Hope for the Pope

There is a new Pope, Time's “Person of The Year,” who gives us hope.

Pope Francis  - Guardian UK Photo

Radical Republicans are worried by the depth of his concern for poor people and what they see as his “ideology.”

Radical Democrats worry that he will disappoint their hopes because of some personal limitation or because of his position as the head of a group, an institution, that has its own perspective on problems which is often quite contrary to what most human beings need to do or think is right.

A very close friend of mine has a basic criticism of Democrats, saying that they have no principles, and I have another friend whose criticism of Republicans is that they have principles. I see the former as saying that Democrats will just not stand up for what they believe, and the latter as saying that Republicans consider their ideological principles more important than people having food and health care. My own feeling is there is probably some large perspective, with appropriate sophistication, that can accommodate them both. It is fascinating to think that Pope Francis might be able to achieve that large perspective.

He is in an extremely complicated and seemingly impossible situation in which he must coordinate his actions with millions of people, many of whom believe that he is evil itself and would assassinate immediately if they could. He must have personal flaws as we all have personal flaws, and there will  always be many opportunities for him to fail.

I heard someone recently call him “Frankie,” not in disrespect, but in enthusiasm for his humanity. I myself think this is a more healthy approach that calling him “His Holiness.”

We construct a self image by taking outside viewpoints, getting outside and seeing through others' eyes, and thus becoming objective about our selves. All else is solipsism.

So I wonder what it does to him to have everyone going around calling him “Your Holiness” instead of “Frankie.” I wonder what it would do to me if people went around constantly calling me “Your Holiness.” What does it do to a person to be called “Your Majesty” or “Your Honor” or “Sir” or something like that all the time? It seems to me that most such people accept such views as being valid, rarely contradict them and even insist upon them.

I used to enjoy some of  that honorifics play, one particular memory of it being my hearing the mayor of Montreal addressing, with passionate rhetoric, the city council as “Défenseurs de la Foi,” among other titles. It was fun, particularly in its tone and presentment and civility. I loved the historicity of it. Also, we all have the job of getting ourselves through a murderous world, and if a little bit of this helps at the right time and place, so be it.

However, it seems good to me that it has slowly been diminishing over several centuries now, even during my own 71-year lifetime.