I think you missed the point, which I took to mean that religious priests should not be using their religious standing to pontificate on hot-button political issues, whether from the right or the left.
I think VDH simply used Sanders and Cruz (fairly, in my opinion) to define the two opposite poles of the political spectrum, which they do represent.
Since I was asked upthread about this, and I respect your thoughts and opinion, I'll add to my earlier reply. I agree that VDH's primary point is that a religious leader should refrain from speaking out about hot-button political issues, and particularly when using language associated with the FAR LEFT of the host country, during such a "religious" visit.
IMHO, then using political figures as an analogy and Ted Cruz as the example of the opposite pole of this fabricated spectrum, with this higly "religious" undertone to it, from a blatant Communist (Sanders), is extreme, forced and stupid. First, neither Cruz nor Sanders are religious figures, so the analogy (religious leaders shouldn't weigh in on hot-button political issues) is completely screwed up from the very beginning.
When conservatives on FR allow the media's "Palinization" of Ted Cruz into some extreme, right-wing, wacko bird, crazy, we're all screwed.