Charlotte vs. The World
Monday, April 04, 2005
The Pope vs. Democracy
With the passing of Pope John Paul II, there’s understandably been an absolute media assault on the subject. He’s being honoured as the greatest man of his time. Quite honestly, I couldn’t begin to evaluate how true that is, so I won’t even bother with this assertion.
It does lead me to rather… odd avenue that no one seems to have taken yet. The Pope is possibly one of the most powerful men on earth (certainly the most powerful man without ‘any divisions’!), yet is essentially a dictator for life. Hopefully we understand I use dictator literally. In no way should be compared with Hitler, Stalin or Castro. But at the same time, like these men, he merely has to say ‘jump’ and 1 billion Catholics say ‘how high’? (Luckily no other dictator has had 1 billion people under their thumb. Hmm. Well, we’ll give China the benefit of the doubt for now, okay?)
Perhaps we were lucky to have John Paul II to prove that absolute power does NOT always corrupt.
Perhaps it’s impossible for a corruptible soul to become Pope. Given that few people can name ‘great’ Popes, I somehow doubt that.
Was John Paul II a fluke? Did the Catholic Church simply luck into having such a great man when such a great man was needed? I don’t believe in God, but I’d even concede that it could have been His will in place of luck. But that wouldn’t explain the lack of other ‘great’ Popes.
But, given that the line of Popes is longer than the life of any government that I’m aware of, certainly longer than any current government, perhaps there is something to this ‘elected for life’ thing that resulted in John Paul II’s greatness.
Once in power, he never had to worry about retaining it. It was his, no matter what he did, popular or unpopular. The very definitions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ were in his hands. That’s a lot of responsibility to hand to someone. I can’t think of anyone that I’d hand that I’d trust with that. Certainly no Canadian PM of late, definitely no American President nor UN President that I can think of.
Is there a way to recreate the process that creates a man like John Paul II? Or, if he was not formed by a process, do we need to recreate a process that identified and elevated a man like John Paul II?
And if there is a way to recreate this process, is there a way to implement it? Most democratic nations are pretty good at retaining their democracy, even if ‘mature’ democracies seem to be a little apathetic towards it. I simply cannot imagine that, say The Senate would get to choose the Prime Minister of Canada, who serves until he passes away. Especially since the PM himself appoints the Senators. And yet, that’s exactly how the Pope is chosen. More to the point, it worked. This time.
If the next Pope is as ‘great’ as John Paul II (he’s got a template to work from, I can actually envision this happening), is that going to be a threat to democracy as we know it?
If so, is democracy something that will be missed? Certainly wise and benign dictators for life are better than bickering partisan ‘leaders’ who are more interested in fame and lining the pockets of their friends. ¶ 2:29 PM 0 comments
It does lead me to rather… odd avenue that no one seems to have taken yet. The Pope is possibly one of the most powerful men on earth (certainly the most powerful man without ‘any divisions’!), yet is essentially a dictator for life. Hopefully we understand I use dictator literally. In no way should be compared with Hitler, Stalin or Castro. But at the same time, like these men, he merely has to say ‘jump’ and 1 billion Catholics say ‘how high’? (Luckily no other dictator has had 1 billion people under their thumb. Hmm. Well, we’ll give China the benefit of the doubt for now, okay?)
Perhaps we were lucky to have John Paul II to prove that absolute power does NOT always corrupt.
Perhaps it’s impossible for a corruptible soul to become Pope. Given that few people can name ‘great’ Popes, I somehow doubt that.
Was John Paul II a fluke? Did the Catholic Church simply luck into having such a great man when such a great man was needed? I don’t believe in God, but I’d even concede that it could have been His will in place of luck. But that wouldn’t explain the lack of other ‘great’ Popes.
But, given that the line of Popes is longer than the life of any government that I’m aware of, certainly longer than any current government, perhaps there is something to this ‘elected for life’ thing that resulted in John Paul II’s greatness.
Once in power, he never had to worry about retaining it. It was his, no matter what he did, popular or unpopular. The very definitions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ were in his hands. That’s a lot of responsibility to hand to someone. I can’t think of anyone that I’d hand that I’d trust with that. Certainly no Canadian PM of late, definitely no American President nor UN President that I can think of.
Is there a way to recreate the process that creates a man like John Paul II? Or, if he was not formed by a process, do we need to recreate a process that identified and elevated a man like John Paul II?
And if there is a way to recreate this process, is there a way to implement it? Most democratic nations are pretty good at retaining their democracy, even if ‘mature’ democracies seem to be a little apathetic towards it. I simply cannot imagine that, say The Senate would get to choose the Prime Minister of Canada, who serves until he passes away. Especially since the PM himself appoints the Senators. And yet, that’s exactly how the Pope is chosen. More to the point, it worked. This time.
If the next Pope is as ‘great’ as John Paul II (he’s got a template to work from, I can actually envision this happening), is that going to be a threat to democracy as we know it?
If so, is democracy something that will be missed? Certainly wise and benign dictators for life are better than bickering partisan ‘leaders’ who are more interested in fame and lining the pockets of their friends. ¶ 2:29 PM 0 comments
