{Not addressing this to anyone in particular, but it seems strange to me that many people’s dander is up because a religious leader is preaching the Gospel in the US.}
He is not “preaching the Gospel in the US” only. He was in front of Congress, the UN, Gettysburg and all over the media.
Why not give the same consideration to, say, Franklin Graham?
Most who are upset are not upset about this attention to a pope. Popes have visited before without engendering ire despite the unequal treatment they have been accorded. This pope has overreached.
Let’s compare apples to apples. The Pope is a head of state. Secondly, he is the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion people. Those two facts create a gulf of difference. This is not to say Franklin Graham isn’t influential or unimportant, but it is a matter of media scale.
Secondly he did preach the Gospel, and used words where necessary. He called out the importance of life and demonstrated by action Christ’s call to feed the poor and visit the imprisoned, as well as give comfort and counsel (Little Sisters of the Poor).
A pastor tends his flock, and in the US, it is pretty darn big.
One final note, in the US, we tend to view most things through a political lens. While it is true people are going to try and make political hay from anything the pope says or does, it doesn’t mean the pope is trying to be political.