The New Pope Is American. He's One (Implausible) Choice From Proving Some Early-American Alarmists Correct.

Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
On July 30, 1788, during debate in the North Carolina ratifying convention over whether the state would sign on to the proposed federal Constitution, pro-Constitution delegate James Iredell rose to confront what he considered a risible objection to the document brought by some of his colleagues.
Iredell's fellow delegate, one Henry Abbot, had observed that Article VI's proscription of religious tests for office made some people uncomfortable: 'They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans.' When Iredell rose to put Abbot's mind at ease, he referred to a pamphlet he said he had just come across that, to his mind, expressed such concerns in their fullest, truest, and most absurd version, a straw man he could easily, gleefully set on fire.
The pamphlet worried not just about 'pagans, deists, and Mahometans,' but also that without religious tests for office the pope in Rome himself could be elected president of the United States. Iredell, a bit of a card, leaned into the absurdity of this worry, born of that era's run-of-the-mill Protestant anti-popery, some opportunistic fearmongering, and, well, plain stupidity.
'I confess this never struck me before,' Iredell said. The proposed Constitution mandated native-born citizenship and 14 years of residency for presidential eligibility. Iredell was pretty sure that this, among other things, would keep popes out of the running.
'I know not all the qualifications for pope, but I believe he must be taken from the college of cardinals; and probably there are many previous steps necessary before he arrives at this dignity,' Iredell pointed out, rightly. 'A native of America must have very singular good fortune, who, after residing fourteen years in his own country, should go to Europe, enter into Romish orders, obtain the promotion of cardinal, afterwards that of pope, and at length be so much in the confidence of his own country as to be elected President.' Beyond that, he went on, in the late 18th century being president of the United States would be a significant step down from being pope. An American so intrepid as to make himself eligible for both offices would be unlikely to 'give up his popedom for our presidency.' Iredell was unstinting in his mockery of such fearmongering: 'Sir, it is impossible to treat such idle fears with any degree of gravity.'
At issue in this flashpoint of the debate over the Constitution was the specter of absolute, despotic authority, which American Protestants associated with the papacy, owing to views of Catholicism inherited from the Reformation. We can observe this as the bigotry it was while still taking the point: Americans, having thrown off the yoke of the British crown, should be, as Abbot put it, 'suspicious of our liberties,' on the watch for any possibility that we might set ourselves up for a new despotism despite our best intentions.
As of Thursday, for the first time in the nation's history, the bonkers worry that there might be a pope-president is, technically, a live possibility: Pope Leo XIV, a native-born American citizen of the correct age and more than 14 years' residency, really could—if he ever wanted to give up or split time with his 'popedom'—run for president of the United States.
That fear, of course, is no more going to be realized than it was in Iredell's day. Much scarier is our actual president's own mocking suggestion, the week before an American was named pope, that he would really like to be pope himself. While some during the American founding era may have actually worried about a pope wanting to be president, no one in those debates over the Constitution ever wondered if a president would want to be pope. That is, no one imagined that an elected scion of the new republican thing we sought to create with the Constitution would joke about wanting an earlier, older, more absolute form of authority. Donald Trump's musing turns Iredell's mockery on its head: How could someone who has successfully convinced the free people of the United States to elect him their president ever associate himself with what 18th-century Protestants saw as the despotism of papal rule?
Trump was trolling us, of course, the troll post being his default and favorite genre. He has already called himself a king and will persist in taunting us about his desire for a third term as president, in direct violation of the Constitution, right up until he actually tries to run for one (or just declares that he has one, by fiat). He is mocking our sense that he wants the absolute power of a monarch by professing his desire to have the absolute power of a monarch. Iredell knew there is no response to such mockery but more mockery.
To be sure, there are aspects of Iredell's conception of religious freedom that today we find blinkered. Open-minded as he was in matters of religion, like most decision-makers of his era, he assumed that any good person fit for office would necessarily believe in a single supreme being and a future state of rewards and punishments. He was also an enslaver, blind, as so many others, to his own hypocrisies. But his instincts regarding religious freedom were the ones that we should revere today, and his mocking attitude toward bald stupidity is instructive and prescient. Religious tests, Iredell knew, had never done anything to keep the opportunistic out of office. 'It never was known that a man who had no principles of religion hesitated to perform any rite when it was convenient for his private interest. No test can bind such a one.'
The president—an opportunistic person with 'no principles of religion' if there ever was one—has called Leo's election 'a Great Honor for our Country,' characteristically missing the point while giving himself (since he is the country, to his mind) credit for something he had nothing to do with. 'I look forward to meeting Pope Leo XIV,' Trump wrote. 'It will be a very meaningful moment!' Obviously, he meant that it will be meaningful for Pope Leo to meet him. Nevertheless, such a meeting will be meaningful: an American president shaking hands with an American pope, two bearers of globe-altering power, their origins separated only by the distance from New York to Chicago. Trump obviously doesn't realize that Leo will be the first-ever pope technically eligible to run for the American presidency, as those North Carolinian delegates feared so long ago, or else he would already be responding to the threat to his own power.
As Iredell knew, accepting the possibility of error is part of the wager of freedom. Our democracy under the Constitution opens a free people to the possibility of mistakes that, in our collective freedom, we will all have to live with. The Framers could not, would not, guard against all possible electoral errors. 'It is impracticable to guard against all possible danger of people's choosing their officers indiscreetly,' Iredell told the North Carolina convention in 1788. 'If they have a right to choose, they may make a bad choice.' Error might be the cost of freedom, but freedom is also the only option for correcting error.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

39 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Anti-war demonstrators rally against Iran strikes in Boston

'[Trump's] unilateral action threatens to embroil the United States in another costly war in the Middle East, just like George W. Bush did with his attack on Iraq,' Garvey said in a statement. 'His unconstitutional action endangers people across the region and American service members dangerously deployed there. Congress must stop these illegal actions immediately.' Advertisement The rally is being backed by a coalition of more than two dozen advocacy groups, including anti-war, left-wing, pro-Iran and pro-Palestinian organizations. This is a developing story. Dan Glaun can be reached at

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Rounds says Trump notified congressional leaders of strikes ‘well within' 48-hour window

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said on Sunday that President Trump notified Congress of the strikes on Iranian nuclear sites 'well within' the 48-hour window defined by the War Powers Resolution. In an interview on NewsNation's 'The Hill Sunday,' Rounds pushed back against critics who say the president acted outside his constitutional authority by ordering strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, including Fordow. 'The Constitution clearly gives the President the authority to act on our nation's behalf,' Rounds said. 'Second of all, the War Powers Act, which is in place, was responded to appropriately. They were supposed to notify congressional leaders within 48 hours. They were well within that range of notifying them of the actions were taken, so the law has been complied with. The Constitution is being complied with,' Rounds continued. Rounds said the Constitution was acting just as 'the founders wanted it to work.' 'The president is the chief. The commander in chief has the responsibility. Our founding fathers were brilliant in the way they wrote the Constitution. They understood that Congress takes a long time to act. They also understood that in times in military conflict or in times of great danger or emergencies that the president needed the authority to be able to respond quickly and effectively and decisively,' he said. 'This president did just exactly that. It is working the way the founders wanted it to work in the first place,' Rounds added. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on Sunday that congressional leaders were informed of the strikes after 'the planes were safely out' of Iranian airspace, adding that the administration's actions ''complied with the notification requirements of the War Powers Act.' Some reports have indicated that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) were briefed about the strikes. But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has criticized the administration for not seeking Congressional approval and has called for Congress to be 'fully and immediately briefed' on the strikes in a classified setting, in a statement shortly after the attacks.

Newsweek

an hour ago

• Newsweek

Video of Bernie Sanders Reacting to Trump's Iran Strike Live Goes Viral

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. A video of progressive Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, reacting live at a rally to the news that President Donald Trump had carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear sites has gone viral on social media. Sanders posted the clip from his "Fight Oligarchy" tour on X, formerly Twitter, late on Saturday. "I learned about Trump's unconstitutional attack on Iran at a large rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Here is the response," the senator, who caucuses with Democrats, wrote. As of the time of writing on Sunday afternoon, the video has been viewed more than 5 million times. It has been reposted by 20,000 X users and liked by 101,000. Why It Matters The progressive lawmaker's response came after the U.S. carried out attacks targeting three nuclear sites across Iran—at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Trump described the operation as a "very successful attack" and has now called for "peace," while Iran has said it will retaliate. Trump's decision came after Israel and Iran have exchanged consistent strikes since June 13. Israel had urged the U.S. to target Iran's nuclear facilities, saying that Tehran was moving close to creating a nuclear weapon. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for civilian, not military, purposes. The strikes have sparked concerns from some Democrats and some Republicans about a wider war breaking out—with some lawmakers accusing the president of violating the U.S. Constitution with the strikes. Smoke rises as a location targeted by Israel is ablaze in Tehran amid the third day of Israel's waves of strikes against Iran on June 15. Inset: Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, is seen... Smoke rises as a location targeted by Israel is ablaze in Tehran amid the third day of Israel's waves of strikes against Iran on June 15. Inset: Senator Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, is seen on May 14 in Washington, D.C. More Khoshiran/Middle East Images via AFP/What to Know In the 1-minute and 13-second clip, Sanders reads Trump's statement on the Iran strikes to the crowd of rally attendees. Immediately, a loud chorus of boos can be heard from the crowd, demonstrating the attendees' displeasure with the news. The crowd then begins to chant "no more war," with Sanders nodding in agreement. The camera pans out, showing the animated audience raising their fists in the air as they chant, with an American flag visible and being waved by at least one rally goer. "I agree," the senator eventually responds, after allowing the chorus of chants to continue for several seconds. "And I want to tell you something, not only is this news, that I've just is so grossly unconstitutional," he said. "All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders said. His remarks drew a large cheer from the crowd. Last week, in anticipation of a strike on Iran, Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, introduced a War Powers Resolution in a bid to curb the president from escalating the conflict with Iran. After the attack was announced, Massie was quick to respond on X, writing on Saturday: "This is not constitutional." I learned about Trump's unconstitutional attack on Iran at a large rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Here is the response: — Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) June 22, 2025 What To Know About U.S. Bombing Iran The U.S. struck Fordow, roughly 60 miles south of Tehran, as well as the Natanz complex to the southeast and Isfahan, southwest of Natanz, Trump said. The president hailed the attacks as a "spectacular military success," adding: "Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated." Experts said it was too early to tell exactly how much damage has been done to Iran's network of nuclear sites. U.S. Air Force General Dan Caine, the chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, said on Sunday morning that initial assessments of the operation dubbed "Midnight Hammer" indicated "all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction," but analysis was ongoing. Israel continued attacking Iran into Sunday, and Tehran launched fresh strikes on several Israeli cities. Ash from airstrikes covers much of the area, and several of the entrances to Fordow's tunnel network appear to be blocked with dirt, Maxar, an American space technology company, said. Images separately published by Planet Labs on Sunday also showed ash covering the area around Fordow. Fordow is built under a mountain, a facility that was secret until 2009 and Israel has been unable to destroy it with its weapons. While Israel has carried out strikes on Iran's nuclear sites—including Natanz and Isfahan—since it started its campaign over a week ago, the U.S. is considered the only country able to reach the deeply buried sites like Fordow using B-2 bombers and "bunker buster" bombs. These huge bombs had never been used before in combat. What People Are Saying Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat said in a statement emailed to Newsweek on Sunday: "Stopping Iran from having a nuclear bomb is a top priority, but dragging the U.S. into another Middle East war is not the solution. Trump's strikes are unconstitutional and put Americans, especially our troops, at risk. Congress needs to come back to DC immediately to vote on Rep. Thomas Massie and my bipartisan War Powers Resolution to ensure there is no further conflict and escalation." President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Saturday evening: "ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU!" Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi on X on Sunday: "The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior. In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people." Vice President JD Vance to NBC News' Meet the Press on Sunday: "We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear operation was really extraordinary. These guys flew from Missouri. They didn't land a single time. They dropped 30,000-pound bombs on a target the size of a washing machine and then got back home safely without ever landing in the Middle East or ever stopping other than to briefly refuel." Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, on X on Sunday: "When two countries are bombing each other daily in a hot war, and a third country joins the bombing, that's an act of war. I'm amazed at the mental gymnastics being undertaken by neocons in DC (and their social media bots) to say we aren't at war... so they can make war." What Happens Next? Iran's foreign minister said after the attack that his country reserves "all options to defend its sovereignty." The U.S. military is preemptively preparing for any attack from Tehran in response. It's unclear whether the War Powers Resolution sponsored by Khanna and Massie, which aims to curb Trump's ability to take military action against Iran, has the support to move forward in the House. However, with Republican control of both chambers, it is not widely expected to succeed.