{"id":506,"date":"2008-03-27T08:01:17","date_gmt":"2008-03-27T08:01:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/viamedia\/2008\/03\/plunging-into-the-mystery.html"},"modified":"2008-03-27T08:01:17","modified_gmt":"2008-03-27T08:01:17","slug":"plunging-into-the-mystery","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/viamedia\/2008\/03\/plunging-into-the-mystery.html","title":{"rendered":"Plunging into the mystery"},"content":{"rendered":"

A few days ago, I blogged on reporter Gary Stern’s piece on Benedict, which had some good points, but was hampered by the thematic focus that Benedict is a “mystery” to “many.”
\nStern has responded to bloggers’ criticisms, particularly Carl Olson. Carl reports and responds here.\u00a0 Stern maintains that most people don’t understand Benedict, and that was the purpose of his piece – to introduce that fact. <\/a>
\nI don’t disagree with that, but I’d, in response, suggest two points:
\n1) The contrast with Pope John Paul II is an inadequate one because I doubt that the same people who profess to not know what Benedict is about actually could give you a coherent, accurate sense of what John Paul II was about either. (Which is part of the reporting paradigm -that JPII was “understood” while B16 is a “mystery.”) They might be able to tell you that he traveled a lot and seemed to enjoy engaging with others in settings great or small, but could they really <\/em>tell you about his thought, the intellectual focus of his papacy or what the substantive fruit of his papacy was? I doubt it.
\nI maintain that when we’re moving in the arena of “People got JPII but don’t get B16,” we’re essentially talking about superficial media-driven impressions, not truly “getting” the person.
\n2) The decision to structure reporting around “B16 is a mystery” isn’t reporting anything that’s really demonstrably news, both for the reasons in #1 as well as the arbitrariness of it.
\nThe facts are that when it comes to evidence – book sales (in the US and worldwide) \u00a0website hits, internet discussions – it seems as if there are lots <\/em>of people interested in Benedict who are not scratching their heads at his purported impenetrability, but rather intrigued by and nourished by what he’s saying.
\nAn amorphous mass that you can pin a label on that says “Thinks B16 is a mystery” is much less an object for real reporting than a more specific group you can actually (sort of) count and trace behavior of and talk to.
\nChristopher Blosser responds:<\/a><\/p>\n

But I also think there are also many signs that readily challenge the suggestion that Benedict’s so-called “mysteriousness” constitutes a barrier between him and the laiety, that it may “take years (or longer) for his teachings to seep down,” that Catholics have been unable to arrive at an appreciation and understanding of Benedict — that they are in fact responding enthusiastically to his person and his pontificate:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n