Prominent Catholics “Stop Trump” Lecture Misses the Mark – Silent on Christian Genocide

Prominent Catholics “Stop Trump” Lecture Misses the Mark – Silent on Christian Genocide March 8, 2016

russian planeBy Stephen Ryan

What I remember about Presidential races “back in the day” was a candidate’s positions on foreign policy mattered most. The Cold War, fighting communism – in Russia, China, Vietnam, even in Central America dominated the political debate.

I grew up in a world that accepted “mutually assured destruction” as a rather sane policy for a world with two nuclear powers nervously holding their itchy fingers on the trigger of real weapons of mass destruction.

I have followed this year’s election closely and I have been surprised at how little the conversation has been about foreign policy – particularly in light of Russia moving into Syria.  The topic of foreign policy has become almost taboo. Even the Prime Minister of Canada recently opined that the candidates should discuss world issues more often.   At times, what seems to matter most to the talking head class, is whether or not Trump’s vulgar language disqualifies him to be President.

Even my Catholic brothers have come to the party to scold Mr. Trump for his “offishness.”

Yesterday, an important voice in the Catholic punditry world, George Weigel, along with a roster of “prominent” Catholics, penned an article in the National Review making their case as to why “Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be President of the United States.”

The open letter says that the Republican Party has been a reliable Catholic partner as a vehicle for “promoting causes at the center of Catholic social concern in the United States,” and that Donald Trump is not to be trusted to defend these causes. The social issues at risk include the GOP’s opposition to abortion, defending religious freedom, and taking a stance against same-sex marriage.

Along with grave doubts about Trump not supporting the social agenda, Catholic media personalities are particularly offended by Trump’s populist vocabulary that has “driven our politics down to new levels of vulgarity.”   I am not the one to defend Trump’s linguistic peculiarities, but I am not really that “offended” by them.

What I am truly offended by is the muted position of conservative Catholics on the issue of war and genocide of Middle East Christians. Are the desperate lives of our Christian brothers, sisters, women and children not an important “social” issue? Is it fair to ask this question to the Republican nominees?  The primary duty of the President of the United States is to be Commander and Chief of the most powerful military force on earth,  yet the Catholic aristocrats fail to mention this important matter.

What is interesting,  yet rarely discussed, is that Donald Trump holds very different views on foreign policy than the “Republican Establishment.”

Donald Trump alone, just days before the important South Carolina primary, boldly stated that the invasion of Iraq was a horrible decision and that it led to all the problems in the Middle East – ISIS, Syria, the ruined nation of Libya, Christian genocide, bloody civil war – the list goes on.

Importantly, Trump said this in one of the most military friendly states in America. In South Carolina, Trump stood up to the leader of this failed foreign policy, George W. Bush,  and without hesitation talked about how bad the decision to invade Iraq was for America.

The rest of the candidates had no such resolve. This is a measure of a candidate’s character that has been very much overlooked.

Patrick Buchanan writes in defense of Trump:

Trump calls the Iraq War many of them championed an historic blunder. Trump says that, while a supporter of Israel, he would be a “neutral” honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians in peace negotiations, as was Jimmy Carter at Camp David.

Trump says he would “get along very well” with Vladimir Putin, as Richard Nixon got along with Leonid Brezhnev and Mao Zedong.
Trump would launch no new crusades for democracy. He would not oppose Russia bombing ISIS. He would build that wall on the border. He would transfer from U.S. taxpayers to rich allies more of the cost of defending themselves.

Do not most Americans agree with much of this?



I would ask “Do not most Catholics agree with much of this?”








Browse Our Archives