The Pope

In a grassy field outside Cologne in 2005, the full pomp and regalia of Pope Benedict XVI stood before more than a million cold and weary pilgrims. There was celebration, weeping and astonishment at the sight of the Bishop of Rome; the crowd knew this was the closest they would ever get to head of the Catholic Church. There he stood, a cunning chief executive clad in lordly robes, who, in one fell swoop absolved the sins of the entire crowd for completing their pilgrimage – it was one hell of a spectacle.

Moments such as these demonstrate how effectively the papacy has amalgamated medieval pageantry with managerial efficiency and political power, while the kings and emperors of Europe have faded into mere tourist attractions. The Pope, however, is no ordinary CEO. The finery of the Vatican is not funded by shareholders, but by the charity of the billion souls worldwide under his control. Not only is he a head of state, he is a law unto himself and accountable to none except the almighty.

Ask any protestant and you’ll learn that Pope-bashing is nothing new. For any critically-thinking Catholic boy, however, looking past a lifetime of ‘big brother’ mysticism surrounding the pontiff is a challenge. Even so, it is a fair assumption that most of the crowd in the field that day did not believe Benny Sixteen literally possesses the flapping tongue of Jesus Christ on earth.* Nevertheless, popes over the centuries were used to getting their way and, for the rulers of superstitious people, staying on the right side of St Peter’s heir was in their favour.** 

Playstation 3 counts as infallible right?

Electing a man with such medieval values as Joseph Ratzinger was indeed a leap of faith backwards for the modern church. Before we examine him, let us admire some of his predecessors who at least knew how to have a good time:

• Pope Stephen VI exhumed, dressed up and defingered the rotting corpse of his predecessor, Pope Formosus, in 897 – trying it for heresy.   
• Pope John XII, the ‘Christian Caligula’, was murdered by a jealous husband after catching the pontiff mid-coitus with his wife in 963.  
• Pope Benedict IX sold the papacy to his godfather in 1045 in his pursuit for marriage. He would go on to be pope two more times.  
• Pope Urban VI complained that he ‘could not hear enough screaming’ when he tortured the cardinals who betrayed him in 1384.  
• Pope Paul II died of a heart attack in 1471, allegedly while being buggered by his own page boy.  
• Pope Alexander VI hosted several orgies in the papal palace. The most famous in 1501 involved fifty prostitutes, with Alexander awarding participants based on their ‘ejaculative capacity’.

The power of the papacy is not what it used to be. Between the Reformation, the French Revolution and the creation of modern Italy, the political might of the Papal States was reduced to a small district in the middle of Rome by 1929. Since then, the church has abandoned conquest and become a multi-national spiritual corporation, trading in salvation and marketing morality. It has a board of cardinals, a hierarchy of bishops and priests and is chaired by a man that makes Rupert Murdoch sound progressive and reasonable.

In theory, directors are accountable for the actions of their company; their successes and follies are published in an annual report. Over the past century, the papacy has gone to great efforts to define its authority, limit the ability for reform and to practically abandon transparency or accountability. Only since 1870, have Catholics had to accept papal infallibility as a dogma of the church; allowing the Pope to speak ex cathedra or 'from the chair of St Peter'. Effectively, this allows the Pope to give 'definitions' of faith or morals with direct authority from god himself.***

The shrewd politician that he is, Benedict XVI has an amazing ability to appear modest and apologetic in the face of the most blaring hypocrisy – making him either the most suitable pontiff or the most despicable. In 2001, as prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith (previously known as the Inquisition), Ratzinger took sole responsibility for claims of child rape within the church. In an astonishing gesture, he issued a letter in which all bishops and priests were warned not to report any cases of child rape to secular authorities under threat of excommunication.

The million-strong crowd swooned at his presence that day, fully immersed in the iconography of the pious Papa. Ratzinger seamlessly and modestly rewrites history and champions science where it suits him – touting the good of the church without any responsibility for its wrong-doings. According to the current Pope, Christianity is the religion of "reason" and was responsible for the Enlightenment, homosexuality is a 'tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil', and condoms are not a 'real or moral' solution to the AIDS virus. Is this a man with whom you trust your soul?

Preach to me of the goodness of charity when your velvet vestments and golden rings rest in a Vinnies bin and your marble throne is given to the least of your brothers.


* There were a number of long-chaste Brides of Christ blushing at the prospect however.
** Although the Coptic Pope and the Greek Orthodox Pope also claims this title.
*** This has only been applied once since then. In 1950 it became dogma to accept the Assumption of Mary – an event not recorded in the bible.

Marketing

Out of all the non-professions, marketing is among the most insidious. In league with its cousin (and probably half-sister) advertising, marketing reduces humanity into shallow demographics, systematically perverting our needs and capitalising on our anxieties. Many a marketing executive has made a career by leading open communication through the desert towards the mirage of branding. Dressed up as creativity and innovation, the superficial and malleable nature of marketing is more akin to the illusionist and the mercenary.

Capitalism, competition and the free market have created limitless choice for consumers; or that is what we like to believe. There is a car that celebrates my inner-city lifestyle, chewing gum that expresses my carefree yet enamel-conscious attitude and cologne that helps me feel sophisticated without risking my fragile masculinity. Chances are, there are three identical equivalents of each of these products that represent something completely different to each of their respective owners.

Holding marketing solely responsible for the technocratic, corporate stronghold in which we obediently consume would not be fair. Sadly for marketing departments, they are the most visible example of managerial vocabulary in action, often at its most systematic and distant.* Again, this is not their fault – the corporate world is about solutions and systems, not about doubt and uncertainty. Marketing strives to compartmentalise the individual into something predictable and uniform.

"This is demeaning to us both."

Marketing has a noticeable effect despite the ethical dilemmas. After both writing marketing plans and serving time as a promotional pamphlet-monkey on the street, it is easy to start viewing people as commodities. When does ‘getting your name out there’ become manipulation of the impressionable? Is it wrong to make millions selling a useless product by ‘establishing a need’ through successful advertising? Should you expose people to sunny, pastoral labelling of farm-fresh meat and eggs when the product was most likely produced in a mechanical processing plant?

Be it gullible people or crafty corporations, branding is a straight-jacket of emotive deception disguised as a cashmere suit - best illustrated by effective products like Coca-Cola. Since its first outdoor advertisement in 1894, the marketing of this particular drink has never had much to do with cola. Coke is reminiscence about times gone by, happiness, fun, friends, summer, winter, the beach ball and the polar bear – never rotting teeth, poor labour practices or childhood obesity. For those in marketing, Coke is the gold standard and shows how one product can be portrayed in a million different ways.**

The more money companies spend on marketing, the more meaningless and patronising it becomes – an expense all too familiar to banks. Perhaps your author is not the ‘target market’ when it comes to such campaigns, but how anybody with half a brain believes the customer-service utopia depicted in bank commercials is anything less than an insult to our intelligence is beyond me. Credit, however, must be given to those in charge of such campaigns. There is an art in deluding the public into thinking that being gingerly prostrated over a comfortable couch and lubricated with a loving smile will make corporate buggery all the more pleasant.

There is little doubt that marketing serves some noble purposes – promoting a charity organisation can hardly be called evil. However, the burden of proof lies with those in the profession and their assurance that not once in their careers have they deceived, manipulated or blatantly lied to the public for their masters' purposes. For multinational corporations, the illusion of choice is essential to their success and marketing is the means to achieve this end. Every time we choose a product we have been unconsciously affected by such means. Considering an argument such as this is now cliché, one can only vouch for its effectiveness.

* Monash University has a whole dictionary of marketing terms – ‘actionability’ being a personal favourite.
 ** Unlike a certain diabetic Diet Coke drinker who is, and always will be, assumed to be a gossipy female administration assistant.