The Media and the Pope

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:56 pm

The media has followed this current Pope (John Paul II as of this writing) much like it follows the British Royal Family, without the sex scandals. But what is the reason for this? Why does the media feel it necessary to make the health of the Pope front-page news?

The coverage of assassination attempt in 1981 I can understand. But why the minutiae of who meets with the Pope and when he goes out on his balcony to bless the multitudes?

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Sun Mar 13, 2005 2:56 am

I would agree that the US president has a greater practical effect in world affairs because he commands an army which is second to only the Chinese army. But military influence isn't everything. "How many divisions has the Pope?" Stalin famously remarked. I won't pretend to be a historian or an expert political analyst, but in 1978 the Pope apparently was key in the collapse of communism in eastern Europe. Despite the recent scandals, the Pope is seen by many (including Shia muslims) as having moral authority. The US president, however, is not seen as a moral figure, except perhaps in the US itself.
So the Pope does still have his influence. I saw many nuns in the massive antiwar demonstrations prior to the Iraqi invasion, something I wouldn't have imagined!

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:02 pm

Dilettante wrote:I would agree that the US president has a greater practical effect in world affairs because he commands an army which is second to only the Chinese army. But military influence isn't everything. "How many divisions has the Pope?" Stalin famously remarked. I won't pretend to be a historian or an expert political analyst, but in 1978 the Pope apparently was key in the collapse of communism in eastern Europe. Despite the recent scandals, the Pope is seen by many (including Shia muslims) as having moral authority. The US president, however, is not seen as a moral figure, except perhaps in the US itself.
So the Pope does still have his influence. I saw many nuns in the massive antiwar demonstrations prior to the Iraqi invasion, something I wouldn't have imagined!

His effect on history in this context seems to be more about his legitimacy as a public figure -- famous for being famous. Why is it that so many people find him a relevant figure if they disagree with his stances on God in particular and religion in general?

Dilettante · Post by **Dilettante** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:22 pm

Could it be that the Pope has become a cultural icon, like Elvis? I know lots of people who are enjoy hearing about Elvis and watching Elvis impersonators, and yet they don't own any Elvis records. Same thing with the British Royals. Why are so many Americans fascinated by them if they disagree with the monarchy as a system of government? Somehow certain figures reach a point when they transcend our ordinary criteria.

trencacloscas · Post by **trencacloscas** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 4:24 am

So the Pope does still have his influence. I saw many nuns in the massive antiwar demonstrations prior to the Iraqi invasion, something I wouldn't have imagined!

Interesting. The pope didn't actually do anything against the Iraq invasion, just a couple of tepid statements, nothing remarkable compared with his anti-condom and anti-abortion campaign. As far as we know, religious staff wasn't ordered or even encouraged to participate or take any position about the subject.

Gollum · Post by **Gollum** » Sun May 01, 2005 3:48 pm

I suspect that the Pope gets all that press for much the same reasons that Britain still has a monarchy or France is a permanent member of the UN Security council. Historical precedent.

That and the fact that the Pope, as head of the Catholic church, has a constituency of 1/6th of the world's population. That's got to have a lot of "sit up and take notice" impact even though many of those Catholics don't necessarily agree with what the Pope says.

Do all Americans agree with GWB? Probably not but he's still the one and only president.