Three cardinals don’t speak for the Church

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Jan 20, 2026

When three American cardinals issued a statement on American foreign policy earlier this week, their comments naturally commanded public attention. Because the prelates stated at the outset that “events in Venezuela, Ukraine and Greenland have raised basic questions about the use of military force and the meaning of peace,” reporters instantly recognized that the statement was intended as a challenge to President Trump.

These cardinals, like all American citizens, are entitled to their opinions on political issues, including foreign policy. But insofar as they seemed to speak for the leadership of the Catholic Church, their statement raises questions:

Who issued this statement? For whom do they speak?

The statement was signed by Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago, Joseph Tobin of Newark, and Robert McElroy of Washington, DC. All three were raised to the College of Cardinals by Pope Francis. All three were allied in the past with Theodore McCarrick, and favor the sort of international diplomacy that McCarrick promoted. They are generally recognized among the top leaders of the liberal faction within the American Catholic hierarchy.

But the three cardinals were not speaking on behalf of the American bishops’ conference. Nor could they, because they are not elected officials of the episcopal conference, nor do they views coincide with those of the majority of American bishops. A New York Times report on their statement said that it “escalates the American Catholic Church’s denunciation of the country’s top leaders.” That is inaccurate; the cardinals do not speak for the American Catholic hierarchy, much less for the whole body of the American Catholic faithful.

What did they say?

Although the cardinals did not mention Donald Trump by name, the object of their criticism was unmistakable. In a comment accompanying the formal statement, Cardinal Cupich said that “we cannot stand by while decisions are made that condemn millions to lives trapped permanently at the edge of existence.” A press release issued by the Washington archdiocese described the document as a “rare joint statement on the morality of US foreign policy”—giving reporters a reason to treat it as headline material.

“In 2026, the United States has entered into the most profound and searing debate about the moral foundation for America’s actions in the world since the end the Cold War,” the statement began. They would add: “Our country’s moral role in confronting evil around the world, sustaining the right to life and human dignity, and supporting religious liberty are all under examination.”

As they rounded to their conclusion, they said: “Our nation’s debate on the moral foundation for American policy is beset by polarization, partisanship, and narrow economic and social interests.”

As a remedy for these ills the three cardinals proposed the vision set forth by Pope Leo XIV in his address to the Vatican diplomatic corps earlier this month. They styled their own statement as an application of the Pope’s ideas to the American situation. (The New York Times coverage helpfully described their effort as “an interpretation of Leo’s emerging vision for international relations.”

But it is noteworthy that the Pope’s “State of the World” speech was not generally seen as a direct challenge to President Trump, as the cardinals’ statement certainly was. True, the Pope said, with regret, “A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force”—a statement that could readily be seen as a reference to Trump’s confrontational style. And the Pope voiced his hope that “the actions taken by states against criminality and human trafficking will not become a pretext for undermining the dignity of migrants and refugees”—again, a sentence that could easily be applied to Trump immigration policies. But the Pope was circumspect in his language; his speech also contained implicit criticisms of Russia, Venezuela, Israel, Nigeria and other actors on the international scene. Unlike the American prelates’ statement, the Pontiff’s speech did not convey the sense of an all-or-nothing political battle between good and evil.

What did they NOT say?

Indeed if the American cardinals viewed the international scene in that sort of light—as the struggle that Pope John Paul II described as a clash between the “culture of life” and the “culture of death”—it would seem odd that they saved this “rare” joint statement for comments on the treatment of immigrants and the sovereignty of Greenland, rather than, say, on the rights of the unborn and the defense of marriage. Cardinals Cupich, Tobin, and McElroy have not been outspoken on those topics; if anything they have sought to tamp down the rhetoric of their more ardent episcopal colleagues.

In one revealing passage of their statement, the cardinals describe the vision of Pope Leo at some length:

Pope Leo also reiterates Catholic teaching that “the protection of the right to life constitutes the indispensable foundation for every other human right” and that abortion and euthanasia are destructive of that right. He points to the need for international aid to safeguard the most central elements of human dignity, which are under assault because of the movement by wealthy nations to reduce or eliminate their contributions to humanitarian foreign assistance programs. Finally, the Holy Father points to the increasing violations of conscience and religious freedom in the name of an ideological or religious purity that crushes freedom itself.

What is striking about that summary is that the main points of the Pope’s speech—even as interpreted by these three cardinals—bear little resemblance to the main points put forward by the cardinals themselves. Pope Leo’s address to the diplomatic corps was his bid to see the world’s particular political crises in the broader context of Catholic social teaching. The cardinals’ statement seems designed to bend the Church’s teaching toward a particular political end.