Disrespecting the Pope
It seems that American president George W. Bush made another gaffe:
US President George W Bush drew gasps at the Vatican on Saturday by referring to Pope Benedict XVI as “sir” instead of the expected “His Holiness”, pool reporters said.
They could clearly hear the US leader say “Yes, sir” when the pope asked him if he was going to meet with officials of the lay Catholic Sant’Egidio community at the US embassy later during his visit.
James Joyner defends Bush by writing, “Bush isn’t Catholic. He’s the leader of the dominant country on the planet. Aside from the age gap, it’s rather remarkable that he’s addressing the pope as ‘Sir.’ Why on earth should he address him in the third person, let alone pretend that he considers him ‘holy’?”
Let me answer that question: manners.
When one meets the Dalai Lama, for instance, one has refer to him as “Your Holiness.” Now, I am not a Buddhist, so I do not for one second believe that the Dalai Lama is holy, but I would refer to him as “Your Holiness,” if I will ever have the pleasure to meet him, nonetheless.
Why is it a matter of “manners” to address someone by some silly title bestowed either by themselves or their followers?
I’d address Tony Blair as “sir” or “Mr. Prime Minister.” I’d address QE2 as “m’am” out of deference to her age and responsibility but certainly wouldn’t address her as “your majesty” as I’m not her subject.
For that matter, if I met the head of the KKK, I wouldn’t address him by whatever exalted title that comes with that position, either.
James, there is quite a difference between the head of the KKK and the head of the Catholic Church. It is a matter of respect. In this situation, whether you believe the Pope to be holy or not, is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Yes, James, anyone who is a head of state or a diplomat is expected to follow protocol; it has nothing to do with whether or not you adhere to the philosophy/theology/etc of the person you are addressing.
However, I tend to agree with Capt Ed that a single response to a question like that doesn’t necessarily even rise to the level of a gaffe (where’s our resident expert on gaffes, commenter “Interested”? LOL)
If Bush addressed him by the proper title throughout except for this one time, then no big deal (in fact if I’m not mistaken, not sure if this applies to the Pope but I think with a monarch the protocol is to address as “your majesty” the first time and then “ma’am” or “sir” is appropriate after that).
If he bungled it throughout, it’s still not earth shattering but definitely a diplomatic faux pas.