I was amused by the great job the media is doing on covering the differences that separate George W. Bush and Benedict XVI. Two or three outlets started out their reports by saying that "Although the two men had many differences such as the war in Iraq, the death penalty, and immigration..."
When it comes to politics, I'm an amateur. But I'm pretty sure that political adersaries normally don't arrange unprecedented overtures such as meeting a foriegn head of state upon his arrival for the first time ever, and holding the largest audience on the White House lawn ever. Perhaps I'm missing the nuance of W's political approach here, or perhaps he's as stupid as his critics claim.
The fact is that these two share a deep commonality on many essential issues and they differ on some issues of less essence. This is a fact that George Bush has been doing his best to highlight from the moment the Pope landed in the U.S. What the media is doing is obfuscating, perhaps with the complicit assistance of a cadre of Catholic "experts". These are experts whose agenda leads them to see these differences in too great a contrast.
As far as I know, the Pope has never commented on the war in Iraq. To my knowledge, he has commented extensively on abortion, euthanasia, the role of faith in public life, and a host of other issues of weighty moment. His emphasis may be a result of his assesment of relative importance.
Perhaps the media is better suited to comment on those who don't think very much about what they have to say.