So what else is there to be cheerful about this papal election? Here's a few.
1. It was almost mind-bending to see the amount of space and time - non-critical - that was spent on the retirement of Benedict, the run-up to the election, the election and its aftermath. Normally the media follow "Catholic Church" with "clerical sexual abuse", as though abuse were confined to the Catholic Church. Refreshing, I'd say.
2. The new man - it seems odd to be saying 'Francis' - is a Jesuit, which in my book is one up for him. Certainly in Ireland, and historically, Jesuits have been fearless and selfless, by and large. If you want a good example, check out Peter McVerry. They've also a reputation for being smart, which is nice.
3. From what we're told, he's a man who's a bit impatient with pomp and splendour. Let's hope he carries that into his papacy. It's a bit hard to think of Christ's top man on earth, his Vicar/Viceroy, surrounded by riches and splendour, when the Man Himself was the polar opposite.
4. He's from South America, which is a place I know little about (as anyone will tell you, and sometimes me); but it's far, far away from the Roman Curia and that can't be bad. It'll make it easier, I hope, for Francis to bash a few heads together and let them know fings ain't going to be wot they used to be. I hope.
5. He's Argentinian - or is that 'an Argentine'? - which will add an interesting little wrinkle to the Falklands/Malvinas story. I was briefly on the Nolan Show this morning and Stephen asked me...well for a moment I wasn't quite sure what he was asking me. Then it turned out to be a question - I think - about the fact that Francis might be on the side of Argentina in the Malvinas question. Cheesh. I live thousands of miles from Argentina and I'm on the side of Argentina. Francis is from there.
But anyway, let's hope the media at least give him a honeymoon period, if that's the kind of term I should use for a celibate Pope. I guess it's just a question of time before some commentators start demanding to know why he didn't lead an assault on dictators Bignone and Galtieri, but for now there's a definitely positive air within the Catholic Church. And it's been a long time since that was the case.
'....amount of space and time, non-critical, that was spent. Exactly which must make unionists even closer to the edge of the plate re britain, when they look across at the London based stations BBC/ITV and the generous spirit given from the almost entirely, Protestant population and media over there. It points up the meanspirited attitudes of the main unionist establishment here who sit sullen and silent on the sidelines wishing it were all over.[madraj55]
ReplyDeleteJude chara pinochet was chile - wrong generalisimo! But ur spot on about Malvinas.
ReplyDeleteAnon 16:34 - Oh God. Thanks for correction. Blame lazy journalism, not a sagging old mind. I shall correct same instanter. Grma aris.
ReplyDelete'I live thousands of miles from Argentina and I'm on the side of Argentina. Francis is from there.'
ReplyDeleteAn Irish republican being against the democratic right of a clear majority of people to remain under UK sovereignty. Quelle surprise!! Just waiting for the endorsement of an Argentine Republican Army (ARA) to compel the Falklanders to live under a foreign government to which they have no allegiance. After all, you folk have a precedence with what happened in Northern Ireland from 1969
Anon 19:12 (what an appropriate time...) - thanks for helping correct my degraded thinking. I can see now - although the people of the Malvinas are thousands of miles away from Britain and just off-shore from Argentina, they are clearly part of Britain. Simples. Just like Hong Ko...They WHAT????
ReplyDeleteAnd people in St Pierre and Miquelon are only 20 miles off the coast of Canada and 3,000 miles from France, but they are clearly a French Overseas Territory. People in Jersey are only 12 miles from France and 100 miles from the UK but they are.....yes, you guessed it....a BRITISH Crown Dependency. Geoegraphy has nothing to do with people's national identity, and to assume it does belongs to the same deluded mindset that states that as Ireland is one landmass, it most consist of only one jurisdiction. 'Degraded' is about right!!
DeleteJude you do realise the land that is now part of Argentina and 'close' to the Falklands (400km) was stolen only a 100 years ago from indigenous people who were in turn virtually wiped out and now you are basing that as a logical reason to claim the islands. You are also aware of Argentinas claims over the south shetland islands which are er 2000km away from Argentina so I think you need to read up more on this subject before you go down the simple Brit bashing route oh and by the way I am an Irish nationalist
Deletemadraj55
ReplyDeleteWhat a narrow-minded comment. The story is simply about the election of a new Pope, and you try to turn it into Unionist baiting.
Not everything needs to be viewed through the prism of our little squabbles.
Raise your game.
The democratic will of the islanders may have been influenced by the contrary ones being assisted to re-locate, just like......eh,...not to worry, we'll always have Larne & whatever the Argentine Larne is.
ReplyDelete"Just like Hong Ko...They WHAT????"
ReplyDeleteIf only Argentina could remember where they left their copy of the lease for the Malvinas.
Just set up a opinion poll on my own Blog about Scottish Independence feel free to vote everyone.
ReplyDeletehttp://hoboroadpoliticalhighway.blogspot.co.uk/
Anon 23:00 - you must try not to label any criticism of Britain - even implied criticism - as Brit-bashing. I don't know what the south Shetland islands dispute is about - I'm talking about the Malvinas/Falklands. I think Britain has no more claim to the Malvinas/Falklands than she had to Hong Kong. It's an absurd hang-over from the age of imperialism, and if there wasn't some question of oil involved, I'd think there's a fair chance Britain would be long gone from there.
ReplyDelete