Why are we paying this much attention to Pope John Paul II’s death, funeral, and succession? I mean, if any other world politician were to kick off, short of the President, it would warrant a headline, maybe some coverage of the funeral if it were a particularly flashy one, and that’s it. But with the Pope’s death, we have prolonged news coverage, of the sort not seen outside huge international disasters, war, and similar events. Why the fascination (in the US, at least), with this passage?
Thoughts off the top of my head:
- Pomp and circumstance. Folks love seeing those big ceremonial shindigs. Here in the US we’re particularly low-key (and short-historied) about such things. Sort of like the Di+Charles wedding, it’s a big deal because it’s a Big Deal, complete with funny costumes, big ceremonies, choirs, and arcane rules of the sorts that news analysts and specialist love to be able to (you’ll pardon the expression) pontificate about.
- Related to that is the idea that the Pope is the last of the big-time royalty. Monarchs of “real” nations any more either live like really wealthy businessfolk, or run “kingdoms” that are greatly diminished in stature and influence, or else they’re really just autocrats no different from any other petty dictator.
But the Pope runs a medieval kingdom that stretches, in influence, around the world, with hundreds of millions of “subjects.” Not quite Rome in the old sense, but a lot more royal (and thus fascinating, esp. in ostensibly egalitarian America) than a lot of others.
- And related to that is that he is the biggest religious figure on the planet.
Think of it. Most world religions are split into factions of various power-sharing sorts. They’re national churches at most. The Roman Catholic Church is huge, it’s transnational, and there’s One Guy up at the top (regardless of how the hierarchy of the church actually runs). There’s nobody like it in Islam, or Buddhism. There’s nobody like it in Buddhism (the Dalai Lama, while running second, is not only an exile, he’s only “in charge” of one branch of Buddhism, and it’s not nearly the same thing anyway), and there’s nobody like it in the rest of Christianity (the Archbishop of Canterbury, splitting duties with the Monarch of England, is a pale copy, and isn’t meant to be nearly the same thing either).
In the US (to continue the American-centric view), most mainline Protestant churches, if national in nature, have some sort of governing board or council. There may be a “president” or a “presiding bishop” or a “head presbyter” or something like that, but there’s no individual who seems to have the authoritative power that the Pope does (let alone the historic stature). Individual religious leaders may come and go, and may wield great influence in their day, but they do it as individuals, not as rulers of a particular institution (again, let alone one that’s been around for some hundreds of years), and when they fade, they fade (think of televangelists and leaders of the Religious Right over the past thirty years). Popes draw authority from, and invest it back into, an organization, a kingdom of Heaven on Earth, that carries such steeped weight and authority that nobody in a polyester suit and bad hairpiece can compare.
Even if many Americans are ambivalent about Catholicism, and even if it doesn’t slot neatly into the Left/Right religious divide in this country, the Church and her leaders, the Pope as their embodiment, still have a gravitas that beats most preachers and politicians hands-down.
- There are a lot of Catholics in the US. And even if they’ve been on the “outs” for prolonged periods of time in US history, and even if today much of their weight of numbers is among the Hispanic population here, they remain a cultural force to be reckoned with, and will automatically draw the nation’s attention with their focus is on an issue. The media responds to that sort of thing.
- The Pope was, even among folks not of the Catholic faith, and even among many people who disagreed with him on various issues, a popular and engaging figure — and one who went to great efforts to engage the whole world.
Just some thoughts, provoked the CNN TV showing at lunch. Nothing deep or profound here. Move along.
Having read several books by the Dalai Lama, I would have to observe that he really doesn’t get off on the whole authority trip anyway. I could put it more nicely but he Pope was kind of a “my way or the highway” kind of guy, though of course he was careful to be very humble about it. Fortunately most Catholics seem to be better at thinking for themselves than he apparently wanted them to be.
(No, I wasn’t a fan.)
He certainly took very seriously doctrinal orthodoxy (or, at least, allowed those who did to have relatively free rein). And the DL is, of course, a lot less interested in that sort of power, as you note.
I would say that John Paul II was very humble in a “we are all sinners before God” sort of way, as well as loving of his fellow man. He was also quite certain, it seemed, of his beliefs, and certain that they needed to be promulgated and enforced, which led to him not being looked upon kindly by some.
My memory is faint, since it was so long ago, but I seem to remember a similar fascination with the choice of John Paul II.
I think you could add ‘political power’ to your list of reasons why people are interested in the death of the Pope. The Pope has a fair amount of political power due to the number of Catholics world wide, John Paul II was willing to use that power, and the person who is selected as the next Pope will be transformed in a very short period of time from someone who is mostly anonymous into one of the most powerful political figures in the world.
The Pope is usually anonymous to most folks (esp. in the US) before his choice.
There is always a lot of attention to the death of one Pope and the following election of another. The last time out it was magnified, since John Paul I died so quickly (to many people’s lasting regret).
I think “political power” is covered in bullets 2 and 4, if not 3 and 5. 🙂
By the same token, I wonder how much “political power” he *really* has, just looking here in the US. American Catholics, even in the Hispanic segment, are a relatively independent lot. The *Papacy* is respected, and the Pope is given by nearly all Catholics at least outward respect, but I don’t know how many of them feel obliged to follow his dictates on various (let alone all) subjects.
I can see what you mean about the inference to political power in some of your bullet points. I guess I was making it more explicit. In the back of my mind, I had a comparison to “Who wants to be a millionaire?” and other reality shows that transform an anonymous person into someone better-known. In this case, they get real political power rather than money or a job with Donald Trump.
However, I think the Pope’s political power is great. I agree that Catholics are becoming more independent, and won’t always follow his direction on all issues, but many will, and in those cases where his position reflects the majority of Catholic’s views, watch out! However, I was thinking of his visit to Poland, which many suggest helped to bring down communism there. I don’t think his influence there depended on Catholics following his instructions. Rather, it depended mostly on the publicity that his position gets him and his ability to speak effectively once he had everyone’s attention.
Political power in terms of “power of the people” as opposed to “power over the people.” An interesting observation.