Replies

Doesn't it make one wonder WHY all those previous popes didn't do so?

Sometimes if I think about it. I don't know why exactly they didn't make themselves more accessible to the common persons. Some of it was due to the court protocols of the times. Part of me thinks that they may have thought they were too high and mighty to rub elbows with ordinary people. It just wasn't done for whatever reasons.

Perhaps it wasn't appropriate for their role and position?

That's a human construct. Fortunately Jesus seemed to think differently. Going to the people was the norm for him. Sometimes it got to be too much and he had to break away. Sometimes the people came to him. It seemed to be a two-way street.

Were the previous couple hundred pope all wrong, and did this pope finally figure out the right formula?

I don't know if there is a right formula. It's not written in stone anywhere how a pope should relate to the people.

And if so, then when are we going to see the fruits of this new discovery about the pope's primary responsibility?

I think there are good fruits when you see how eagerly the people prepare for and welcome the pope on one of his visits. It sends the message that he cared enough to go out of his way for them. Maybe the pope likes all that. If it were me, I'd love to go on those jaunts, but I'd want to be able to wander off incognito and see the sights. The pope didn't get to do too much of that.

In former times, the exigencies of travel weren't something anyone could readily undertake. Travel was rigorous and took a lot of time out from one's schedule. Not that sleeping on a plane is good for anyone. The pope never seemed to suffer from jet lag. I almost envy him for that.

Having said all that, I don't think there is necessarily a right or wrong about the pope's going and coming. People probably think it's wrong because it's different.

I'm more concerned with trying to comprehend what he is telling us, and I must say most of it is confusing and some of it just plain doesn't make sense. But then I guess Jesus taught the common people in parables, and those didn't make sense to anyone except those who "have ears to hear."

Since I went this far, I will say that I don't see anything wrong with making teaching statements about the environment so long as it doesn't displace the other important things that need to be dealt with. In other times, environmentalism meant broken pottery and unsanitary cesspools, I suppose. Today some of the issues like pesticides, nuclear/toxic waste, etc., are real threats. If they impact physical life, there is somewhat of a corresponding impact on spiritual life. Monasteries are traditionally pretty environmentally-friendly places as well as spiritually-friendly places, unlike chamber pots that used to be dumped on city streets and what horses left behind. I don't think there was ever much said about any of that in the past though because it was biodegradable and nature took care of it. Nature takes too long to take care of plastic bags. I doubt if the pope ever went shopping and carried anything back to the Vatican in a plastic bag. I would like to see him do something like that, too. That's the kind of humanism I'm into.

I do think God said something in scripture about the environment. He said he would destroy those who destroyed the earth. He ordered human waste to be buried outside the camps. Jesus said that a sparrow didn't fall but what the Father knew. He said not to muzzle the ox while it is treading the whatever that process was called. He said not to wound animals in the legs. That tells me he is concerned about the creation as well as the creatures.

I'm conflicted and confused about some of the things he does and says, too, and this is my way of trying to sort it out.

I'm looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, but I think it is important to take care of the one we have now because if we don't, people and animals will suffer more than need be.