By John Q. Hosedrinker 
JD Vance, a recent convert to Catholicism, has publicly critiqued Pope Leo XIV’s theological pronouncements on matters of war. Vance asserted that the pontiff should exercise caution when discussing theology, particularly when it deviates from what Vance considers established doctrine, such as the just war theory. Ironically, while Vance lectured on this theory at a political event, Pope Leo XIV, who has a deep theological background and a direct connection to the Augustinian order, visited the historical site of Hippo, where St. Augustine, a foundational figure of just war doctrine, once served as bishop. These exchanges underscore a growing tension between the Vatican and members of the Trump administration, further complicated by Vance’s own recent public missteps concerning his Catholic faith.
Read the original article here
It’s truly something to behold when a relatively new convert to a faith decides to publicly instruct the very leader of that faith on its core tenets. This is precisely the impression left by JD Vance’s recent theological commentary, which has struck many as a particularly audacious form of lecturing the Pope himself. The sheer audacity of suggesting that the Pope might need a refresher on theological truths, especially when the Pope holds multiple advanced degrees in the subject, is, to put it mildly, perplexing. It’s as if Vance, a recent entrant into the Catholic fold, believes he possesses a more profound grasp of its intricacies than someone who has dedicated their life to its study and leadership, holding a position steeped in centuries of theological authority.
The contrast in qualifications is stark and, frankly, a bit comical. On one hand, we have Pope Francis, a pontiff with a significant academic background in theology, including doctorates and master’s degrees, whose entire career has been a testament to deep engagement with religious doctrine and leadership. He occupies a role that is inherently theological, representing an unbroken chain of Christian authority. On the other hand, we have JD Vance, whose credentials in Catholic theology seem to be comprised of a few ghostwritten books and a recent conversion, with no formal theological education or church office. The idea that Vance would feel empowered to question or correct the Pope’s understanding of theology is, to many, a breathtaking display of ego, bordering on delusion.
This situation seems to encapsulate a specific type of zealousness often seen in recent converts. There’s an intensity, a desire to prove one’s newfound faith, that can sometimes manifest as an overzealous defense of certain interpretations or a perceived need to school those who have long been immersed. In Vance’s case, this appears to translate into a public sparring match over theological nuances with the ultimate authority on Catholic doctrine. It’s a curious phenomenon, where someone who has only recently joined the club feels compelled to explain its rules to the club president, who not only invented many of them but has been enforcing them for decades.
Some have pointed out that the term “mansplaining” might not even be the most accurate descriptor here, suggesting “laymansplaining” or even “cucksplaining” as potentially more fitting, given the context and Vance’s perceived lack of deep theological grounding. Regardless of the precise terminology, the sentiment is clear: Vance is seen as attempting to lecture someone who is demonstrably more qualified and authoritative on the subject matter. It’s a situation that has led to widespread incredulity and even calls for the Pope to excommunicate Vance, a move that, while unlikely, highlights the perceived severity of his misstep in the eyes of many observers.
The notion of Vance attempting to “explain” theology to the Pope evokes the Dunning-Kruger effect, where individuals with low competence in a particular area tend to overestimate their ability. This cognitive bias, when applied to a public figure pontificating on matters of faith to the highest religious leader, becomes a spectacle. It’s a scenario where, one might argue, the Pope likely possesses a more nuanced understanding of not just theology, but also of leadership roles, even those outside the church, than Vance himself. The entire situation has become a rather amusing, albeit sometimes frustrating, illustration of how not to engage with established religious authority.