More than 90 members of Congress urge leaders to invite Pope Leo XIV
A bipartisan group of 91 U.S. lawmakers urged House leaders to invite Pope Leo XIV to address a joint session of Congress next year. The lawmakers said the first American-born pope could offer a unifying message of service, compassion, and human dignity after a divisive election. Congressional leadership has discretion over invitations, with no formal procedure set in law or chamber rules. Pope Leo has said he hopes to visit the United States, though no trip is scheduled; he is currently visiting South America.
15-il siegħa ilu
More than 90 lawmakers from both parties have urged House leaders to invite Pope Leo XIV to address a joint session of Congress in 2027, citing his status as the first American-born pope and his message of service and human dignity. Leo has said he hopes to visit the United States, but no trip has been scheduled.
A letter signed by 91 Republican and Democratic members of Congress was sent to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. It asks them to arrange a joint address early in the 120th Congress, which begins in 2027.
The lawmakers said Leo’s election was a source of pride for millions of Americans and that his ties to the United States could help unite members of Congress. They described his emphasis on service, compassion and human dignity as especially timely after a divisive election, and said his perspective could be valuable as the country confronts domestic and foreign policy issues.
The letter also pointed to Pope Francis’ 2015 address to Congress as evidence of the historical significance and cultural impact such a visit could have. Congressional leaders’ offices had not immediately responded to requests for comment.
Leo, who was born in Chicago, has no U.S. visit on his current schedule. In June, however, he said he hoped to visit soon, while noting that no plans were final.
In July, he marked the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence with a letter praising its ideals, and accepted the National Constitution Center’s 2026 Liberty Medal. At the time of the report, he was on a South American trip scheduled to conclude in Peru on Nov. 17.
The Congressional Research Service says invitations for a pope to address Congress have previously come from congressional leadership, sometimes in coordination with the executive branch. No law or House or Senate rule sets a formal process for issuing such invitations.
The Church’s moral authority in democratic political life
The Church’s moral authority in a democracy is not authority to govern the state or dictate every political decision. It is a teaching responsibility: to illuminate conscience and judge public matters when faith or moral law is at stake, especially where human dignity and the common good are threatened. That responsibility belongs within democratic debate, while political choices on many concrete and changeable questions remain the responsibility of citizens and their elected representatives.
The Church distinguishes the political community from the Church’s own mission. A democratic state has its proper competence in governing; the Church does not claim a right to exercise governmental power or to replace citizens’ free judgment. Its social teaching aims instead to form consciences, including those of Catholics who take part in public life. The Compendium makes the distinction explicit:
“The Church's social doctrine is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries.”
This separation of roles does not mean that public life is morally self-contained. The Church rejects an understanding of state autonomy as independence from moral truth. The distinction between religious and political spheres is valuable, but it does not make justice, freedom, respect for life, or human rights irrelevant to legislation and public policy. The Church’s argument is that moral principles concerning social life can be defended through reason, even when religious traditions also teach them.
Accordingly, the Church’s public moral voice is not, in its own understanding, an attempt to impose a narrow religious code on everyone. The CDF describes defending values accessible to human reason—particularly in matters of human rights, life, and family—as a service to society. It also says that public authorities have a responsibility to ensure that civil law conforms to fundamental moral norms in these areas.
Democracy provides important means of participation: citizens can help shape political choices, elect and hold leaders accountable, and replace them peacefully. The Church values these features, while insisting that democratic procedures alone do not settle whether a policy is just. A majority vote can determine what law is enacted; it cannot by itself establish that the law respects the dignity and rights of every person.
The concern is not that every disagreement is dangerous or that political questions have only one acceptable answer. It is that democracy becomes vulnerable when it treats truth and moral limits as nothing more than temporary majority opinion. The CDF warns against confusing legitimate political pluralism with the claim that all moral positions are equally valid. Its account of pluralism allows diverse parties, strategies, and policies, but holds that democratic life also depends on basic ethical principles.
This is why the Church sees moral teaching as relevant to political life: laws and institutions affect real persons, especially those with less power to protect themselves. John Paul II emphasized the Church’s responsibility to make the voice of the weakest heard and to teach moral values that laws should not disregard.
A key distinction is between moral principles and the political means of applying them. The Church may teach that certain goods must be protected, or that some actions are morally wrong, without claiming that it has identified the single best tax rate, welfare program, regulatory scheme, or institutional design. The CDF says the Church does not set out specific solutions to temporal questions that are left to people’s free and responsible judgment. It does, however, claim the right and duty to offer moral judgment when faith or moral law requires it.
That leaves room for Catholics to disagree about many policies in good faith. Different approaches may seek to protect the same underlying value; circumstances and technical questions can also make political decisions complex. The CDF therefore recognizes a plurality of morally acceptable political solutions, while distinguishing it from disagreement that abandons essential moral principles.
The practical implication is that Catholics should not treat every political preference as a Church command—or treat Church teaching as irrelevant whenever a question enters public debate. They must assess their participation in light of Catholic moral and social teaching, while exercising their own responsibility in evaluating concrete circumstances and available options.
The Church’s public role is not limited to bishops or clergy making statements. Lay Catholics have a distinctive civic responsibility: to participate in the many areas of public life and to bring their moral convictions to political work, in cooperation with others and with respect for the proper autonomy of the political order. The CDF specifically warns that lay Catholics should not withdraw from public life, which includes legislative, economic, social, administrative, and cultural activity.
For Catholics, conscience is not meant to be divided into a private religious part and a separate public part. The CDF says that Christian moral coherence applies across family, work, society, and public responsibilities. Acting from conscience in politics, it explains, is not inherently “confessionalism”; it can be a way of contributing to a society more consistent with human dignity and the common good.
This does not make every Catholic politician’s position an official Church position. Nor does it remove the need for prudential judgment—the careful assessment of what can realistically and justly be done in particular circumstances. Rather, it means political participation should be morally serious: citizens should consider not only electoral advantage or party loyalty, but also the human consequences of laws and the principles those laws express. The Church’s teaching informs that judgment; it does not substitute for it in every contingent matter.
There is a tension to hold carefully. The Church should not claim civil power simply because it teaches moral truth; democratic government should not exclude religious citizens from public argument simply because their convictions are religious. The CDF calls it a form of intolerant secularism to deny Christians the legitimacy of participating in politics according to conscience and in pursuit of the common good. At the same time, its account of the Church’s role is to teach and illuminate, not to take control of political institutions or erase legitimate disagreement.
So the Church’s moral authority in democratic life is best understood as a public teaching and witness, not a substitute government. It calls political power to account against moral standards, especially where human dignity and fundamental rights are concerned; it also leaves citizens genuine freedom to debate and choose among morally acceptable policies. For Catholics, this means neither withdrawing from democracy nor confusing faithfulness with automatic agreement on every political tactic. It means bringing conscience, reason, and concern for the common good into public life.