George and Benedict
Just read this in John Allen’s post… an interview with Mary Ann Glendon: U.S. ambassador to the Vatican.
Allen: It wasn’t just his affection for Americans … Americans also showed a surprising degree of affection for him, didn’t they?
Glendon: Yes, and I thought all of that suddenly became clear in the ceremony on the White House lawn. To me that was incredibly moving, to have the President ‘speaking Catholic.’ In his own way, he was speaking Catholic. It’s a language with which he feels very comfortable. He’s the only president in our history who is so comfortable with Catholic terms and concepts, and he uses them regularly. Then you have the pope on that day … it was like a duet, with each one singing an unaccustomed role, or at least the role you wouldn’t think they would take. The president was poetic, and the pope was the one who sounded like the patriotic American. I think we all felt that. He was reminding us of things in our tradition that we take for granted, and telling us to be proud of that. Sometimes it takes somebody from far away to notice those things.
After the pope gave his speech, the president went up to him and said, ‘Awesome speech!’ It was so great, so American. Both of them were absolutely what they were. That’s who George Bush is, and that’s who the pope is. http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/interview_glendon.pdf
Rashamon!!!!
Peggy: I don’t understand the cry: “Rashamon!!!!” Meaning I don’t understand what it means? (I suspect it is not positive.)
Just a reference to the movie, Rashamon, in which the central event of the movie is redone according to the different perspectives of the characters…. Mr. Bush’s phrase “awesome speech,” has been treated quite differently in different venues. And perhaps not everyone shares Ambassador Glendon’s cheery account…. That’s all. not too negative, I hope.
JFK wasn’t “comfortable with Catholic terms and concepts”?
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t, but the ambassador’s comment seems like a thinly-veiled dig at JFK to me.
Also, I don’t know about anyone else, but I routinely tell my pastor “Awesome speech!” after Mass on Sundays.
I never saw “Rashomon” but I’ve heard enough to get the reference, I think, regarding the search for truth from multiple perspectives. Or the distortions that are self-serving. Basically, I think that Mary Ann Gendon has long been a Bush cheerleader and the Rose Garden looked even rosier to her as these two complemented –and at least Bush likewise complimented — the other. Perhaps that is “who the Pope is,” but I believe Bush hears that through the filter of “my country right or wrong” if Benedict’s words were diostortrd to be those of “a patriotic American.”
Since when is “awesome” used as W. used it a Catholic adjective? Or maybe W. was reacting to the quality of mystery in the Pope’s remarks. This is awfully puzzling.
Speaking of the “Catholic all too Catholic” Bush, what does his administration propose to do for Iraqi Christians? Anybody know?
Thanks, Peggy. I didn’t see the film and so missed your point.
Dear Joe, the next time it comes to your local art theater, see it.
As I see it is is quite sad that Benedict was not more forceful in critiquing Bush on this terrible war which is about oil and control. In addition to American deaths and injuries there are over 50,000 Iraqis who died and hundreds of thousands injured and displaced. This is something that cries to the heavens and the seamless garment should not only apply but with force.
There is blood on the hands of W in Washington and he should not get off that easily.
It’s either “shame on Glendon ” for being a shill or “shame on Benedict” for giving George W. a pass. I’d prefer to believe that Glendon’s off base. But I don’t know.
None of us know. I would say that she has fallen into the diplomatic role with enthusiasm. Since she is a fine person, I am sorry it is on behalf of GWBush.
Thepublic conversation between the president and pope has to be understood as an exchange between heads of state. The pope was being, well, diplomatic. Even so, the pope raised the main diplomatic dispute between the U.S. and Vatican by speaking of the need for “patient efforts of international diplomacy to resolve conflicts.”
What Bush will be remembered for is a war causing hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, and for making America formally the world’s foremost torturing nation.
Why did Benedict allow this man to put on a birthday party for him?
Why did Benedict help this man win in 2004?
Mr. O’Leary, here’s a wild thought about your question of Benedict’s tolerance for Bush–in addition to Paul’s quite accurate point, heads of state and all that: Perhaps (and I say perhaps) like many Germans (and French), Benedict thinks Americans are cowboys, or cowboy-like, energetic but not too bright. Bush not only fits but is the caricature! Also note Nicholas Sarkozy’s enthusiasm for Bush and cowboys. All circumstantial I know, but think about it.
“Heads of State” had no bearing when Bush chose to ignore practically all our allied nations to foment destruction in Iraq. Diplomacy sucks when burnt bodies and dismembered children lie in its path.
How do we not become enablers when we tolerate such stuff?
I wonder how effective the United Nations will be regarding the nuclear threat of Iran as well as other terrorist nations that would love to have weapons of mass destruction in their possession. How about China? This will be interesting to watch. The United Nations needs to do a much better job at insisting that these countries are in compliance otherwise diplomacy is simply not effective.