By limiting the scope of Christian values to the sphere of personal morality, the American and Russian heads of state are "devitalizing the Gospel". This is what a group of theologians and professors-researchers at the Catholic Institute in Paris wrote in an article for the French daily "Le Monde".
The political institutions of Russia and the United States, as well as the way in which their presidents came to power, cannot be compared. What Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have in common, however, is that they lead the world's two greatest powers, share an identity-based nationalism and a proven authoritarianism, redefining international relations and challenging democratic values in a striking way.
In addition to the religious history of their countries, which leads to a differentiated approach to politics, we can also compare the way they present themselves as defenders of Christianity. Thinking from this perspective, they paradoxically boast of extreme cruelty in relations between states (and with national oppositions) and shamelessly promote the law of the strongest. At the same time, these same people insist on an identity-based Christianity that regulates personal space.
This is an opportunity to give the holder of power a vague legitimacy that appeals to his divine dimension in order to appear as the providential strongman, inscribed in principle in the register of exceptions to the usual functioning of institutions.
This division between domestic Christianity and political Darwinism is in complete contradiction to the Gospel, which requires Christ's disciples to change the world (and not just the community) by making it more human. To limit the sphere of Christian values to the realm of personal morality, while excluding political morality entirely from the equation, is to deprive the Gospel of its vitality, to deny its relevance and value when it comes to "real life", where issues have a special and collective significance.
"Contempt for the Weak"
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin may brandish the Bible or appear demonstratively at Christian liturgical celebrations, but they are not servants of Christianity.
The President of the United States, like the President of the Russian Federation, practices forms of populism that actually amount to "contempt for the weak" and therefore "distort the concept of "people", since in reality the people he speaks of "is not the real people" (Pope Francis, Fratelli tutti, paragraphs 155 and 160).
Furthermore, the practice of political power that these two presidents intend to exercise does not seem to take into account at all the common good - starting with that of their own country - in its true sense. It is important for us to say that such policies are contrary to the constant teaching of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, which has always affirmed that the State has the primary responsibility for the protection and promotion of the common good accessible to all.
This is how Pope Benedict XVI recalled in 2009 that "the political community must first assume responsibility for the search for the common good", in relation to economic activity, specifying that "the common good and the commitment to its achievement cannot fail to embrace the dimensions of the entire human family, that is, of the community of peoples and nations".
It is precisely this sense of the common good that Pope Francis recalled in his letter to the bishops of the United States on February 10 to condemn the "mass deportation program" envisaged by Donald Trump regarding migration policy: "The true common good is achieved when society and government, with creativity and strict respect for the rights of all (...), welcome, protect, promote and integrate the most fragile, defenseless and vulnerable."
Endogenous disease
It would also be unreasonable to think that the current considerations do not concern either Europe or France. Leading political, cultural and economic players are openly working on our continent and in our country to introduce the cult of the strong man.
Some individuals go so far as to invoke their Christian faith to justify their commitment to parties that wish to enshrine in the Constitution the principle of national priority, which would in fact legitimize the implementation of state xenophobia.
However, it is impossible to argue that Christianity is defended with methods and goals that contradict the values of the Gospel. The players just mentioned can only prosper if citizens agree to reduce society to a playing field for satisfying individual desires, and the state to the role of guarantor of consumerism. In the competitive logic, however, the citizen is neither the only nor the main consumer or labor force. He is obliged to take into account his integration into the society whose project he, together with others, is implementing.
One of the leading thinkers of the American "hawks", Samuel Huntington, sees the world through the prism of a clash of civilizations - a vision that helps to fuel distrust and even hostility towards the Muslim world. However, we are above all sad witnesses to an endogenous disease, to a conflict that is turning the West against itself, in which Christian institutions have not known or have not wanted to act as a brake, or have even allowed themselves to be used complacently. "In religious wars, great sophistication of behavior coexists with unspeakable massacres", says the historian Jérémy Foix.
Finally, it is unfortunately important to remember that no considerations of economic gain or cultural conflict can prevail over the search for peace. As Pope John Paul II recalled in his message for the World Day of Peace on 1 January 2002, "There is no peace without justice, there is no justice without forgiveness.".