What a difference three decades make. For non-Catholics looking on bemusedly at the recent visit of the Pope, the burning question in 2010 was by what moral authority did the head of a church which had presided over such calumny in the way its principals had treated young members of their congregation could Pope Benedict say anything at all. The word cloud comparison with Pope John Paul II’s visit in 1982 clearly shows a very different strategy from the Vatican communication team no doubt struggling to give their 21st century Pope the tools to combat what, by any measure, is a pretty tricky crisis management scenario.

And what a contrast with the Polish Pope. The physical appearance of the men couldn’t be more different. In the harsh world of image dominated media the rugged, muscular and telegenic appearance of the youthful (for a Pope at least) 62-year-old Pope John Paul had arguably much more going for him than his wizened and diminutive 83-year-old successor. With no worries about paedophilia and cover ups back in 1982 when he addressed the Catholic heartland in Scotland, John Paul was able to focus on words traditionally associated with pontiffs: “Jesus” and “Holy Spirit” figure prominently as, of course, does “God”. There is dynamism too with references to “Jesus Lives” and “plan” and holding out the hope of “salvation”.

 

 

It’s a speech which clearly reaches out to people as individuals, touching them singly – a technique we try to inculcate in the people who come to us wanting to be better leaders. This technique is often seen in Royalty, who have the ability to make you feel you are the only important person in the world when they are speaking to you, albeit usually briefly, and film stars with whom people often identify as personal friends. Certainly John Paul II had star quality in spades and his speeches played to his strengths.

 

It’s almost as if Benedict was trying to trade his troubles with ours. So was the Pope’s strategy to come out fighting and speak out about this newly imagined concept of “aggressive secularism” on the basis that the best form of defence is usually attack? Or was there something else?

 

Vatican officials deemed the trip a success after initial worries that there wasn’t going to be a big enough turn out to mob the Popemobile and ensure the sun glassed security boys earned their keep. And as for the words: well, according to the Vatican, it was all down to Pope Benedict’s cerebral approach and the fact that he was shy and retiring. I wonder how that plays with those who demonstrated against his hard line on abortion, contraception and homosexuality.