The Pope May be a Star but Not a Movie Star

A theater next to my parish church in São Paulo is currently presenting “The Pope”, the play on which the hit film “The Two Popes” was based. In it Pope Francisco and Benedict have a cozy get together and chat about a variety of subjects ranging from religion to their favorite television program. The film was a great success but I found it sentimental and unconvincing and do not intend watching the play.

It may make some sense to present the Pope in an informal setting, showing the common touch, but I feel attempts to “market” the Pontiff have to be considered carefully. My fear would be if the Vatican were to try and dumb down the image of the Pontiff and make him some kind of favorite uncle or kindly grandfather figure. Thankfully this has not happened. You only have to look at the English royal family which has lost any respect it ever had and is now a source of never-ending tabloid headlines to see where this leads.

One of my complaints about the film was that I could not reconcile the experiences both men underwent in their personal lives with the characters on the screen. Both these popes lived through traumatic times. Benedict was conscripted into the German army during the Second World War when he was a teenager and interned by the Americans when the fighting ended. Pope Francis witnessed at first hand the “dirty war” between Argentina´s military dictatorship and its opponents which led to thousands of deaths.

The scene in the film with Benedict, an ascetic academic, and Francisco, an ebullient Latin, watching the 2014 World Cup final between Germany and Argentina was too much for me to take. I am not saying it did not happen but I still have reservations particularly in relation to Pope Benedict. He was the most reticent, if not shyest, Pontiff in my lifetime and his unprecedented decision to retire may have reflected the pressure of the public role he was forced to assume. When he stood down it was not for health reasons as might have been expected. In fact, he lived on for almost 10 years after retiring and had none of the serious health issues that plagued John Paul II.

In some ways Benedict had no choice but to enter the spotlight albeit unwillingly. He was following predecessors like John Paul XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Francis who realized the importance of publicity, welcomed the public gaze and traveled all over the world to meet the faithful.

Pope Leo has shown that although he is different from his predecessor in many ways he is aware of the need to be in touch with his flock and the world as a whole. He has adopted modern communication methods such as the social media and in his first year as Pontiff has made several foreign trips. These included visits to two overwhelmingly Moslem-majority countries, Turkey and Algeria, and a third with a large Moslem population, Lebanon. In the former, which have tiny Catholic communities, he showed local Catholics that they were not forgotten. In the latter he was expressing solidarity with fellow Christians who were once in the majority but have been outnumbered by Moslems over the last half century.

Leo may be more discreet than Pope Francis but has publicly spoken out against tyrannical regimes and rebuffed the disgraceful criticism of US President Donald Trump in no uncertain terms. In some ways Trump has done me a favor by his boorish behavior and helped me win an argument. During our recent Easter Sunday lunch two of my friends said they had been disappointed by Pope Leo and compared him unfavorably with Francis. They said Leo had little charisma and none of the common touch of the Argentinian. I said they did not know him yet and urged them to be patient. We agreed we would have the same discussion at our Easter lunch next year.

Only a few days later, Leo bared his teeth and my friends hailed him for deflecting Trump´s attack.

Thank you Holy Father for confirming my faith in you. Any chance of you having lunch with us next Easter?