LA Times: Pope's U.S. visit could have political ripples

When Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States next week, he will find a nation consumed by a heated presidential election campaign. Will his presence have an influence?

Although he will meet with President Bush at the White House during his East Coast swing, Benedict is not expected to overtly speak of the campaign or U.S. politics. But his positions on burning social issues facing Americans are well-known, and political parties courting Roman Catholic votes may seek to take advantage of the publicity surrounding his words and actions.

The pope, as the ultimate arbiter of Catholic teaching, adamantly opposes abortion as well as stem cell research, same-sex marriage and any policy that in the church’s view undermines the traditional family. These are positions that find most resonance in the Republican Party.

However, the pope also has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, a country he said last year was being “torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.” He has voiced support for immigrants and denounced “inhumane” capitalism that hurts the poor and weak. Democrats might find something to cleave to in these views.

Benedict’s trip to the U.S., his first as pontiff, normally would have been scheduled for the fall, when the United Nations General Assembly opens. The U.N. extended the initial invitation to the Vatican. But the visit was moved to April to avoid running up against the November elections, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Tuesday.

Read it all.

print

Posted in * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * Religion News & Commentary, Other Churches, Pope Benedict XVI, Religion & Culture, Roman Catholic, US Presidential Election 2008

4 comments on “LA Times: Pope's U.S. visit could have political ripples

  1. libraryjim says:

    So, when has the Pope’s visit anywhere NOT had political undertones?

  2. Fr. Greg says:

    So when will we, as Christians, and especially as Christians who consider ourselves “Catholic”, whether Roman or not, embrace the TOTALITY of this message? While most prominently expressed at this time by what is called “[Roman] Catholic social teaching” and going back to the “Rerum Novarum” of Pope Leo XIII (not to mention St. John Chrysostom) what this Pope, and his predecessors, have to say is a legacy that belongs to, and should be embraced by, all of us. Laissez-faire capitalism, and its ideological companion, social darwinism, is the legacy of the Enlightenment, not the Christian tradition.

  3. Ian+ says:

    “the ultimate arbiter of Catholic teaching” is quite the wrong term. It should say that he is “the ultimate GUARDIAN of Catholic teaching”, for he preserves and proclaims what the Church has always taught. He does not decide what is to be taught– that is the role that Dr Jefferts Schori’s has taken.

  4. New Reformation Advocate says:

    Fr. Greg (#2),

    Yes, there is something in Catholic social teaching to offend everyone. No one need feel left out (grin).

    It reminds me of the famous “seamless robe” argument associated with the late, great Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, i.e., that a consistently “pro-life” position involves not only being opposed to abortion and euthanasia (at the bookends of life) but also opposition to the death penalty and to the use of nuclear weapons. It’s a powerful argument, though the question of how a consistent “pro-life” position applies to some issues is certainly debatable.

    But when western cultures are stuck in a “culture of death” as they are, the Roman Catholic Church deserves great credit for standing squarely and firmly for life, from conception to natural death. And therein lies some of the power of the symbolism of this papal visit to Ground Zero. It was Islamic fanaticism that caused the deaths of those almost 3000 people back in 2001.

    When the most important Christian leader in the world prays for, and thus honors, the victims of that unspeakable act of terrorism, this dramatizes the stark difference between Islam, with its violent culture of war and death as appropriate means of achieving religious domination, and Christianity, which despite its spotty record, has always been a religion that has idealized and promoted peace. In this regard, the difference between Mohammed and Jesus could not be more stark. Mohammed was a general and led troops in battle to conquer his infidel opponents. Jesus died meekly on a cross and urged his followers to choose non-violent resistance, and to turn the other cheek when insulted and abused.

    The papal visit to Ground Zero is a powerful and highly appropriate reminder that Christianity and Islam are indeed fundamentally incompatible. One promotes a culture of life (when actually practiced!), and the other a culture of death.

    David Handy+