From an 'Episcopal church Family' post on Facebook — and a reponse.

Sourcing with hyperlinks removed — 
Episcopal church Family (the Facebook group) 
Ruth Kristian, Moderator
otnrSdspeo0511fM20u082nt2 fue:5gmht1h7uifu969uP3 3a u icaJ00  

  ·

**Pope Leo XIV Responds After Donald Trump Calls Him “An Insult to Jesus”**

Donald Trump recently took aim at Pope Leo XIV, labeling him “an insult to Jesus” and accusing him of being “beyond woke” while claiming he promotes ideas that challenge traditional values. The remarks were meant to spark political controversy — but instead, they led to one of the most talked-about public responses of the year.

Speaking before a packed gathering at the Vatican, Pope Leo XIV addressed the comments with an unusually calm but deeply moving tone.

“The president of the United States just said that I insult Jesus,” he said. “You want to know what truly insults Jesus? Watching the sick and the poor cry out for mercy while wealth and power are placed above human dignity.”

He didn’t stop there. The Holy Father turned the moment into something bigger, speaking directly about poverty, migration, war, and the responsibility of those who govern.

“You want to know what else insults Jesus?” he continued. “Turning away the stranger who comes seeking hope. Separating families. Sending young people into wars that never seem to end, then calling it justice. Hiding painful truths while asking everyone else to remain silent.”

The spiritual leader of more than a billion Catholics, known for his humility, compassion, and unwavering call for peace, transformed the criticism into a powerful reflection on faith and conscience.

“I am not standing before you pretending to be perfect,” Pope Leo XIV said quietly. “There was only one perfect Son of God — and He willingly carried the cross for all of humanity.”

Then came the line that reportedly left the entire hall in complete silence.

“Christ taught us to love one another as He loved us. So tell me — can you imagine hatred in heaven? Can you imagine racism in heaven? Can you imagine children suffering from hunger in heaven? Then why do we continue to accept these things here on Earth?”

What began as an insult quickly became a moment of spiritual (the op cut off at this point) 

=======

I find myself wishing that our President had said, "an insult to Jesus' Word" instead. It's a subtle difference, in one regard Jesus *is* His Word, but every Christian has their own unique relationship with Jesus, He reveals himself a little differently to each of His creations whereas the canon of scripture is more fixed. It's much easier to see "woke" deviations from scripture than to make accurate guesses about someone else's relationship with Jesus.

 

There are two things I'd like to comment on toward an end of less division, more reconciliation— But first, the Jesus I know doesn't really get *insulted.* He does not take offense. The Jesus I know gets "grieved." Jesus is grieved by the levels of deception that "wokeness" uses and exploits. 

 

• The Pope would be right about "Turning away the stranger who comes seeking hope" being something that grieves Jesus. But Wokeness will try to portray mass immigration and open borders as a godly virtue when it is not. Jesus is Lord over Nations. He sets boundaries; this is the truth of the Tower of Babel and the listing of nations in Genesis 10 and Deuteronomy 32. Jesus is a nationalist and will inherit a throne to rule over nations, 𝘤𝘧 Psalm 2:8. The truths are that (a) Illegal immigration is always illegal, (b) The "hope" of many who crossed our border illegally is a wicked and destructive hope of greed and corruption, not a god-given hope for liberty in Christ, and (c) The "woke" crowd has copied the blueprint the devil used to tempt Jesus in the wilderness: it takes scripture and twists it. The example I have seen most frequently involves twisting the the meaning of "sojourner" to apply to all foreigners. The Israelites were instructed to be kind to sojourners because they had once been foreigners too; but a sojourner is a temporary visitor who pays their own way; many of them came as traders and merchants, did business, and then went home. Correct exegesis (analysis) of scripture will bring clarity, not division.

• The second point is not even directly addressed in the article, but is a program that runs in the background of all Western culture: Pope Leo XIV's papacy aligns with the Catholic Church's general acceptance of theistic evolution.

To quote: "𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵."   𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦: 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤(.)𝘤𝘰𝘮

I have been studying the creation/evolution conflict all my adult life. The Catholic Church has recognized evolution as consistent with its teachings since at least 1950, longer than I have been alive. Today, more than half of Protestant churches agree there is no immanent (fundamental) conflict between faith and *scientific* evolution. The Coming Great Deception (𝘤𝘧 2 Thessalonians 2) will be a period of widespread spiritual delusion that will lead many away from God, especially during the last days. I am convinced that the Adversary has rooted his deception in evolution. 

I will spare you my ever-lengthening list of reasons, but go back and look at the article again— it speaks to poverty, migration, war, and earthly troubles. Where is the concern over Jesus' redemptive power? It's not there because evolution distracts from and leaches faith from Creation in the image of God. Left unchecked, it blinds the spiritual eyes to truth.

The article claims that the President's remarks were meant to spark political controversy. I disagree; I don't think the President cares a flip about sparking "political" controversy at this point. He cares deeply about the lies, the fraud, the theft, and the cheating that has impoverished patriotic America's middle class, financially, morally, and spiritually. 

 

If you start hearing that ancient aliens "seeded" the human race on Earth instead of the Creator, run!   Because the introduction of evolutionary teaching since the mid-1800s has been the long-game to eventually enslave your soul.    

Trump on Greenland

 

Greenland is back in the news this first week of 2026.

I originally made draft below around the time that President Trump was beginning his "47" term:   

 

When President Trump trolled the idea of buying Greenland, it had nothing to do with his ego.  It's strategic for both North America's and Europe's BORDER PROTECTION. The fact that Greenland and its waters have nice mineral deposits is what could make any deal a double-win, mutually beneficial.  But primarily, it involves legal rights that would help both Europe and us protect our borders from the Russian and Chinese fleets that have been doing damage to infrastructure.  

If Greenland became a territory of the US (similar to Puerto Rico), then we would have the legal right to have a base there to PREEMPTIVELY protect the waters and patrol shipping lanes. As of now, there would be red tape in getting NATO's agreement before we could legally react—if we did not wait, then the World Court would accuse us of triggering an act of war. However, if Greenland is our territory, we have the right to protect and defend it.

This is not a mythical, imaginary threat. Trump isn't crazy. It's not all about "ego."  Russia regularly has ships and subs in those waters; and China, just as it has bought ports in the US and bought its way into the Panama Canal, also has its eyes on Greenland's harbors. It's common sense.

A Quick Response to "America isn't a Christian nation because the Founders were all deists!"

the examples were intentionally prior to the War for Independence for three reasons: 1. those who know God will see His plan over time, and 2. those who don't need to see the US didn't happen randomly, and 3. there's so much evidence of the Christian world view of out Founding Fathers between 1770 and the ratification of the Constitution that I cannot cram it into an FB reply. Jefferson and Paine have similar biographies in this regard: They held a predominately Christian worldview in their youth. Jefferson was young and still espousing Christian principles when he penned the Declaration of Independence. It was while serving as ambassador to France that he began turning more ecumenical. Most of the "proof" that is used to tell you he was deist is "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth," which he completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting, with a razor and glue, numerous sections from the New Testament. Yes, that "redacted" the miracles but not all the other claims of Christ. That was 44 years after he influenced the Declaration. Among his personal notes, the early indications that he was beginning to lose faith in the supernatural miracles of the Bible are dated in the early 1800s, three decades after America's founding. As for Thomas Paine, his Christian faith fell after the war when life was still tough and did not live up to the glory he imagined as a youth. There are many indications that Washington was a Christian from youth and for the remainder of his life, however, he often chose to take a softer approach publicly for political reasons; he had fought and suffered for the Republic and did not want to alienate citizens who believed in Natural Law, which is very compatible with basic Christian principles, although it does not acknowledge a Savior. Any study of Washington's recorded prayers backs this up: publicly he used words like "Providence" while his private journals "implored God." Benjamin Franklin was one of those "Natural Law" believers for much of his life, although even there, his writings show he was very impressed with the Anglican/Methodist evangelist George Whitefield (sometimes spelled Whitfield), whom he heard preach in Philadelphia; seeds were planted then that seem to have grown over time. In a reversal of the spiritual flow in Paine's life, Franklin's writings became more spiritual as he aged.

I could go on with examples of how God needs only a few to accomplish much, and He often uses nonbelievers to accomplish His end. God does not rule by democracy. The premise that God needed a majority of Christian Founders in order to form a Christian nation is deeply flawed. God planned for America to be a Republic that took/takes His living word to the world. He had enough people covenant in agreement to establish America as a nation founded on the teaching of Christ.