At least he didn't call him "Pal"
God knows that George W. Bush mangles the English language. So does David Letterman, who mines Bush gaffes for his “Great Moments in Presidential Speeches” feature. So, presumably, do Pope Benedict XVI and his entourage.
That’s why I’m skeptical about news reports that Bush “drew gasps” at the Vatican for addressing the pope as “Sir” instead of “Your Holiness.” The vaunted Vatican diplomatic corps must have prepared the pontiff for the president’s problems with protocol. And some of the American monsignori are probably Letterman fans.
There are plenty of reasons to beat up on Bush, but dissing the pope isn’t one of them. Besides, Bush is in good company. The great Catholic poet Gerald Manley Hopkins addresses God himself as “sir” in his poem "Thou Art Indeed Just, Lord." And "Sir" is a title of respect derived from "sire."
More to the point, since Vatican II it has become more acceptable to dispense with medieval courtesy titles in addressing the clergy, though traditionalist Catholics bewail this practice. At my previous newspaper, the non-Catholic editor consulted me about how he should refer to the Catholic bishop of Pittsburgh. I assured him that "Bishop" was appropriate and that he needn't address the bishop as "Your Excellency" (or kiss his ring).
It wasn’t always thus. I remember, as a Catholic schoolboy, being startled when Ralph McGill, the famous editor of the Atlanta Constitution, addressed a Catholic bishop as "Sir" on a Sunday TV talk show. And I recall the trouble visited on one of my classmates at our Christian Brothers school when he said "Yes, sir" to Brother Michael, our typing teacher. "I am not a sir," the good Brother thundered. But that was 1965.
The pope has been called worse things than "Sir." I suspect he reacted to Bush's "gaffe" with papal indulgence.
Given who he is, it is surprising that Buish didn't put his arm around the Pope; after all he did that to the leader of Germany, Ms. Merkel. I think he actually rubbed her back and he's fond of referring almost anybody in very familiar terms i.e. Vladimir etc. He has been and continues to be an embarrassment to our country in every conceivable way. Many of us can hardly wait for his rule (and that's what it has been) to be over and done with. Unfortunately the consequences of what he has done in these years will haunt us for many more years to come. Dr. Howard Beardslee
Posted by: Howard Beardslee | June 12, 2007 at 09:04 AM
One would think that the leader of the most powerful county in the world would be prepared to learn and honor traditional protocols. Too much effort for this guy. Has there ever been a less sophisticated individual to serve as president of the United States? Unlikely. History will judge us harshly for electing him twice.
Posted by: Jas Turner | June 13, 2007 at 03:47 AM
I guess if you are Catholic....but, if you are not Catholic, the pope (small case)
is just along side of Billy Graham, pick your favorite Jewish leader, Hindu leader, muslim leader, etc. etc. etc. Nothing more (or less).
Our President is not Catholic. The US is still recovering from the President we had that was Catholic. To us non-Catholics, Hail Mary is a desperation football play. Keep it in perspective.....
Posted by: yours truly, johnny dollar | June 13, 2007 at 07:26 AM
I would think that Yale and Harvard must weep every time their joint son opens his mouth.
Posted by: G. Michael Paine | June 13, 2007 at 07:40 AM
How would Bush react, if a commoner would address him as "George" (in, say, a press conference)? Wouldd he snap?
This guy is really the U.S.`s Prince Phillip
Posted by: SusanneModeski | June 13, 2007 at 08:17 AM
Being a recovering cathaholic myself, I am personally not inclined to use religious titles when addressing people. I do not call ministers "reverend" or priests "father" (even if I suspect they might be unwed fathers). The same goes for guys who have been promoted to even higher levels. No way am I going to call anybody "my lord" (monsignor) or "your grace" or "your holiness" when I have no idea whether or not they are truly graceful or clean.
Now, having said all that, I am NOT a public person and I can do anything I please. If I was a public person, especially the highest of all public persons under our Great Nation, I would be under an obligation to follow customary and honorable forms of address, regardless of my personal feelings. BUT this -- embarrassment -- that we have seen fit to actually elect after a shameful appointment, evidently lacks even that basic sophistication.
Why do so many foreigners hate us? Hint: it is NOT because of our freedoms.
Posted by: John | June 13, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Ah leave Bushie alone. He did his best; people who care about titles just have that need to feel more important or different than everyone else. Doctors are the same way, even Ph.Ds...they like feeling important (like this Dr. Howard Beardslee-i mean what a darsh) ...I think it was pretty proegrssive of him to use a common term, actually. So Bravo Bush.
Posted by: Paul | June 13, 2007 at 03:59 PM
The President told the basketball whiz-kid with autism upon meeting him...
"and you call call me George W." So, to you Suzanne Modeski, the President
would be comfortable being called "George," by George.
And, isn't "Suzanne" a nose-a-little-too-high-in-the-air form of Susan?
And, I have no idea where to go with "Modeski."
Posted by: yours truly, johnny dollar | June 13, 2007 at 04:36 PM
and, by the way, how much money did the Catholic Church pay to get the President to include the Vatican on his stops in Europe? I know that the
towns pay big-bucks for the Tour de France to roll through them. Does the
William Morris Agency represent the pope?
Posted by: yours truly, johnny dollar | June 13, 2007 at 04:40 PM
Leave Bush alone? What the hell's the matter with you, Paul? You been on planet earth for the past 6 years? Bush deserves every insult, jab, swipe, and snide remark he receives.
Posted by: Lou | June 13, 2007 at 04:43 PM