Quote of the Day, from Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC): "It’s interesting how the Vatican has gotten so political when ultimately the Vatican ought to be working to lead people to Jesus Christ and salvation, and that’s what the Church is supposed to do."
See, when the Pope says something people like, then he's their best friend. When he says something they don't, then he's meddling in in matters he doesn't understand and shouldn't be involved in.
Rep. Duncan, the Catholic Church, like a great deal of American Christianity, doesn't recognize an artificial line between what sorts of human affairs it should be engaged in and which it shouldn't. Francis' actions are of a piece with evangelical preachers calling for certain politicians to be elected. It's of a piece with conservative politicians who proclaim loudly that of course they will carry they Christianity with them into the statehouse and use it as the basis for all their decisions.
So, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), to say "On faith and morals, he can speak to that … but on foreign affairs, maybe not" is meaningless, and as a Catholic he should know that. Politicians used Church teachings on "just war theory" as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Politicians talk about human rights violations in regimes they dislike and what to do about them. Those are all questions with a moral component.
Similarly, another Catholic, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), would prefer the Pope "focuses on issues [where] he can make a difference — the ‘nonnegotiables’ … There’s a Catholic view on life, on marriage, on the rights of parents and education. So I hope he sticks to this.” But that's intentionally fencing off the Pope, not from the process but from subject matter. These are the political and social things you should talk about. Not those. _These are the things that we want to use you as a weapon for. Not those.
Even more explicit was Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz): "He’s a religious figure and he has every right to have his political viewpoint, but someone of that profile should have strong scriptural foundation for whatever positions he takes that are extensively representing the head of the Catholic Church. I think this is probably one he should not have expressed." It's all about what Rep. Franks thinks Christianity teaches, not the Pope, even if the pope is a "religious figure" and has "every right to have his political viewpoint" — Rep. Franks gets to decide what positions have a "strong scriptural foundation" and then, presumably, it's okay to act on them.
Remember this as well next time some yahoo gets up and says that "Islam is not a religion, it's an all-encompassing political and social system." When done "right," that's exactly what a religion is. In the West in general, and in the US in particular, we've (rightfully) attempted to shortcircuit that integration between Church and State by drawing legal boundaries between them and trying to insist that while we want state leaders to act morally they should not be overtly trying to impose their religious doctrine.
Ironically, though, it's been the Republicans, of the sort quoted in this article (though not all pro-Israeli hawks are Republican), and their supporters that have been trying to weaken those barriers, to make America an explicitly Christian nation (for their values of Christianity). It's been their side that have argued that we should support Israel because of the Bible, not out of any balanced consideration of geopolitics. It's been them and their team who have brought God into every public policy debate from economics to war to foreign policy.
To suddenly cavil at the Pope for acting in a way they actually like but with content they don't is hypocrisy at its highest. It's not particularly new (see the Church's long objection to capital punishment in the US, as well as proclamations on economic justice, and how much traction those have gotten on the Right, vs its objections to abortion and same-sex marriage), but it remains striking. Because you can bet good money that if the Pope had issued a strong statement against the Palestinians, these same folk would have been elbowing each other out of the first to draw directly on the pope's ostensible moral high ground as part of their political cause.
Israel hawks to Pope Francis: Stay out of politics
After Pope Francis moved to recognize a Palestinian state, some gung-ho defenders of Israel suggested the pontiff should stick to preaching and stay out of politics. “It’s interesting how the Vatican has gotten so political when ultimately the Vatican ought to be working to lead people to Jesus Christ and salvation, and that’s what…
So, in 1947 Zionist terrorists kill British soldiers and declare a homeland for their religion in an are that already had occupants- and the US surprises the world by immediately recognising this.
In modern America, somebody’s religion is a major factor in elections, and the ability to make correct decisions is sometime questioned for those ‘who do religion wrong’, and of course you can’t trust atheists at all.
“Keep religion out of politics, unless its me, shilling for votes.”