Commentary: Pope Benedict and the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election

As we approach the "Ides of April", when Pope Benedict will begin his five day visit of the United States, we can expect political commentators to closely scrutinize what the pope has to say in an attempt to determine which candidate or party the pope supports. This is a fool's quest, in many ways, because Pope Benedict has more important things to talk about than - yes, even politics.

At the same time, it is a healthy opportunity to evaluate the candidates and their positions from the perspective of Catholic social teaching, and the particular pastoral priorities of the pope.

Robert Reilly, writing for Inside Catholic, starts us off:

Senator McCain not only needs Catholics who will vote for him, but who will each find ten other Catholics who will do the same. That is not going to happen unless he galvanizes the Catholic electorate. He has an opportunity to do this when Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States during April 15 to 20.

... So what should Senator McCain do when Benedict XVI visits in April? This is his opportunity to demonstrate that he understands the significance of the pope's thought as it relates to the institution of the family, the sanctity of human life, and the threat of radical Islam. [more.]

Reilly provides several more helpful and important talking points, including that McCain should appear in and be interviewed by Catholic media outlets (I, for one, would be happy to do so).

I think Reilly is absolutely correct. The pope's visit is an invitation to all high-profile political leaders to (re)commit themselves to the common values of human dignity and sanctity to which Pope Benedict witnesses.

On the democratic side, Michael Sean Winters, writing for America, hopes Hillary will make a similar move:

... the combination of Benedict's visit and anti-immigrant hostility in economically depressed areas of the Rust Belt gives Clinton a chance to move past her greatest liability: her previous support for NAFTA, support that received new credence from the release of her White House schedules which show she was involved in lobbying for the trade bill.

Note the disparity here: Clinton's best hope for political capital from the papal visit is ... NAFTA-related.

And even this might be too much to hope for, in discussing her role as a "change" candidate for instance:

I doubt Clinton will embrace such a proposal. The polls in Pennsylvania show her with a solid lead and why rock the boat? In the time-honored playbook of American politics, look for Clinton to go increasingly negative on Obama in the weeks ahead, trying to shift the fundamentals of the race. Still, until America realizes that it needs vibrant economic growth throughout the hemisphere, that NAFTA was not only bad policy that needs to be reversed, but that good policy needs to be put in its place, then and only then will we be approaching comprehensive immigration reform.

If "comprehensive immigration reform" is the best she has to offer as common ground with the pope's priorities, it's going to be a uneventul visit for her, at best. Too little, too late, in my opinion.

As for Obama, earlier this week he picked-up the endorsement of the former dean of the Catholic University of America's law school, Douglas Kmiec. Alisa Harris, writing for the Huffington Post:

But as Kmiec has noted before, Catholics do hold views that make them uncomfortable in either party. They’re pro-life, anti-death penalty, often anti-Iraq war, and concerned about global warming.

Will other Catholics follow Kmiec’s lead? So far, they’ve been voting for Hillary Clinton over Obama, but the New York Times says they’re a fickle group: “No other large group has switched sides so often, or been so consistently aligned with the winners.”

Kmiec's own position:

Kmiec noted that as a Republican and as a Catholic, he supports preserving traditional marriage and believes that "life begins at conception" -- and he acknowledged that Obama may differ with him on those issues. However, he said he is convinced that Obama "is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and … will respect and accommodate them." (UPI)

Unfortunately, Obama has actually demonstrated a complete unwillingness to understand opposing points of view on life issues, let alone respecting or accomodating them.

Deacon Fournier has written the definitive refutation of Kmiec's argument at Catholic Online:

On many important public policy issues I agree with my friend Professor Doug Kmiec. I also admire him and believe that he is sincerely pro-life. However, I respectfully and strongly disagree with his decision to support Senator Barack Obama.

In the application of issues in accordance with the hierarchy of values, I choose to hear the cry of the ones whom Blessed Teresa of Calacutta called the "poorest of the poor", the children living in the wombs of their mothers. After all, they have no voice but ours....

.... I am whole life, pro-life. I absolutely oppose the taking of innocent human life in the first home of the entire human race, the womb. Science has confirmed what our conscience has long known; the child in the womb is out neighbor. It is always and everywhere intrinsically evil to take innocent human life. Senator Obama is wrong in his support of legalized abortion. It is also intrinsically evil to “manufacture” human embryonic life to then kill that life for spare parts. Senator McCain is wrong in his support for deadly research on human embryonic life.

Note in that last sentence, a question that McCain also to has to answer, and has not yet done so satisfactorily.

And that, not-so-briefly, is where the candidates stand in respect to the pope, 19 days before the Ides of April.