And although that sounds like a very warming sort of experience, I'd rather go to the dentist than be in a crowd of that size.

I'm not criticizing it, it's just not the kind of situation I willingly put myself in, as a rule.

I was going to say almost that exact thing. My husband never did like crowds and I couldn't understand it, but I don't think I'd get in a crowd like that unless I had an invitation to a sit down dinner with the Pope.

AMDG

Though if I had actually been in the crowd Grumpy describes (teleported in, preferably) I probably would have gotten into the spirit of it.

Yeah. And it might have been my son. He was there, too.

I don't like crowds much, but I loved WYD in Sydney, 2008. Loved it. :)

Ross Douthat wrote a piece a week or so ago in which he recalled that Pope Benedict also drew large crowds on his papal visits and then went on to wonder about just how strong the hold of secularism actually is.

First, from an article he wrote at the time of Benedict's visit to England in 2008, there's this:

Even at a time of Catholic scandal, even amid a pontificate that’s stumbled from one public-relations debacle to another, Benedict still managed to draw a warm and enthusiastic audience.

... there is a common thread that binds Benedict’s success despite low expectations and often-savage coverage and Francis’s success amid high enthusiasm and generally-fawning coverage: Secularism is weaker than many people think. ...

But how powerful, how thick really, is this secularizing trend? Is it thick enough, for instance, to speak of American society as post-Christian or effectively pagan, as some religious conservatives sometimes do? Does it have enough momentum that we can expect it to continue apace well into the future, until Christianity in the U.S. looks as weak as Christianity in America’s mother country does today?

I’m skeptical on both counts, and I think the Pope Francis phenomenon is particularly suggestive of the limits of secularism’s hold. The former Jorge Bergoglio has captured the imagination of the Western media in two major ways: First, through a series of public gestures (embracing the disfigured, washing the feet of prisoners, mourning migrants lost at sea, etc.) that offer a kind of living Christian iconography, an imitatio Christi in the flesh, and second, through a rhetoric of mercy and welcome that has made some Americans, at least, feel that Catholicism is more open to their experiences and concerns.

Set aside for a moment the difficult question of where that rhetoric, and the accompanying doctrinal debates, are taking Catholicism in the long run. Just consider these questions: In a truly post-Christian society, would so many people find an imitatio Christi thrilling and fascinating and inspiring? Would so many people be moved, on a deep level, by an image like this one [link to photo of Francis embracing a severely disfigured man]? (Wouldn’t a truly post-Christian society, of the sort that certain 20th century totalitarians aspired to build, be repulsed instead by images of weakness and deformity?) And then further, in a fully secularized society, would so many people who have drifted from the practice of religion – I have many of my fellow journalists particularly in mind – care so much whether an antique religious organization and its aged, celibate leader are in touch with their experiences? Would you really have the palpable excitement at his mere presence that has coursed through most of the coverage the last two days?

On second thought, I'll just leave it at I hope he's right, and not spread my gloom any further.

For instance, stop and think about how amazing it is that we've had as many great and holy popes as we've had in the past century and a half.

I mean, like, wow, man.

Well, I wrote a longish comment and then though it would be better to put it on my blog, but I will say something about keeping your fingers in your ears.

Jesus tells us that if our right hand causes us to stumble we should cut it off and throw it away, and if what we are hearing is causing us to fret, and despair, and be anxious (We are repeatedly told NOT to be anxious in the scripture.), then we darn well better stick our fingers in our ears and look to what we know to be true.

Again, the scripture tells us that the Lord will keep us in perfect peace if we stay our mind on Him. Do we believe this stuff or not? If we don't, then who cares what the pope does or says--it doesn't matter anyway.

When we let ourselves get caught up in this damned mess, and I use the word advisedly, we are playing the devil's game and he always wins his game.

AMDG

Well, that's really gloomy and maybe I'm just a defeatist, but I think it's what we are stuck with, perhaps for the rest of our lives. I always come back to the fact that I can't do anything to change that, but what I can do is try to embody what Newman talks about here..

AMDG

You're right. It's depressing. I don't seem to be able to find anyone on the opposite side that can hear what I'm saying. It's like those robo-calls you get where the machine is programmed to make certain responses to what you say. Their dialogue is preset and unchangeable.

AMDG

Sorry.

AMDG

No one has actually called me that directly, by the way. But it's their standard terminology for anyone who holds that belief.

Also by the way, I only skimmed the post Art linked to above. I looked twice, both times when I had a mild headache, and the multi-colored text and the use of whole paragraphs as links was going to make my headache worse. I did get enough of the gist to see that it's the kind of prediction that I just don't want to spend time on. If it turns out to be true, then I'll worry.

Does the blessing still work if I'm snarling?

By the way, everybody, Janet's post at her blog about the pope's visit is really good.

I always tell my kids that merit comes in gold, silver, and bronze coins. If you grumble about a suffering, you get a bronze coin. If you grin and bear it, you get a silver. If you are cheerful, you get a gold one.

I have a whole bucket load of bronze coins.

I meant to post this here earlier, but now that Maclin reminded me of it on my blog.

AMDG

There's good advice in this, which Marianne posted on Janet's blog.

Yes, Paul, I agree. But I'm just unhappy he is at the synod at all. This is just another totally needless blow to the Church.

Thanks, Maclin, I saw that article.