THE FAÇADE of respect did not hide President Bush's utter disdain for the pleas for peace from Pope John Paul II. In his press conference Monday to announce that he would attend John Paul's funeral, Bush was asked by a reporter: ''How do you think this pope has affected America's spiritual and political life? And how much weight did you give to his opposition to the Iraq war?"
Bush began his answer by calling the pope courageous, moral, and godly. He talked about how the pope had a ''huge influence not only amongst, for example, young people in America, but around the world. One of his great legacies will be the influence he had on the young. He spoke to the poor. He spoke to morality."
Bush never answered the question on the Iraq invasion of 2003. The closest he got was, ''Of course he was a man of peace and he didn't like war. And I fully understood that. And I appreciated the conversations I had with the Holy Father on the subject."
Their ideals were unified, sadly, on only a couple of points, notably, women's choice, Terry Schiavo, and disdain for the Liberation Theologist clerics in Central & South America who compaigned against the rightist authoritarian leaders in the region. Otherwise, as GWBush fails to recognize, the crustly old Pontiff found his military adventures quite distastefull.
But here's the real problem with the Right in the USA cozying up to the Pope: IT'S A COMPLETE LIE!
Here's some of what I posted before about this topic, wherein I discuss how the Christian Fundie Right feels that Catholics are going to Hell:
I used to work with some of the biggest evangelical churches here in So. Cal., designing and building recording studios for their Christian record labels (another topic worth discussing), so I feel confident to speak on this issue. I spent time with staff, management, insiders, and not just the average parishioners, and I heard comments supporting my thesis many, many times.
In Catholic apologetics, much is made of the various scriptures discussing "works," i.e., how people demonstrate their Christianity. This doesn't mean public piety and pronouncement, but rather quietly helping the less fortunate, and behaving in a caring and selfless manner. "Do unto others..." is really the operative ideal. Demonstrating time and again one's Christian ethics is a noble goal. Of course, one must truly believe in Jesus as the Christ, sent from God to atone for mankind's sins.
The evangelicals, especially the large worldwide churches I worked with, however, pay less attention to the scriptures about "works" and focus on the idea of being "saved." Once someone is "born again," they are "saved," and that's that. Bad behavior is frowned upon, but it will not interfere with being "saved."
They believe that Catholics haven't really gone through this "born again" moment, so they aren't really "saved." I remember working with one man who was in charge of the sound system at one of these very large churches, he was saying that he wished his mother was saved. An Hispanic, he admitted that he had been raised Catholic. I asked if his mother went to church, prayed, and believed in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and he said "Of course she does. But she's not 'saved.'"
In the eyes of many born-again, Catholics are only slightly better than the evil cultists Mormons. Yet, this election cycle, they were gladly accepted as long as they passed the litmus test, not of being true Christians, but being anti-Kerry (anti-choice.) Utter hypocrisy, much like Nader allowing Republicans to support his ballot presence.
Believe it or don't, the hypocrisy stinks.