The recent clash between Pope Francis and Donald Trump was every pundit's dream. The questioning by the pontiff of whether Trump's controversial stand on immigration disqualified him from being a Christian made an already surreal Republican primary race even more bizarre. It was of special interest to those who think about religion and politics. Did the Pope go too far? Was he justified in questioning someone's faith? Did this hurt or help Trump with Catholics?Clashes between Roman Catholic leaders and politicians are nothing new and there are always those who bristle at the idea of a religious leader entering into the political fray. Some speak of the need for the separation of church and state. Others accuse faith leaders of attempting to impose their religious beliefs by trying to intimidate politicians.It does sometimes get complicated. Take the case of Joseph Rummel, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New Orleans during the civil rights struggles. Rummel was a vocal opponent of segregation stating it was “morally wrong and sinful because it is a denial of the unity and solidarity of the human race as conceived by God…”When many politicians and public leaders opposed Rummel's efforts to desegregate the local Catholic school system, he threatened to excommunicate them from the church — a grave form of censure that bars Catholics from communion and most other sacraments. Although this threat brought many to heel, three public leaders continued to oppose the move and were eventually excommunicated by the archbishop.hings get even more complicated when you look at the more recent actions of Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary. In 2003, at the height of the same-sex marriage debate, the Alberta bishop caused quite a stir by questioning prime minister Jean Chrétien's Catholicism: “I pray for the Prime Minister because I think his eternal salvation is in jeopardy. He is making a morally grave error and he's not being accountable to God.” A media frenzy ensued with most journalists reporting that the bishop had said the prime minister risked burning in hell over same-sex marriage.Catholic teaching gives little clear guidance on the appropriateness of church leaders criticizing public figures. On the one hand, the church has never been afraid to stake very clear positions on certain issues and in fact issued guidelines in 2003 ordering Catholic politicians to vote against same-sex marriage.On the other hand, there is a tradition of recognizing the role of conscience in guiding the actions of Catholics in public life. As a key church document advises, a Catholic should not “imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission.”It was no surprise, therefore, when the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops tried to distance themselves from Bishop Henry's comments. As a spokesperson at the time noted: “judgement is basically in God's hands and not in ours.”In that spirit, the Pope's challenging of someone's Christianity seems surprising. A closer look at what he actually said, however, reveals a much more nuanced statement that was less personal in its judgement. Even Trump admitted that upon reading it, he realized it was much less inflammatory than had been initially reported. And, as some commentators have pointed out, the fact we are working from a translation complicates matters further.The Francis-Trump fight made for good theatre. The unfortunate part is that in all the noise about whether it was appropriate for a religious leader to question someone's Christianity, we forgot about the real subject of the fight — the thousands upon thousands of migrants trying to seek refuge in the United States. Individuals, as Francis put it, “expelled by poverty and violence, by drug trafficking and criminal organisations. Being faced with so many legal vacuums, they get caught up in a web that ensnares and always destroys the poorest.”Francis called human forced migration a “global phenomenon” and asked each of us to think about it not in terms of “numbers and statistics” but “instead… names, stories, families.”I am certain Donald Trump would agree that all human beings are created equal. Then does it follow that the life of someone trying to seek refuge in the United States from violence and poverty is equal to that of his own or any other American? If so, then how do his plans for forced deportations and mega-walls align with that belief?And this is not just about Donald Trump. Few of us would hesitate in claiming equality among all people. But do our actions as a society, particularly towards the most marginalized, always support that claim? That's probably a more important question than who is right in a fight between a bombastic politician and an outspoken pope.John Milloy is a former Ontario cabinet minister who served as MPP for Kitchener Centre from 2003 to 2014.  Prior to that, he worked on Parliament Hill, including five years in the office of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. He is currently the Co-director of the Centre for Public Ethics and Assistant Professor of Public Ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural Practitioner in Residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program. John can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on twitter at: @John_Milloy.