Church history is a fascinating spectator sport, Amos. Romans watch church politics with a cynical but enthusiastic interest - just as Washingtonians watch U.S. politics. I imagine New Yorkers watch Wall Street in the same way - or maybe they watch all of life in that way. Those in power always struggle to assume some sort of kinship with divinity, and some people actually believe them.

Rome likes to maintain the illusion of serene unchangeability and unquestioned power, but such has never been the case. There have always been saints like Augustine and Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther, there to ask the difficult questions. Throughout the history of Europe there have been times when the kings appointed the popes, and when the popes appointed the kings. The papacy has been heavy-duty politics from the very beginning.

There have been periods of absolute monarchy or dictatorship in most parts of the world, and many parts of the world have also had periods of some sort of rule by the people - the Vatican is subject to the same sort of ebb and flow of political power. And even though power changes form through the ages, most people are largely unaffected by it.

Think of real life, Amos. Most of us are quite effective in our lives, on a local level. In one way or another, many of us have a profound effect on the individuals we have constant contact with. Do rulers in Washington or Rome have that same profound effect on individuals all over their realms? No, I don't think so. The popes are there in Rome, fat and happy and blissfully out of touch with the real world. Most have provided little or no spiritual inspiration to believers, and some have been quite scandalous - and people were well aware of it. The current pope is actually a fairly inspiring sort of person, but he comes at a time when Catholics are generally also quite aware of his shortcomings.

-Joe Offer-