Over 90 US lawmakers call for Pope Leo to address next Congress in bipartisan letter
A bipartisan group of 91 U.S. lawmakers asked congressional leaders to invite Pope Leo XIV to address a joint session of Congress in January. The lawmakers said the first American-born pope could offer a unifying message of service, compassion and human dignity after a divisive election. The letter drew renewed attention after the midterms, which changed control of Congress; the lawmakers who led the effort may not be in office when the next session begins. The lawmakers cited Pope Francis’ 2015 address to Congress as a precedent.
2 hours ago
More than 90 lawmakers from both parties have asked congressional leaders to invite Pope Leo XIV to address a joint session when the next Congress convenes in January. They said his American background and message on human dignity could offer a unifying perspective after a divisive election.
A letter dated Oct. 30, led by Reps. Mike Thompson, a California Democrat, and Brian Fitzpatrick, a Pennsylvania Republican, was signed by 91 members of Congress. It asks House Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to invite the Chicago-born pope to speak to the 120th Congress.
The lawmakers said Leo’s “unique perspective” and ties to the United States could help unite members, and that his emphasis on service, compassion and human dignity would be timely after the election. They also described a papal visit as a useful outlook on complex domestic and international issues.
The letter points to Pope Francis’ 2015 address to Congress—the first papal address to a joint session—as a precedent with historical and cultural significance.
The appeal drew renewed attention after the Nov. 3 midterms, in which Democrats regained control of both the House and Senate, according to the article. The political transition could affect the invitation’s prospects: Fitzpatrick lost his seat, Thompson was projected to lose a closely contested race, Johnson was reportedly preparing to step aside as speaker, and Jeffries announced his candidacy for the speakership.
Supporters quoted in the accompanying announcement described Leo as a leading moral voice on human dignity, peace and the common good. Jesuit Father Chris Kellerman said an address could also celebrate the country’s tradition of religious freedom, while Network executive director Laurie Carafone voiced support for the pope’s calls for peace, love and solidarity. Rep. Wesley Bell said on Nov. 6 that he had signed the letter.
The Catholic Church’s moral authority in democratic political life
The Catholic Church claims a moral, not governing, authority in democratic political life: it does not seek to wield state power or dictate every policy choice, but it does claim a duty to teach moral principles and, when faith or moral law requires, to judge public matters. Catholics, especially lay citizens, then have a responsibility to bring those principles into civic life through their own informed participation. This authority is meant to serve human dignity and the common good—not to replace democratic debate or the legitimate freedom of citizens and governments.
The Church distinguishes its religious mission from the state’s political responsibilities. The political and religious spheres have a proper distinction, which Catholic teaching recognizes as a genuine achievement. But that distinction does not mean that government is morally unrestricted: political autonomy is not independence from the moral law. The Church says its role is to form consciences, not to exercise political power or eliminate Catholics’ freedom to judge contingent policy questions.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith describes the point directly:
By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.
In other words, the Church’s claim is not that it should govern instead of elected officials. It is that political choices have moral consequences and should be assessed in light of truths about human beings, justice, and the common good. The Church’s social teaching is not, in its own account, an intrusion into government; it is a moral framework offered to citizens and public authorities for their consideration.
Catholic moral authority in public life is grounded in the belief that political decisions affect persons and communities, and therefore cannot be separated entirely from moral judgment. The Church’s interventions are especially relevant where fundamental rights, human life, or the family are at stake. One supplied magisterial text describes public authority as having a responsibility to ensure that civil law respects fundamental moral norms in these areas, while explaining that the Church appeals to values it considers accessible to reason and not exclusive to Catholics.
This is why Catholic participation is not supposed to be merely an attempt to secure benefits for the Church or its members. The cited teaching frames it as service to the whole society and to the common good. It identifies goods such as peace, freedom, equality, respect for human life and the environment, justice, and solidarity as matters in which citizens may properly engage.
The moral claim is therefore broader than “the Church has a view.” It is that some questions concern objective goods and harms, not only personal preference or party affiliation. A democratic majority can decide among political options, but majority support by itself does not make every policy morally right. The CDF warns against treating all conceptions of the human good as equally true, while also recognizing that more than one policy may be morally acceptable.
Catholic teaching supports democratic participation and recognizes a legitimate plurality of political views. Citizens may reasonably disagree about how to organize society, which strategies will work, or which of several policies best serves a shared good. Technical complexity and changing circumstances matter; the Church does not claim to supply one acceptable answer to every political problem.
The boundary is between plurality in practical judgment and relativism about basic moral principles. Catholics may choose among different parties and policy approaches when those choices are compatible with faith and the natural moral law. But the Church rejects the idea that democracy requires treating all moral positions as equally valid simply because they are held by different citizens.
That distinction also clarifies what “pluralism” does and does not mean. A pluralist democracy protects open discussion and disagreement; it does not require citizens to leave their deepest moral convictions outside public life. The CDF argues that excluding Christian moral reasoning from political participation merely because it is Christian would itself be a form of intolerance. At the same time, Catholics are expected to participate through democratic civic life, not to claim political exemption from it.
The Church’s moral authority does not relieve Catholics of political responsibility. In democratic societies, lay people participate as voters, lawmakers, public servants, advocates, and citizens. The Church’s teaching presents this engagement as a proper part of Christian life: faith should inform public responsibilities as well as private or devotional life.
That responsibility also means Catholics must use their own judgment. The Church does not settle every contingent policy question for them, and the CDF explicitly recognizes Catholics’ freedom to choose among morally acceptable political positions. Citizens should consider circumstances and the likely effects of policies, rather than assuming that a religious label or party platform automatically resolves every question.
A related distinction is between the Church’s moral teaching and a particular Catholic’s political decision. The Church may state a principle or judge that a certain kind of action is morally wrong, while leaving citizens to deliberate about the best feasible response in a specific situation. The materials supplied support this distinction between moral principles and political prudence, though they do not provide a detailed rule for evaluating every individual vote or election.
The Church’s moral authority does not mean that it should control the state, that every Catholic must support the same party, or that every religiously motivated policy proposal should become law. The CDF expressly rejects the idea that the Church should prescribe a single political solution to temporal questions entrusted to free and responsible judgment. It also recognizes that there can be multiple political parties and a plurality of morally acceptable policies.
Nor does invoking moral authority excuse coercion or disregard for other citizens. The supplied discussion of civic influence describes the Church’s public influence as mediated through citizens’ consciences and deliberations, rather than exercised directly as state power. It also notes that political promotion of religious institutions must respect the religious freedom of non-Catholic and non-Christian minorities.
The central tension, then, is not simply “religion versus democracy.” In Catholic understanding, a democracy needs both free political participation and moral reference points that protect human dignity and the common good. The Church seeks to contribute to that moral discussion; democratic institutions and citizens remain responsible for making political decisions through legitimate civic processes. Its authority is strongest as a call to conscience and a witness to moral truth, not as a substitute for democratic government.