On the drive into work, I had the misfortune of listening to Cokie Roberts getting a little excited about the pageantry of the Papal resignation. Now, she’s a special case when it comes to power worship, but I think the American fascination about the Pope is akin to our fascination with royalty.
I recall the weeping and rending of garments in the American public when Princess Diana died. I allowed as how her death was untimely and sad, but not uncommonly so and questioned what all the fuss was about. The couple of responses I got were along the lines of “she was such a great humanitarian and did a lot of good work.” Maybe so, but not so long after, Mother Teresa died without anything near the attention. So, clearly, the humanitarian undertakings had little to do with the Princess Diana worship. It was her status as royalty that prompted the attention.
I don’t know why Americans have that tendency — maybe because we have no formal royalty of our own. But, in any event, I think that’s what’s going on with Pope Benedict; at least in the U.S. I doubt any but a passing small percentage of the population could describe with any particularity what acts he’s taken that have had a positive influence on the world. He’s interesting because he’s royalty of sorts.
I think you are being a little too cute with this one, Doug. Of course, Cokie Roberts is awful, and probably is driven to being dramatic because of the power-worship that you note, as well as her Catholicism and the fact that her mother, Lindy Boggs, was once the US Ambassador to the Holy See. Still, the comparison to Princess Diana strikes me as specious. Whatever you might think of Joseph Ratzinger personally or the papacy or the Catholic Church generally, it is a huge, worldwide, hierarchical organization. You probably typed this post while sitting within a few miles of the office of the Bishop of Lafayette, who was appointed by the Pope, as are all other local bishops in the United States and around the world. Something like 22 percent of the U.S. population identifies itself as Catholic, and close to a sixth of the world’s population. While it’s certainly debatable whether the Pope’s influence is for good, for ill, waxing or waning, etc., that it’s an office with considerable power and influence doesn’t seem to be in dispute. For that office to be handed off by a living Pope for the first time since the Renaissance strikes me as a legitimately major story.
Sure, people like pageantry. Hundreds of thousands of people crammed into the Washington Mall a few weeks ago to watch the inauguration of a sitting president. People like Opening Day and the Oscars, too. And I can’t deny that is part of the reason that this transition is getting so much attention. But Princess Diana, however nice a person she might have been, was famous for being the spouse of the heir to an office that is now entirely ceremonial. The papacy, whether you think it is used for good or for ill, is not merely ceremonial.
I think if you kept the pageantry and royalty aspect of the papacy but got rid of the power, this event would get the same attention. By contrast, if you kept the power but ditched the royalty & pageantry angle, this event would not get the same attention.
For example, when the upper management of Goldman Sachs re-shuffles, people don’t pay attention despite the power wielded by those positions being enormous.
We kicked out the monarchs a long time ago and don’t need them. Not that I would give monarchists or their worshipers a beat down like Bill did to English Bob.
Since I’m not Catholic I don’t really care about the Papacy. I find its rituals and such interesting but not much beyond that. All I really care about is how they cover up crime and corruption within their institution.
Hell, I even reject the legacies of folks like the Kennedy’s, Gates’, Gore’s, Bayh’s and the rest. They aren’t our royalyt and just because your parent was a successful business man or politician doesn’t mean you will. A pox on the scions of those houses.
Of course, I could be in a foul mood because we got crappy snow this week instead of glorious snow.
I think treating people as something other than people is pernicious. At the end of the day, Ratzinger is just a guy. He’s not magic. If he’s smarter or wiser than the general population, it’s only on the margins, just like any other smart or wise person.
Same with the Kennedys or the Windsors or anyone else.
He may be just a guy but he is considered infallible. :-)
Yeah, I wouldn’t mind the scions of the various American dynasties so much if people didn’t fawn over them so.
This is staaaarting to verge on anti-Catholic, just so you know.
Just so I know? You’ll have to elaborate. I can see, maybe, anti-Pope. Not anti-Catholic, I don’t think.
I guess that touchy people should avoid looking at cartoonist Pat Oliphant’s two latest political cartoons then.
I could see the hype surrounding Pope John Paul II, whose papacy was long and somewhat progressive and transformational. The current pope was largely seen as a placeholder of sorts when chosen. My casual opinion is that choosing a relatively young pope had increased the pope’s power more than the church was comfortable with, so they went with an old guy as a replacement. I can’t think of a thing this one has done of significance. He reminds me of John Paul I or some of the others that die shortly after becoming pope. The only difference is that he’s getting out while still alive.
T is correct in his memory that the current Pope was selected as a “place holder.” He was also chosen as someone who could bridge the gap in between someone who is legendary and – who a large majority of Catholics – believe is destined to become a saint. In this scenario, a good analogy would be to a coach who had won throughout his career and become synonymous with a school/ program/ team. The first guy hired after that person has died or retired will forever be in their shadow. Thus, you hire someone who can steer the ship for a few years and who knows the deal they’re making.
The fascination, at least from folks who were raised Catholic in the U.S. and have since lost their commitment because of the extreme positions the church/ Pope takes, is that maybe – JUST maybe – the college of cardinals sees the problem with the hard line conservatives and reverses course. It, most likely, won’t happen, but they is still a chance just like how everyone hangs on for a half court shot at the buzzer at the end of a game. Once the shot doesn’t go down, or in this case a miracle of choosing a progressive doesn’t come to pass, most people will go back to their daily lives and or their typical apologetic line that most U.S. Catholics have with the Vatican. “Well, it’s old world Europe…sooooo…what are you going to do?”
“He was also chosen as someone who could bridge the gap in between someone who is legendary and – who a large majority of Catholics – believe is destined to become a saint.” Not sure what gap you mean, between John Paul II and John Paul II?
Maybe a misstatement (and are you sure about that large majority?), but nevertheless, blanket statements usually fall short. The “saint” should have been John XXIII. For me, those after him were the “placeholders”, who themselves were succeeded by … I can’t think what term to use … but severe backsliding occurred. Fun, comparing this to basketball, coaching, half court buzzers, and shots that don’t go down. It may be a spectator sport for most, but the future of the Catholic church is not a game, it’s serious.
The Left welcomes and rewards bigotry, as long as it’s their brand of hatred, employed against their targets.
Again, a little specificity please. Anon drops an anti-Catholic bomb. You allege bigotry. Quote me chapter and verse, please; so we can see whether you guys have a point or are just blowing shit based on vague, undefined hurt feelings that may or may not be misplaced.
Oh, lotsa people out there obsessed with dresses and shoes; the noxious thing is when slurping newsreaders simply ignore the fact that at least half the globe disagrees absolutely with everything they’re saying.
That business with the Spencer dame was an exercise in manufactured celebrity worship, like hundreds before or since. The Pope, on the other hand, is a Head of State and the leader of the largest Christian cult, with a lot of American followers, so he qualifies as news. And, to me, that parade of inexcusable wealth and high-level corruption can’t get enough attention. But the simple fact is that the pageantry and reverence accorded the Church (or Diana) requires telling only half the story.
I have called out people on other blogs for blatant anti-Catholic bigotry. As a Catholic, I don’t find anything Doug said that offended me. I don’t, however, buy the similarities between people’s feelings toward the Pope and the British Royal Family. People feel the way they do about the Pope because of deep religious convictions. The British worship of the Royal Family on the other hand is without any foundation in common sense. By the way, wish me luck. As a baptized Catholic male, I am eligible to be named Pope under the Church’s rules. Keeping my fingers crossed. I’d be the first Lawyer Pope.
Paul, are you SURE you would be the first “Lawyer Pope”? Maybe not in the same sense as being admitted to a state’s bar, but I’m pretty sure there were a number of Canon Law experts elevated over the years. By the way, as a baptized-plus-twelve-years of excellent Catholic education under Benedictine nuns and Holy Cross Brothers…..but not quite in good standing because of disagreements over the Church’s stance on sexual orientation issues…..I agree with Paul as to some of the more blatant anti-Catholicism. While it’s certainly fair to be critical of the handling of the priestly sexual abuse scandal, and to vehemently disagree concerning matters of theology, there’s a form of Catholic-bashing for its own sake, and it frequently speaks louder than whatver valid points the speaker might otherwise be articulating. I’ve seen some in the comments here….but as Paul observes, never from you, Doug.
I’m sorry, but where’s the Catholic bashing in the comments on this post?
Doug, must say I do disagree with you somewhat. My late grandmother was a Christian, but not Catholic. Nevertheless, she was always very respectful of the Catholic church and the pope. She was very much interested in the news when John Paul II was selected, as were many people—Catholic or not—all over the world. The pope is both the leader of the Catholic church and a world leader whose word and deeds are of great interest to many people all over the world.
I have no inside information, obviously, but unlike T, I do doubt that the College of Cardinals chose the former Cardinal Ratzinger as successor to John Paul II because they wanted an older pope who would be less powerful. John Paul II had appointed most of the College of Cardinals, so it is unlikely they were unhappy with either the length of his term or his orthodoxy. I believe they chose Cardinal Ratzinger, who was Dean of the College of Cardinals, as someone who would carry on John Paul II’s orthodoxy, even if he would serve for a much shorter time due to his age.
Paul is wrong – at least Eugenio Pacelli was very versed in the law since he helped promulgate the Church’s Canon Law 1917 – before becoming Leo XII – 1939-1958….
Well, by now we all know who the new pope is. Of course much is yet to unfold. However, we have a pope of firsts, it would seem. I myself, having been schooled by Franciscan nuns, am thrilled with the name he chose, and there must be some reason, as much for him to have chosen it as well as why it wasn’t chosen before in all these centuries. Francis of Assisi was a radical whose power did not reside in marble hallways or on thrones or in velvet trappings. And then, the new Pope’s first words were : “Brothers and sisters” — exactly how Francis of Assisi addressed every person and everything around him in the natural world. This is intriguing.