Who Gives A Pope?

With all of the media coverage (and I mean I was just stunned to wake up every morning seeing live coverage from Rome on CNN, Fox News AND MSNBC) you would have thought that the Pope was the king of the world. But, now that things are dying down and peoples sentiments are either for or against the new Pope, who really gives a care? I follow the teachings of the Dali Lama and Thich Naht Hahn more than I do the Pope. I'm not even sure why I allowed myself to be sucked into the media driven drama of the papacy. The Holy Roman Empire ended long ago. For all intents and purposes, the Pope's power is nill.

"Anyone with a modicum of liberal inclination in the media is now all worked up over the selection of Joseph Ratzinger as the new Pope Benedict XVI. Oddly, many of the same people who were rightly offended by the orgiastic news coverage that followed John Paul II's death are the ones now devoting their energies to slamming his successor -- a choice that unfortunately only reaffirms the already inflated assumptions of the importance of the papacy.

The source of much of this indignation is, of course, Ratzinger's long and well-documented support of conservative positions on homosexuality, contraception, abortion, and gender equality. That the criticism of his track record is well-earned does not, however, make it any less misguided. And here's why: it's based on a vastly exaggerated assessment of the papacy's power. John Paul II -- or the newly dubbed 'rock star' pope -- was neither able to stop the war in Iraq nor the plummeting birth rates in his own backyard. Italy has the lowest birth rate in the EU, and not because its women practice the rhythm method.

In the past, liberals have been fond of attacking both the Church and its more visible emissaries -- be it the Pope himself or Mother Teresa -- of discouraging the use of birth control in countries that need it most, such as Mexico or India. Yet high population rates are more an effect of poverty and gender inequality than religious dogma. Change the socioeconomic equation, and cultural attitudes will inevitably follow -- with or without the Pope's blessing.

While the appointment of a liberal pope may well have been a cause for celebration, the victory would have been mostly symbolic. It is unlikely that the happy event would have led to a spectacular change in attitudes among less affluent Catholic nations in Africa, Asia, or Latin America. On the flip side, the winds of change are already blowing in some of these countries despite the ideological rigidity of the Catholic Church. As Kelly Hearn reports on AlterNet, in countries such as Brazil and Argentina, papal conservatism will likely do little to stem the popular tide in favor of more liberal policies on abortion and contraception. In the end it will be Lula and his supporters, not Pope Benedict XVI, who determines whether Brazilian women can choose to have a safe and legal abortion."

Given some of the points in this article, Catholicism - and organized religion in general - thrives on poverty, chauvinism and misogyny. Clearly, in countries that have evolved beyond traditional gender roles and unadulterated breeding of children, "faith" in the emergence of a better life (or afterlife) is not as prevalent. No doubt, the religious crusades here in America are focused on women, their bodies and whether they are permitted to breed at will. There is no focus on the life of Christ. The focus is on protecting the male specicies' ability to spread its seed (and this is key with the issues of abortion, contraception and same sex marriage). I really wish that people would look deep enough into themselves to find the difference between religion and faith ... doctrine and spirituality. With that in place, no Pope, law or doctrine can take it away.