Border czar Tom Homan calls for Church leaders to ‘stay out of politics’
Border czar Tom Homan advised Catholic Church leaders to avoid political involvement and focus on internal Church issues. Homan's comments followed President Donald Trump's public criticism of Pope Leo XIV, whom the president labeled weak on crime and foreign policy. The border czar expressed a desire for Church leaders to engage with him directly to better understand his perspective on border security and its humanitarian impact. Several American Catholic bishops have publicly defended Pope Leo XIV in response to the president's remarks.
about 12 hours ago
Border czar Tom Homan, a practicing Catholic, urged Roman Catholic leaders to refrain from political involvement after President Donald Trump publicly denounced Pope Leo XIV, calling the pontiff “weak on crime” and “terrible for foreign policy.” Pope Leo responded calmly, declining to engage in a debate and framing his remarks as moral teaching rather than a rebuttal. Homan argued that a secure border is the most humane policy and invited Church leaders to discuss his experiences. Several U.S. bishops defended the Pope, labeling Trump’s comments disrespectful and calling for prayer and unity 1.
President Trump launched a direct attack on Pope Leo XIV, criticizing his stance on crime and foreign policy. The president’s remarks were amplified through multiple media appearances, prompting a brief, measured response from the Pope that avoided direct confrontation 1.
Tom Homan emphasized his love for the Catholic Church but asked its leaders to “stay out of politics” and focus on internal issues. He suggested that dialogue with Church officials might help them understand why he views a secure border as a humanitarian necessity 1.
The episode highlights a tension between political leaders seeking to influence public perception of the papacy and Church officials defending the Pope’s moral authority. Homan’s request for the Church to remain apolitical underscores ongoing debates about the appropriate level of religious engagement in governmental affairs 1.
Church leaders must prioritize ecclesial mission over political engagement
The claim that church leaders must prioritize the Church’s ecclesial mission over partisan political engagement is strongly consistent with Catholic doctrine about the Church’s nature, the distinct roles of clergy and laity, and the Church’s refusal to become a political actor or faction. What follows is an analysis of that claim in light of the Catholic sources provided.
At the heart of the Church’s life is a single mission, even though there are different ministries and vocations. The Catechism teaches that “in the Church there is diversity of ministry but unity of mission,” with Christ entrusting to apostles and successors the office of “teaching, sanctifying and governing,” while the laity share in Christ’s mission in their own way “in the Church and in the world.”
So, the phrase “prioritize ecclesial mission” means: leadership should be oriented first toward evangelization, formation of conscience, and the building up of communion with God and the Church, rather than toward becoming a political force in the partisan sense.
If church leaders confuse their mission with party politics, they risk:
The Church is not merely a civic organization. The Catechism describes the Church as “by her nature missionary”, originating in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit equips the Church with gifts—both hierarchic and charismatic—so that the Church can fulfill her mission.
Thus, the hierarchical structure exists to serve the spiritual mandate entrusted by Christ. The Catechism emphasizes that Christ sends apostles and gives them power “to act in his person” for proclaiming faith and planting his reign.
Because the Church’s leadership is designed for spiritual mission, political involvement must remain subordinate to—indeed protected by—that mission. The correct hierarchy of purposes is: spiritual mission first, political prudence second, and never partisan capture of the Church’s voice.
John Paul II explicitly states: “The Church has no political ambitions.” Her contribution to humanity’s urgent problems is made to remain faithful to the mission she received, focusing on conversion of hearts and recognition of truth about humanity. He adds that because the Church’s mission is “moral and religious in nature,” she respects the State’s responsibility—while still encouraging members to take responsibility as citizens.
John Paul II, addressing bishops, clarifies: “This is not the role of the clergy: it is rather up to laymen to shoulder their responsibilities…with eager attention to the teaching authority of the Church” (citing Gaudium et Spes 43).
He then explains that priests and religious do not lose civic rights or duty to work for the common good, but their special calling implies “restrictions on engagement in purely temporal affairs or partisan politics.” Importantly, he does not command silence on injustice: pastors may “denounce injustices” and advocate more humane and ethical policies, yet their contribution lies chiefly in:
The US bishops’ Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship—quoting Deus Caritas Est—gives a precise balance:
The same document states plainly that, in fulfilling their responsibilities, “the Church’s leaders avoid endorsing or opposing candidates.” This directly safeguards the Church’s ecclesial identity and reduces the risk of factionalism.
Pope Pius X similarly warned that the priest—“raised above all men in order to accomplish the mission he has from God”—must remain above “all human interests, all conflicts, all classes of society,” and must not appear as “a man of factions.”
The Church does not abdicate justice. But the mode of involvement is what Catholic teaching regulates.
John Paul II tells bishops that they should bear witness to the Gospel message of peace, invoke God’s grace of healing, speak out against corruption, and especially form consciences—“particularly of political and economic leaders”—so that society can be organized for the common good.
This is not partisan advocacy; it is moral and spiritual leadership aimed at sound conscience.
The Canadian bishops’ teaching describes the laity as “called to be a leaven in the world,” accomplishing this not primarily by lecturing on doctrine, but by becoming the leaven through how they live work, study, and participate in social and political life.
They also stress that motivation must be love for Christ that grows through relationship with him, including through the sacraments and Church life—otherwise Christians lose sight of their ultimate destination.
The same Canadian text adds a concrete political concern: lay faithful must be concerned for “the freedom of the Church itself in society,” and any diminishment of the Church’s freedom is “always an attack on the freedom of society.”
So Catholic teaching supports not merely “private religion,” but public moral clarity—yet with the appropriate limits and role distinctions.
The Canadian text also warns against a practical pastoral failure: evangelization of social and political life often “remains tied to tasks within the Church, without a real commitment to applying the Gospel to the transformation of society.” This supports the thesis by showing what happens when political engagement is mis-assigned or mis-shaped.
Based on the cited teaching, the practical dangers include:
The Catholic position is not “politics is forbidden” but “the Church’s leaders cannot turn the Church into a partisan political faction.” The Church’s nature is missionary and spiritual; leadership exists to teach, sanctify, and govern in Christ’s mission. Therefore, church leaders should prioritize ecclesial goals—especially formation of conscience and Gospel witness—while the laity take up political life as their vocation. The Church may speak against injustice and corruption, but she must not endorse candidates, must not replace the State, and must not take upon herself the political battle as such.