By John Q. Hosedrinker 
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt expressed disappointment that the Vatican will not participate in President Trump’s “Board of Peace,” an initiative aimed at overseeing Gaza’s reconstruction. Cardinal Pietro Parolin indicated the Vatican believes such matters are best handled by the United Nations. Leavitt countered that peace efforts should not be partisan and highlighted the “Board of Peace’s” ambitious plan, which she described as a legitimate organization with international members. The board’s first meeting was scheduled to announce $5 billion in reconstruction pledges and troop commitments, though details on donor countries remain undisclosed.
Read the original article here
The opening days of Lent, a period traditionally marked by solemn reflection and spiritual renewal within the Catholic Church, have instead become the backdrop for what many are interpreting as a significant insult directed at the Vatican by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Her recent public remarks, particularly concerning Donald Trump’s proposed “Board of Peace,” have ignited a firestorm of criticism, with many questioning her sincerity as a Catholic and her understanding of the Church’s teachings.
Leavitt’s commentary came in response to the Vatican’s decision not to participate in Trump’s “Board of Peace” initiative. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had clearly stated that the Holy See believes such complex international crises are best addressed through established bodies like the United Nations, rather than through a private initiative perceived as politically driven. This measured response from the Vatican was met with a sharp retort from Leavitt, who expressed her “deeply unfortunate” sentiment, arguing that peace should not be a partisan or political matter.
This assertion from Leavitt, a self-proclaimed Catholic, has struck many observers as particularly jarring, especially given the timing. To speak out in such a critical tone against the Vatican on the very first day of Lent, a season of penance and introspection, has led to accusations of hypocrisy and a fundamental misunderstanding of her faith’s core tenets. The idea that she would publicly challenge the Holy See on such a significant religious observance has been viewed by many as a deliberate provocation.
The controversy stems largely from the nature of Trump’s “Board of Peace” itself. Leavitt defended it as an organization with “tens of member countries from around the world,” intended to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza. However, many have characterized the initiative as a potential “grift,” with concerns raised about the financial underpinnings and the genuine desire for peace versus political maneuvering. The Vatican’s refusal to engage with such a proposal, especially when it involves significant financial contributions, is seen by many as a prudent and principled stance.
The disconnect between Leavitt’s public persona as a Catholic and her actions has been a recurring theme in the discourse surrounding her remarks. Reports have surfaced detailing aspects of her personal life, such as a marriage outside the church and attendance at non-denominational services, which deviate from traditional Catholic practice. This has fueled the perception that she is, in the words of some critics, a “Catholic in name only,” whose primary allegiance lies not with the Pope or Church doctrine, but with Donald Trump, whom some have labeled her “savior.”
The notion that she would then publicly criticize the Vatican on the first day of Lent, a day that calls for humility and repentance, has been seen as particularly egregious. The timing suggests a profound lack of sensitivity or deliberate defiance. Many have pointed out that Lent is a time for “repentance, not double down,” highlighting the perceived contradiction in Leavitt’s stance. The suggestion that she might have been better served by focusing on personal reflection rather than engaging in a public dispute with the Vatican underscores the perceived misjudgment.
Furthermore, there are broader concerns about the role of individuals who identify as Catholic within the current political landscape, particularly those aligned with the MAGA movement. Many devout Catholics have expressed dismay over what they see as a disconnect between the teachings of their faith and the political rhetoric and actions of certain public figures. The idea that some American Catholics no longer appear to support the Pope and seem more aligned with political ideologies that are at odds with Church doctrine has led to questions about their engagement with their faith.
The Vatican’s stance on issues such as abortion, which has led to clergy withholding communion from certain politicians, stands in stark contrast to the perceived embrace of individuals whose actions and pronouncements seem to challenge core Church values. This has led to calls for the Vatican to take stronger action, with suggestions ranging from issuing papal bulls to excommunicating individuals who appear to use their Catholic identity as a shield while acting in ways that contradict their faith.
Leavitt’s public display on the first day of Lent, coupled with her defense of a controversial initiative, has been interpreted by many as a significant misstep, not just politically, but also spiritually. The idea that a cross she wears might “burn on her chest” speaks to the deeply held belief among many that her actions are antithetical to genuine Catholic discipleship. The Vatican’s silence following her remarks, while not an endorsement, is seen by some as a tacit acknowledgment of the gravity of her public criticism on such a solemn occasion. Her comments have undoubtedly caused a stir, leading many to question her commitment to the faith she professes, especially on a day meant to symbolize a fresh start and spiritual renewal.