Today, I happened to be home (spring break) and so was able to watch my fourth papal conclave, and fifth pope live on television. Granted, I have no meaningful recollection of the first two (Popes Paul VI and John Paul I) and have only vague memories of watching the election of Pope John Paul II (on my family's black and white t.v.); but these last two (Popes Benedict XVI and Francis I) I watched from "white smoke" to first official prayer. Such an event opens the doors for "pontificating" (if you'll excuse the expression) on the part of the news media (once the white smoke happens in Rome, there is time to fill on the air), and thanks to social media by others as well. As an American Religious Historian, it is with such comments that I will focus on at least in passing.
Two things stood out to me this afternoon. First, was that along with the expected speculation and discussion of what was happening while we awaited the emergence of Francis I (indeed, discovering that was who we were waiting for), there was also a good deal of "this is what the next pope has/needs to do" coming from the news media. Some of it was of the bland variety ("he will need to use social media"), but some of it was also very American-centric ("Catholics want the Vatican to allow priests to be married" one commentator asserted, apparently know what ALL Catholics -- American or otherwise-- want on the issue). And some of it, of course, was also politically liberal ("the next pope will need open the Church up to gays and lesbians"). I found it both fun and odd at the same time that the news media was setting up a laundry list of things the new pope HAD to do, as if the new pontiff had no idea about these (and other) issues, and might actually prioritize other things. Furthermore, it never seemed to cross the journalists' minds (and the priests and bishops who I saw that were part of the interviews were apparently to polite to point out) that perhaps the Church and the new pope might disagree with their assumptions altogether.
The second thing that I noticed, which has been on the rise over the past few days, was undertones of anti-Catholicism in discussions about the looming papal vote. Some of this has come from the news media (some lamenting that because of his devotion to John Paul II, Francis I was likely not going to revive Liberation Theology, nor do past comments he has made on abortion line up with what a pro-choice politics). But some of it has come from American Protestants. In that regard, much of it has not been directed at the papacy per se (at least not yet), but rather internally, as (for example) some evangelical Protestants have attacked others on Twitter for daring to say that Christians (regardless of denomination) should pray for the cardinals as they met in the conclave to vote. Neither of these is new, and the former variety is likely to intensify in the years to come. As an academic Historian, I will be keeping my eye as much on these things as well as the pronouncements Francis I makes in the days and years to come.
And so, that was the news from Rome today. But while watching, listening, and waiting, I also was doing some reading (I can take the talking heads and speculation for only so long). While flipping through the March 2013 issue of the Journal of American History, I eventually found my way to pages 1207 and 1208. For there was a review of The Mainline by Wade Clark Roof! To say that I was pleased to have such a prominent scholar review my book is an understatement. To find that he actually enjoyed it ("excellent denomination-by-denomination analysis," the "politics of decline" decline is noted as "insightful analysis") even better! While offering some critique as well, to say that Dr. Roof's review made my day is also an understatement.
All in all then, a very full day. A very blessed day.
