Pope Leo took aim this week at people who wage war, declaring that “Jesus Doesn’t Listen to the Prayers of Those Who Wage War.”
The statement drew immediate criticism from the source, which argued that the pope should have reviewed the Bible before making such a sweeping claim, as reported [1] by Joe Hoft.
The criticism was framed through the biblical examples of Abraham, Moses, and David.
Once again the globalist Pope goes against the word and the will of God. https://t.co/FV02Elwghe [2]
— Lara Logan (@laralogan) September 21, 2026 [3]
While the source did not expand upon their individual stories, its headline presented all three as glaring problems for the broad religious standard expressed by Pope Leo.
That framing gives the dispute its sharpest edge.
The issue is not merely whether war is tragic or destructive, but whether the pope’s declaration can be squared with the biblical figures invoked by the source.
The source also pointed to Archbishop Vigano, who views Pope Leo as continuing the policies of Pope Francis, also identified as Bergoglio.
Vigano believes Bergoglio was involved in a coup of the papacy, according to the source.
Vigano’s assessment was anything but reassuring. He portrayed Leo not as a cautious figure testing the waters, but as someone moving quickly while benefiting from a calmer and more polished public presentation.
“One cannot say at all that Leo is proceeding slowly: he is advancing at forced marches, without the slightest concern for reactions—also because the reactions are few, and those few are promptly subdued. What has changed compared to Bergoglio is not the speed: it is the face.”
That distinction between speed and appearance sits at the center of Vigano’s warning.
In his telling, the policies have not changed direction, even if the public style used to advance them appears markedly different.
“Bergoglio shouted, and whoever shouts awakens; Prevost smiles, and whoever smiles puts to sleep. But it is an icy smile, the grin of one who knows he will encounter no resistance.”
The comparison is deliberately severe. Vigano depicts Bergoglio’s louder manner as something capable of awakening opposition, while presenting Prevost’s smile as a tool that quiets concern and allows the same agenda to move forward.
For Vigano, manners should not distract observers from substance. “Look at the facts, not the manners. The agenda has not been slowed: it has been strengthened on all fronts…”
The source embraces that warning and connects it to Pope Leo’s statement about prayer and warfare.
Rather than treating the comment as an isolated remark, it presents the declaration as another reason to examine Leo’s direction closely.
The result is a blunt challenge to the pope’s message.
If Jesus refuses to listen to the prayers of everyone who wages war, as the statement claims, then the biblical examples named by the source become an obvious complication that cannot simply be waved away with a smile.
At the same time, Vigano’s criticism goes beyond this single dispute over war and prayer.
His concern, as presented by the source, is that Leo is advancing the same agenda associated with Bergoglio while attracting fewer reactions and facing little resistance.
That is the larger warning behind the article’s biting treatment of Pope Leo.
The smile may be different, the presentation may appear calmer, and the tone may be less jarring, but Vigano insists the agenda itself has only grown stronger.
Pope Leo’s declaration therefore lands as more than a controversial theological statement in the source’s telling.
It becomes a test of whether observers will focus on pleasant manners or examine the substance, biblical consistency, and direction of the policies being advanced.