Should the Pope get involved in American politics? From Suzanne Malveaux CNN Washington Bureau WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush has urged the Vatican to ask U.S. bishops to become more involved in promoting his conservative social agenda, a Vatican official told CNN on Monday. Bush favors a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and restrictions on abortion rights in the United States. He pressed his case during a brief discussion with the pope's secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, on June 4, shortly after Bush's visit with Pope John Paul II in Rome, Italy. The president "complained that the U.S. bishops were not being vocal enough in supporting [Bush] on social issues like gay marriage, and abortion," a Vatican official privy to the discussion said. White House spokesman Scott McClellan confirmed that Bush met with Sodano, but would describe the meeting only as "a good private discussion" in which "they discussed a number of shared priorities." The Vatican official said Bush asked Sodano to "push the bishops to become more actively involved" in promoting those issues that are part of his social agenda. The Vatican official said Sodano did not respond to Bush's request. The official said "it was the Vatican's interpretation that [Bush] wanted [the bishops] to get involved in time for the campaign." McClellan, pushed to give details about the discussion, said, "The positions of the president and the Vatican are well-known on those issues. ... I would just leave it at that." The church opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, the death penalty, unjust wars and a host of other issues that are debated in the political mainstream. The Roman Catholic Church appears to have taken a greater role in U.S. politics after Francis Arinze, a top Vatican cardinal, called on priests to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion. The cardinal did not mention Sen. John Kerry by name, but when asked about the presumptive Democratic nominee, the cardinal said U.S. bishops should decide the question of whether he should receive communion. Forty-eight congressional Roman Catholic Democrats later signed a letter to protest the idea that politicians who support abortion rights should be denied communion. The letter was sent to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, chairman of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops, and was signed by legislators on both sides of the abortion issue. The legislators said denying communion to Catholics based on political beliefs would have "the effect of miring the church in partisan politics and allowing the church to be used for partisan purposes," and would "bring great harm to the church." (Full story) http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/14/bush.vatican/index.html
"Bush [told Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state], <b>'Not all the American bishops are with me' </b>on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism. Other sources in the meeting said that while they could not recall the president’s exact words, he did pledge aggressive efforts on the cultural front, especially the battle against gay marriage, and asked for the Vatican’s help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken. That's an excerpt from the National Catholic Reporter, picked up in a full-length article in The New York Times. As you probably know, there has been a movement afoot in a number of Roman Catholic diocese to deny communion to Roman Catholic politicians who oppose certain Catholic moral teachings as matters of public policy, as opposed to ones of personal conscience. The key example is abortion. One bishop, I believe, has even held out the option of denying communion to ordinary voters who don't vote a consistently pro-life line. According to today's Times ... In his recent trip to Rome, President Bush asked a top Vatican official to push American bishops to speak out more about political issues, including same-sex marriage, according to a report in the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper. In a column posted Friday evening on the paper's Web site, John L. Allen Jr., its correspondent in Rome and the dean of Vatican journalists, wrote that Mr. Bush had made the request in a June 4 meeting with Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state. Citing an unnamed Vatican official, Mr. Allen wrote: "Bush said, 'Not all the American bishops are with me' on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism." Mr. Allen wrote that others in the meeting confirmed that the president had pledged aggressive efforts "on the cultural front, especially the battle against gay marriage, and asked for the Vatican's help in encouraging the U.S. bishops to be more outspoken." Cardinal Sodano did not respond, Mr. Allen reported, citing the same unnamed people. I guess on one level we can say we've come a long way since 1960 when John F. Kennedy had to foreswear that he'd follow the instructions of the Pope in his decisions of governance. Today we have a Protestant born-again who tries to enlist the Pope to intervene in an American election. Now, let's look at this phrase 'more explicit activism'. The key point of activism we've been hearing about is that of denying communion to pro-choice Catholic pols, or perhaps those who support gay marriage -- seemingly always Dems, pro-choice GOPers seem always to find a special dispensation, shall we say. This creates at a minimum a political nuisance which affected Democrats must deal with. Now, just what sort of activisim is it Bush is asking the Pontiff to press upon the bishops? It seems a pretty small leap to think that pressing the denial of communion issue is one of them. And sources told the National Catholic Reporter that "while Bush was focusing primarily on the [gay] marriage question, he also had in mind other concerns such as abortion and stem cell research." Presidents regularly meet with Popes. Certainly they talk about matters both political and moral, perhaps even theological. <b>But is it the president's place to press the pope to sow religious divisions among American Catholics, a majority of whom seem uncomfortable with the efforts of some in the hierarchy to discipline pro-Choice Catholic politicians? And all that aside is it proper for the president to enlist the Vatican as an arm of his political campaign?</b> The articles noted above make it pretty clear these requests were made for electoral political purposes. Remember the words ... "Not all the American bishops are with me" -- Josh Marshall
more from Josh... Earlier today we noted reports that President Bush had told one of the Pope's chief advisors (actually Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state) that "Not all the American bishops are with me" on cultural issues and asked the Vatican to nudge the American bishops toward greater 'activisim'. The issues of Bush's concern were gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research. Now, out of context it's not immediately clear what such 'activism' might mean. But perhaps here is some of the context. The question of whether pro-choice politicians (particularly Democrats, it would seem, and particularly one named John Kerry) should be denied communion has been roiling the country's Catholic bishops. And starting today, June 14th, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will gather in Englewood, Colorado and one key item on their agenda will be to arrive at some guidelines or uniform decision on this issue of denying communion to Catholic politicians. The archbishop heading the task force on this question is Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington. In public statements he has said that he is uncomfortable with the idea of denying communion to Catholic officeholders. And for this he's been the target of a high-priced ad campaign by a group calling itself the American Life League. Finally, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said recently that he would like to meet with the Bishops on this question. (For what it's worth, a recent poll of lay Catholics shows they lean strongly against denying communion to the likes of Kerry, and even a majority of weekly church-going Catholics opposes the idea. And even some of the more conservative cardinals at the Vatican have recommended caution.) Now, a decision which leans in the direction of placing a sanction Kerry would of course be helpful to the president. But a decision which led to denying communion to various Catholic politicians who dissent from various Church-positions could quickly get out of hand. So one of Karl Rove's chief conservative Catholic allies, Deal W. Hudson -- with whom he has recently been strategizing -- has tried to simplify the issue. Here's a clip from the Post ... Karl Maurer, vice president of Catholic Citizens of Illinois, a conservative grass-roots group, said he would add sodomy and gay marriage to that list. Some liberal grass-roots groups have said they believe the church's teachings against war and the death penalty are worthy of equal treatment. "Once you open this door, what's going to come rolling through it?" asked Deal W. Hudson, editor of the magazine Crisis and a key Catholic ally of the Bush administration. "Pretty soon, no one would be taking Communion." Hudson said he believes the denial of Communion should begin, and end, with Kerry. Even better, he said, would be if priests would read letters from the pulpit denouncing the senator from Massachusetts "whenever and wherever he campaigns as a Catholic." Hudson's and Rove's agenda here seems rather clear. Now, put all this together. When the president tells Vatican officials that not "all the American bishops are with me" and then asks them to push the bishops to greater 'activism', what might he be getting at? Think about it. -- Josh Marshall
Wow, remember when people thought the Pope would run the country when JFK was elected? Kind of funny that the most influence by the Pope could come when we have a born again President.
I don't see this as that big of a deal. Democrats do exactly the same thing with black churches, labor unions, etc. When a large volunteer organization supports you, it is natural to look to them for help.
Agree w' Jeff, but want to add that the Pope is no fan of the Bush family. In particular, he's been a very vocal opponent of Bush foreign policy. I don't expect any favors to come rolling to the Whitehouse from the Vatican. I could underestimate the Pope's goals in the US though.
I agree in principle, but this is much larger. Most Catholics (in essense and in very nuanced terms) believe the Pope is infallible and that he speaks for God's will. Nobody at First Avenue Third Baptist Church in Podunk, Texas thinks their minister is infallible, or that he speaks for God. An endorsement from the Pope would be an historic coup for Bush. I seriously doubt that the Pope will endorse a candidate. But Bush's overtures are nonetheless scary. Religion is both personal and explosive, and mixing it with politics is very dangerous.
You'd be surprised. Remember that African Americans tend to vote in blocks. Something like 95 percent of African Americans voted for Clinton. Catholics do not tend to vote in that large a block. The key is voter turnout for African Americans and churches are the best way to get voters to the polls. The routinely have "roll to the polls" events on Sundays during early vote. It may not be as dramatic as the Pope, but it is just as effective.
The Difference......... http://www.catholic.com/library/Anti_Catholic_Whoppers.asp Not long after Pope Paul VI died in 1978, Bob Jones, chancellor of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, wrote an ill-tempered article in his school’s magazine, Faith for the Family (not to be confused with Dr. James Dobson’s magazine, Focus on the Family). The article was republished by the Fundamentalist organization Mission to Catholics, International (run by an ex-Carmelite priest-turned-Fundamentalist minister) as a tract entitled The Church of Rome in Perspective. No effort is made to be conciliatory, as the first line demonstrates: "Pope Paul VI, archpriest of Satan, a deceiver and an anti-Christ, has, like Judas, gone to his own place." It goes downhill from there. At one point, Jones attempts to raise the level of discussion, if only momentarily, by citing a diary kept by Bernard Berenson, the famous art collector and critic (who was, by the way, an Episcopalian). Here is what Jones says: "A pope must be an opportunist, a tyrant, a hypocrite, and a deceiver or he cannot be a pope. Bernard Berenson, in his Rumor and Reflection (a sort of notebook which he kept while hiding from the Germans in the hills above Florence during the Second World War), tells about the death of an early twentieth-century pope as described by his personal physician. When they came to give him the last rites, the pope ordered the priest and acolytes from the room, crying, ‘Get out of here. The comedy is over.’" The implication is that some unidentified pope, knowing his end was at hand, acknowledged that his office and religion were jokes and that he had lived a lie. That would be a damning indictment if true—but was it? Compare what Jones gives with what Berenson actually wrote. This is the entire entry for May 5, 1941, and it is found on page 43 of Rumor and Reflection, which was published by Simon and Schuster in 1952: "Yesterday a friend was here, a Roman of good family, closely related to the late Cardinal Vannutelli and thus in touch with the Vatican. He told me that soon after the death of Pope Benedict XV, his own father was dying. A priest was called in, but the father refused to see him. "Thinking to comfort the son, the priest said: ‘Don’t take it hard. Such things will happen nowadays. Why, the late Holy Father on his deathbed sent away the priests with: ‘Off with you, the play is over’ (la commedia e finita). His Holiness surely meant commedia as in the Divine Comedy, the title of Dante’s masterpiece," Berenson states. The problem is not just that Jones did not report the words accurately or that he attributed the story to the pope’s physician or that he was repeating material that he got at least third-hand. The problem is that he did not know (or care) what the pope meant by "la commedia e finita." The word "comedy" is used in a much older sense than the one having to do with humor. Throughout history, until very recently, a "comedy" was simply a play or story with a happy ending (the opposite of a tragedy). What we today refer to as a comedy was then called a farce, and the pope did not say, "Get out of here, the farce is over," which even itself does not mean, "Get out of here, the mockery which has been my life is over." Berenson was right to translate "la commedia e finita" as "the play is over." Another way to put it might be, "The drama of my life is over," which is hardly the confession of duplicity that Jones wishes us to think the pope made. The drama of the pope’s life had a happy ending, for he did not say, "The tragedy is over." Where did Bush go again in 2000???
If the Pope is infallible and speaks for God's will, and he endorses Bush, then you should probably vote for him.
Where Bush spoke makes no difference. Catholics will ultimately have to decide on their own. I just don't see the difference between asking Catholic bishops to advocate for a candidate and asking African American ministers to do it. If that is what the church wants to do, that's what they should do.
Jeff I agree with you 100%. I'll take it a step further no politician should be allowed inside a church to campaign. In fact, churches should not be allowed to donate ANY money to a campaign. This isn't about just the catholic church. Bush just did a live video feed to the SBC (who by the way just elected to remove themselves from the 2nd largest congregation in the world because they thought that it had become too liberal... "Liberal! That's an exact quote!). He is trying his damdest to court the religious vote in this country (and I understand that that is standard practice in politics). But it seems much more calculated to me. Why his he doing this? Simple. He is trying to use religion to divide this country. IMHO he WANTS that divide. it's just a little scary to me
Here's the story on the Southern Baptist... Southern Baptists Quit World Alliance By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer INDIANAPOLIS - The Southern Baptist Convention quit a global federation of Baptist denominations Tuesday as SBC leaders denounced the Baptist World Alliance and other groups for accepting liberal theology. At a meeting that has affirmed the SBC's conservative values 25 years after its rightward shift began, more than 8,000 Southern Baptists also cheered as President Bush (news - web sites) — speaking through a live video link — stressed his support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Outgoing SBC President Jack Graham called Bush "a man of personal faith whose leadership is great for America" as he introduced him. The SBC is the world's largest Baptist denomination and America's largest Protestant body, with 16.3 million members. It helped launch the alliance 99 years ago and was a strong supporter before its move toward strict conservatism with the election of a right-leaning president a quarter-century ago. On Tuesday, it took just a show of hands vote to approve the withdrawal from the alliance after a brief debate. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=5&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_re_us/southern_baptists
Bush Finds Common Cause With Baptists By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...4&u=/ap/20040615/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_baptists
They don't mean liberal as in my use of that term, someone who favors a weak military, higher taxes, a larger, more intrusive Federal govt. (which Bush unfortunately has bought into) ,defering our security to the corrupt UN, consequence-free hedonism, onerous regulations, draconian environmental regulations and little or no economic freedom. The SBC means liberal in the context of the interpretation of the Scriptures, which dilutes their message and impact (according to the Baptists). But I disagree that politicians should have to stay away from churches. They should have the freedom to freely speak to whoever they choose. As the First Amendment says: I think that about wraps that issue up. "Congress shall make NO law" is pretty damned explicit. I think that the Bishops are right to deny Communion to those who are pro-choice. If you're not willing to obey the laws of the church, why even be a part of it?
The Pope has also strongly opposed the war in Iraq, and I think all of those who support it should be denied communion.
