Within the job
description the pope is listed as the head of the Catholic Church and the
Bishop of Rome. He is the head of the sovereign city-state, Vatican City and
has duties both political and religious. However with his recent visit to the
United States he overstepped the boundaries that his position gives him.
Although he is a political figure, it is unacceptable for him to impose his
beliefs on a country that constitutionally states its obligation of a separation
of church and state. Despite the pope being the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion
Catholics, he challenged Congress on a variety of controversial issues.
The pope has
made it very apparent that he will not steer clear of controversial issues
during his six day visit in America. His visit comes at a time when the
religious citizens of the United States feel as if they are facing challenges
over the limits of religious liberties. Pope Francis used his first direct
address to the nation to discuss deeply troublesome issues including climate
change, Cuba, marriage, the traditional family, the death penalty and
immigration. He stated that these issues are moral, not political issues that
the richest, most developed countries have an obligation to act upon. He
claimed that he was ready to offer guidance to those charged with shaping the
nation’s political future (Collinson). And that is exactly what he tried to do
when he spoke to Congress early on Thursday morning.
Pope Francis
made a conscious decision to capitalize on the high profile moment and speak in
defense of religious liberty and the way he believes his religion should affect
American legislation. He took full advantage of the opportunity given to him. “Both
sides were looking to his words for moral support for their arguments from a
figure deliberately resistant to clean political definitions. In the end, both
sides could walk away citing parts of his message. But the liberal agenda items
in his speech were explicit and clear while the conservative ones were more
veiled (Baker).” The pope did not scold lawmakers but spoke in slow, cautious
English in a tone more similar to a sermon. Despite the slight struggles with
the language barrier, he did not shy away from discussing intense political
messages. His religious connection was not forgotten as he cited scriptures to emphasize
his arguments.
The pope was
invited by Speaker John Boehner, a proud Catholic, who has tried for twenty
years to get a papal figure to come to Capitol Hill. He said “there’s a lot of
interest in what the pope is saying, his outreach to the poor, the fact that he
thinks people ought to be more religious. He’s got other positions that are a
bit more controversial, but it’s the pope (Baker).” It is concerning that a man
as powerful as John Boehner could easily be influenced by a religious figure that
has very strong set of beliefs. This strong connection that Boehner feels to
the religious leader could be seen as he wiped away tears during the pope’s
speech to the audience on the Front Lawn. Similarly, Pelosi crossed herself
several times as a wave of religious emotion came over her.
Boehner and
Pelosi have encountered other religious figures during their time as leading
politicians, but it did not have the same emotional effect on them as did the
papal visit. This gives cause for some concern as to how it will affect their further
decision making. The Dalai Lama visited Congress in 2014 and spoke about the
need for law makers to have pure motives. The Majority Leader said that the
presence of His Holiness “inspired him to speak and act with a pure mind. [The
Dalai Lama] motivates countless people around the world, of every faith, to
practice compassion (International Campaign for Tibet).” The Dalai Lama and the
pope agreed in the sense that America should feel a great responsibility to making
the world a better place. However where the Dalai Lama encouraged a way of
being, the pope focused on specific matters and attempted to impose his beliefs
on the legislative branch- which is where he crossed the line. It is perfectly
acceptable for politicians to have relationships with religion, but if religion
tries to influence a politician’s agenda and decision making then there is a
clear violation of the Constitution. An example of an acceptable relationship
between religion and politics can be seen through the workings of Martin Luther
King Jr. He came to Washington to talk about change, and used his religious
background as a motivational tactic and a way of uniting many people, but found
backing for his cause within the Constitution. Pope Francis on the other hand
uses his status that he gained through his religious beliefs to speak to
political figures about how he thinks certain legislation should be handled.
There has been
suspicion of religious figures, especially Catholics, in politics for many
generations. When the first Catholic elected president, John F Kennedy, came into
office, he felt obliged to clarify that he would not take orders from the pope.
It is unclear if the members of Congress will fall subject to their religious
beliefs and toss aside their oath to be loyal to the Constitution. The Congress
that Francis addressed includes 138 House members who are Catholic, and 26
Senators (Baker). Not only are both House leaders Catholic, but so is Vice
President Biden- the president of the Senate. It is uncertain how influential Pope
Francis’s message will be but “his boldness in staking out positions on the
nation’s most pressing issues could reverberate through Capitol Hill and the
2016 presidential race in the months to come (Collinson).” To allow a religious
leader to decide the way America should be governed is to violate what our Founding
Fathers fought to protect.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/23/pope-francis-wades-into-u-s-politics/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith-live/liveblog/updates-pope-francis-in-america/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/pope-francis-washington-visit-updates/index.html
https://www.savetibet.org/dalai-lama-welcomed-by-u-s-congress-makes-history-delivering-opening-prayer/
3 comments:
It's interesting to analyze some of the reactions of the GOP as a whole towards the Pope's address and his viewpoints. There is this notion that many conservative politicians base a lot of their own views on their religious faith. Some far right conservatives, like those involved with the tea party movement, stress conservative views through religion frequently as well. Pope Francis, on the other hand, is a very moderate and liberal pope based on his viewpoints. The conservative members of the senate and congress are having a tough time of deciding between making their party happy, and disagreeing with the Pope on major issues, or making their constituents who support the pope (regardless of party affiliation) happy, and supporting the pope's call to action on many different issues. Some conservative's such as Ted Cruz, have decided to side with the GOP as opposed to the pope. Cruz has even said some silly things along the way in doing so, such as that the Catholic church should consider "firing" the Pope...
http://religionlo.com/fire-pope/
I believe Pope Francis didn't go too far when it came to his boundaries. Sure he pointed out many of the flaws that our country and our governmet have at the moment but it didn't seem like he was imposing anything. He was simply expressing his opinions about how dissapointed he was about the United States and Congress. He doesn't come off as a tyranical figure where his word is the final word rather he simply offered a more peacful and harmonious route Congress could either accept or ignore. The question that remains is could Congress use the Pope's "advice" to put aside there differences and try and make our country stronger than ever or will they continue their divided and selfish ways?
I agree with Dan in the sense that the Pope did not cross any boundaries by speaking to Congress, but the question is did Congress go too far in pushing this distinction between church and state by letting the Pope speak to them? I've mentioned in a previous post that it is impossible to eliminate all religious influence from Congress because it religious voters elect officials that will represent their values and interests, and this will inevitably lead to religious lawmakers. However, is it going too far to allow religious leaders the chance to directly influence our lawmakers? Even the Dalai Lama might be taking this a little bit too far.
But regardless of the constitutionality of the Popes speech, I think it's going to be interesting to see if the emotional reactions of the members of Congress reflects in the upcoming elections. I doubt it will, because religious commitment doesn't seem like a factor that will negatively effect candidates, but maybe am insurgent campaign could potentially exploit an overly emotional reaction in an attempt to paint it as a conflict of interest between governing responsibilities and commitment to religious doctrine. Again, this probably won't happen but it will definitely be interesting if it does.
Post a Comment