Although I’ve been a Catholic for nearly a decade now, in many ways this past month I have felt like a baby Catholic. And, despite the sorrow for John Paul II and the joy for Benedict XVI, mostly I’ve felt like a baby greedily sucking in the drama, the pageantry, the history, and — most of all — the world reaction.
I may or may not have more to say later about certain reactions from non-Catholics, but what has impressed me the most is how important the past month has been to the world. The world has known that something monumental has been happening in its midst and it has been watching. While we might quibble with or heckle down some of the watchers’ commentaries, I think it says something significant about the Catholic Church that this transition has meant so much worldwide to Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Can you imagine anything like this surrounding a shift in leadership in any other religion — Christian or non-Christian — anywhere else in the world? The only possible comparable might occur when the Dalai Lama passes on, but I think much of that will be because of his personal appeal to the world; it won’t be because of the office he holds. In other words, while many around the world will genuinely and sincerely mourn the Dalai Lama, I doubt there will be much worldwide speculation on who will succeed him. There certainly won’t be an equivalent to this past week’s coverage of the Vatican and the election of the new Pope. And it is astounding that the only marginal comparable of which I could fathom is a man who is not only a non-Christian but also a non-monotheist. No other Christian or non-Christian, monotheistic or non-monotheistic, religion offers a worldwide office and leader of such importance to the secular or religious world.
It says something of the importance of the Church and the papacy to the world that the world knows that these are events of such monumental importance that they must be covered in-depth. There may be fundamental disagreements between the world and the Church, between the world and the Pope; but the Church and the Pope will never be irrelevant to the world. And, for me, that is confirmation that Christ is still active in the world today and that the world subconsciously recognizes him in the Catholic Church.
For a baby Catholic like me, that’s a huge comfort.
I agree with you to some extent but, though I hate to quibble, I think I must.
If arguments like these were advanced by non-Catholics, would they hold? Does it follow, for instance, that the world subconsiously recognizes Buddhism as the truth because there was buzz surrounding the Dalai Lama back in the 1990s, which even resulted in a few movies being filmed? Of course not.
Suppose the last pope was not John Paul the Great. Suppose it was someone like Leo XII whose death, if I’m recalling correctly, was cheered by his fellow Romans. I very much doubt there would have been such a world-wide outpouring of love and admiration for such a pope, or any interest from non-Catholics. Would that at all invalidate the Catholic Church or her claims? Of course not.
Isn’t it a little circular to say that worldwide admiration and interest proves the importance of the pope and Catholic Church? After all, the pope is by definition Supreme Pontiff with worldwide jurisdiction, so to speak.
Another example: I notice this as some Catholics have also claimed that Pope Benedict’s election proves the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. I remember reading about one pope from way back who almost certainly bribed his way into office (large quantities of gold were seen being hauled from his estate to some cardinal’s estate); do incidents like that prove that the Holy Spirit does not have a hand in the election of a pope? I’d say no.
Please don’t misunderstand me, I don’t mean to knock the Pope (Benedict or John Paul the Great) or the Catholic Church; anyone who’s ever visited my blog should, I hope, know better than that. I just question the effectiveness of such statements and arguments. I think they can both prove too much (and can be easily applied to other false religions) and too little (invalidly using the personal charisma of an office holder as an argument for the office/religion itself). Forgive me if I have been at all out of line, though, and delete this as necessary.
I dunno, tHe reason most the for the world’s interest in the papacy may be that the pope is a big player in the world political stage, telling the USA that its war efforts are not legitimate without the consent of the UN, for instance. Unlike any other country, the Vatican can tell other countries what to do, hence the world’s fascination.
I’ve been thinking the same thing, Michelle. At the end of the day, everyone seems to know in their heart of hearts that the Church is THE Church, and that the Pope is the visible head of all Christians — indeed, of all humans — everywhere on earth — whether they formally recognise him and submit to him or not.
…telling the USA that its war efforts are not legitimate without the consent of the UN, for instance.
When did the Pope say that?
While Michelle’s comments, as argument, might not hold up in court, I identify with her sentiment.
It amazes me as a new convert that, just when I’m in despair at how “the world” treats The Church, you find something like, Lord of the Rings, by a Catholic guy, is THE most popular book of the 20th century. You have The Passion on the big screen, the top-grossing film of all time (or one of). You have television and fiction writers forced to parade The Church and her symbology (terribly disfigured, of course) for the sake of having a plot with high enough stakes to draw a real audience.
And you have all the collective insect eyes of the media dancing like trained poodles at the slightest whiff of grey Vatican smoke! Gotta love it!
When did the Pope say that?
His Holiness didn’t quite put it that way. As Card. Ratzinger, he noted that it is the U.N. who should be the arbiter of whether or not Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolutions (ostensibly the reason for U.S. prosecution of war against Iraq), not the U.S. A very simple and direct observation.
Percocet.
Percocet.