April 4, 2005
What the Media Misunderstands about Selecting a new Pope
Just like everyone else, I’ve been watching both the media swoon over the greatness of Pope John Paul II (something they tended not to do while he was alive) and the endless speculation on his successor. I say “everyone else” because it’s almost impossible to get away from – FoxNews and CNN in particular are running almost constant coverage of the death of Pope John Paul II. The best of this offers the world a condensed version of his teachings, the worst begins portaying him in political terms (“liberal” or “conservative”).
However in all of this, one thing is clear: the media doesn’t really get religion. So I thought I would point out a few of the big errors the media is making in all of their coverage – I’ll start with the easy ones:
- The Pope is not a Political Figure. The biggest is this insistence on viewing the pope as a political figure fulfilling a political role. The pope’s primary role is evangelical and secondary role is that of leader. His job, as Jesus taught the first pope St. Peter, is to “feed [Jesus’] sheep” and protect Truth. Thus, this pope perfectly did so – he was not a liberal or a conservative, he was an evangelical force that called all men to Truth.
- There are some things that will never change. I’ve seen endless speculation that the Catholic Church’s views on contraception, abortion, divorce, etc. will change. This is false. There are some things the Pope does not have the authority to do; Why? Because these items are Truth, they are reality, whether you personally realize it or not. Contraception will always be gravely sinful. Abortion and euthanasia will always be murder. Homosexual acts will always be intrinsically evil. Marriage will always be a permanent sacrament that no man can tear apart. A woman will never be a priest – priests represent and, in some sacraments, stand in the place of Christ, a man, so this cannot change. There are other things that could change, such as a celibate priesthood, but don’t expect rapid moves: priests have been celibate since the early Church and 2,000 years of tradition isn’t going to change anytime soon. So don’t get too excited by the liberal activists suggesting that Vatican II requires this type of change.
- The election of a new pope isn’t considered in political terms. This is a key mistake constantly made: the media expects the Cardinals to choose a pope that fits the political model they personally seem to resemble (again, liberal or conservative). The Cardinals actually see their job as discovering (if you will) whom God wants to be the next pope. They will begin the Conclave by calling on the Holy Spirit to lead their decision – and we believe it is the Holy Spirit’s decision (the Holy Spirit leads the Catholic Church). This is in light of Jesus’ promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church” in Matthew 16:18.
- It is almost impossible to guess who John Paul II’s successor will be. No one, during the last conclave, even suggested that the Polish Archbishop of Krakow named Karol Wojtyla would be the successor to the short pontificate of John Paul I. No one. In fact in three of the last four Conclaves a virtually unknown contender was chosen to lead the Catholic Church. This goes back to the last point: the Holy Spirit is choosing and He does a better job than men at picking the right man (for evidence: see pontificate of JPII).
Although this isn’t an authoritative list, it is the biggest errors most of the media is making repeatedly. By the way, I’d like to commend FoxNews for actually getting a significant number of faithful Catholics on the air, instead of bringing in those dissident priests you tend to see in the news. Even the twelve disciples included a dissident (Judas), but I’d prefer not to see him on TV spouting off about Catholicism.
God bless,
Jay
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
I recently had deacon elections at my church. They used major majority and multiple ballots to select the right person. At the time I thought it was kinda archaic but by learning about the Conclave I have changed my opinion. As Americans we automatically see Democracy as the best of all systems in everything. Best system infact is a devine dictatorship by the Holy Spirit. I admire that Catholics are striving to hear from the Holy Spirit and not Politics.
Posted by: stan at April 4, 2005 12:10 PMI'd have to say being a political figure has been one of the Popes main jobs for a long time. The reason the Pope wears a gold hat, carries a gold staff, has people kiss his ring, lives in palace and has a huge support staff is so that he resembles a King. In the early church you converted a nation not like today by going from person to person but by first converting the king of that land. Kings relate well to Kings. This Pope was a shrewd politician, a master communicator. He was the first to visit the Whitehouse. He even became a "rock star" to reach the youth. Is this wrong? No. Infact its very valuable.
1 Cor 9:19-23
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
This particular pope spoke often into issues that are political. He condemned the actions of the coalition that invaded Iraq. He condemned the actions of those who starved Terri Schiavo. He opposed the death penalty in our current context. He has consistently affirmed the teaching that artificial contraception is immoral. It's true that these are all moral issue also, and his role of speaking into them was to speak the moral position of the Roman Catholic Church on such issues, but the fact remains that they are political.
There is also a political element to the structuring of any organization, and there are political complaints about some of the policies he has continued to endorse, e.g. exclusively male priests, what role women might have in ministry, how Catholics are to consider Protestant views on justification, how Catholics in Latin America are to approach those who want to restrict the gospel to political issues in the way liberation theologians seek to do. There are liberal and conservative views on such issues, and he clearly stated a stance on each one, sometimes taking more conservative views and sometimes taking more liberal views. That's a perfectly legitimate way to speak of it. It's consistent with the belief that God governs it to speak of people who have different views on how it should be, humanly speaking, governed, and those issues do seem to me to be classifiable as political, as long as you insist that there's a divine oversight on a more fundamental level.
That said, I agree with most of what you say. I think most of the commentators I've heard have done so as well, not just those on Fox News but also those on MSNBC, NPR, and various blogs.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at April 13, 2005 11:21 AMI thought the special edition of Time Magazine on the Pope was fairly well done for a secular publication.
Reporting that Cardinal Karol Wojtyla spent the first day of the Conclave (which eventually selected him after 8 ballots) reading a contemporary review/critique of Marxist philosophy illustrated quite well the unpredictability of the selection of Papa Wojtyla.
Another article pointed out how wrong it was to pigeonhole Pope John Paul II as a "Conservative Pope" because he made great strides and advancements in the area of promoting the Gospel of Peace. John XXIII and Paul VI began this work and all of three them made huge breaks with a longstanding tradition by condemning the use of force or coercion when spreading the gospel. It is with great relief that I can now relegate the pre-Vatican II apologetics material defending the crusades and the inquisition to the level of "secondary information". Instead of defending those mistakes, I can admit the Church should have acted better but still point out that they behaved no worse than and perhaps a lot better than those around them.
Yet another article commented on the seeming contradiction between his support for individual freedom against totalitarian dictatorships and his condemnation of abortion, contraception, capital punishment, women priests, and euthanasia. The article then redeemed itself by explaining that the consistent idea behind all the Pope's teachings was the inherent dignity of every human person. A dignity offended by war, capital punishment, totalitarian dictatorships, communism, abortion, contraception, women priests, and euthanasia.
Not too shabby for a secular publication.
Posted by: Broken Record at April 15, 2005 4:40 AM
