One would have to be blind not to see from the cover of The New York Times's home page that the Pope is, indeed, dead:
And so it's mourning across the world, as the leader of the world's one billion (that's one thousand million for you Brits out there) Catholics dies. And even this athiest finds himself a bit sad, and wondering why exactly he feels so sad at the passing of someone whose influence he finds himself so often railing against.
Partially, because all death is sad. But partially, it's because even though the Pope wasn't the world's most progressive Catholic, he did indeed make himself a force for good in the world, driving towards peace and reconciliation with many of the other faiths, persuing peace and the end of Communist occupation of his homeland.
And, there's no denying that the man was extremely intelligent and an amazing thinker, who spoke some ungodly number of languages. Under his tutelage, the Church has grown, and he's provided it a vibrant voice, using the media of the 21st century to spread the message of the Church.
But, maybe, it's also because this Pope is the only one I've known. He's been Pope longer than I've been alive. And though I resent the role the Vatican plays in world affairs (this Pope did, also address the Italian Parliament), I also respect the role he tried to play.
Or maybe it's 'cause he hasn't had sex in more than 26 years.
In any case, should be interesting to get a new Pope, whose voice we hear not only in writing, but with our ears. Let us hope that, in his compassion, this new pope offers up new tools to fight the problems of the 21st century (contraception, perhaps?).
Anyone taking bets on his name? John Paul III? Or, as Eddie Izzard suggests, John Paul George, so that we can eventually get to the more popular combination of John Paul George Ringo..? Anyone..?
No comments:
Post a Comment