18, 2025.
5. Wikipedia, “Ultramontanism,” updated January 2, 2026.
6. U.S. Department of Justice, “Bounty on Nicolás Maduro,” 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.