The Poltical Arm of the Pontiff

This past Sunday, Pope Benedict XVI beatified 498 “victims of religious persecution” during the Spanish Civil War. Controversy has exploded over this supposedly blatant support of Franco's regime. Critics claim that the Vatican is overstepping its boundaries and condemning the Socialists who opposed Franco's dictatorship. Others comment that these beatifications are of 'convienient timing', especially in consideration of a new bill scheduled to pass through Spanish parliament that offers amends to the victims of Franco's regime.

Implicit in many of these comments and articles is the criticism that the Pontiff should not be involved with politics. Many are outraged that the Pope would even consider politics in scheduling these beatifications. My question is not whether this was the Pope's agenda, but whether or not it would be a problem if that was so.

Many people do not realize that the Pope has been involved in poltical affairs as long as the papacy has existed. Popes throughout the ages have attempted to take a hand in world affairs, risking the fine line between heaven and earth. Historians and politicians alike have critized the Pope's involvements in the crusades, the crowning of kings, and the support of specific political regimes. Perhaps it is time to move beyond trying to figure out the Pope's agenda and question whether the seat of Peter has a legitimate role to play in poltical affairs.

How far should the Holy Father's arm extend? If his concern is pastoral care of the world, do those concerns extend into politics? Is the papacy a two edged sword of morality and politics? The homily at the beatification implied that if a government is acting against the dignity of human life it is the role of Catholics to oppose it. Yet where should we draw the line in order to render unto God what is God's and Caesar what is Caesar's?

Twin Pot Stirrers put Poland in a Stew

The Wall Street Journal's recent expose ¨Double Trouble: Twin Politicians Shake Up Poland- and the EU¨ on the Kaczynskis,- and the EU the current twins acting as Polish president and prime minister, is almost unbiased. The article reads like a riveting plot of an action film- recounting the tale of two twins who were child movie stars, young leaders of the Solidarity movement against Communism, and now the leaders of Poland, a recent initiate (2004) into the European Union.

The question raised subtly throughout the article is over whether or not the Kaczynskis are heroic representatives of a democratic Poland or new dictators in the making. This charge is quite serious, considering the oppressive history of Poland under various regimes. Certainly, the twins are conservatives and their strong actions are extremely controversial. The Wall Street Journals admits the strong support for the twins by citing several people who believe that the Kaczynskis are fighting for their country and are correct in their complaints about the EU.

By the end of the article, however, the Kaczynskis are subtly being compared to political tyrants. The one inset in the article reads in bold type, “The Kaczynskis won't accept partners, they only have people who serve as tools for realizing their plans, said one early Kaczynski appointee who lost his job for being too independent.”

With a flourish the last paragraph warns of the twins slogan for “a Stronger State” as indicative of something sinister that would never be accepted in Western Europe. While the Wall Street Journal might be right to question the actions of these politicians, we must also question their bias and willingness to discount their popularity and clear record of actions fighting for Poland's national identity and people.