As things happen, I missed the actual announcement of Pope Benedict’s election last Tuesday. It wasn’t my intention: in fact, the first thing I did upon returning home that evening was to switch on TV and zap. At one point, flicking through the “newses” in quick succession, I paused for a moment on footage of a never-ending plume of dense black smoke rising ominously against the sky... which led me to the inevitable conclusion that the conclave’s vote had again been inconclusive, and that the world was still Popeless.

Sadly, it took me a while to realise that what I took at first for the roof of the Sistine Chapel was actually a Super One news bulletin of the St Luke’s Hospital incinerator in full pollution mode. And so, defeated by my own nincompoopery, I missed the historic occasion itself... and was left with no option than to rely on the information provided by our glorious media houses, which naturally gave great prominence to the whole papal affair.

***

And a good thing it was, too. For had I consulted the foreign press, I would have been informed (by the irreligious dogs responsible for the British tabloids, among others) that the College of Cardinals had somehow elected a dog (“God’s Rottweiler”, no less)... or a tank (“The Panzer Cardinal”)... and even someone who had once been a member of the Hitler Youth (!!)

Luckily, however, I read an altogether more serious newspaper: namely, The Times (of Malta) last Wednesday, which declared in a headline on page four: “Joy at choice of new Pope.”

***

Ah, joy. That’s more like it. However, I must admit that I was vaguely perplexed to read, among the comments listed under such a “joyous” heading, that: “The last thing the Church needs in the 21st century is someone with conservative ideals. Pope John Paul II might have been conservative, but he was the ultimate charmer and communicator, something I feel is lacking in Ratzinger.” Elsewhere in the same article, people commented that they were “disappointed” in the choice of Ratzinger, who is “too conservative and uncompromising”, and even “just too old”.

All in all, not exactly a panoply of opinions you would loosely group under the term “Joy”, now is it? Not unless, that is, the sub-editor on this occasion was merely translating the actual papal announcement itself: “Gaudum Magnum!”... which is Latin for “Great Joy” (and not, as I first thought, “Enjoy your frozen chocolate ice-cream”...)

***

And just when you thought things couldn’t get more confusing... well, they do. For last Wednesday – yes, the selfsame day of the “Joy” headline – the same newspaper’s on-line poll revealed that 57.9 per cent of respondents answered “Yes” to the question: “Are you happy with the choice of new Pope?” Which, conversely, also means that 42.1 per cent of respondents must have clicked the “No” option.

Strange, don’t you think, that with its own statistics revealing (at best) a not-insignificant minority expressing “unhappiness”, The Times would lead with a headline giving the very opposite impression? Stranger still, that the above-mentioned on-line poll would simply vanish from the website without a trace, uncommented upon anywhere in the paper...?

***

If these were the only discrepancies in that particular issue, then I myself would be the first to suggest that I might be splitting hairs. However, there is more. For last Wednesday’s front page carried an article, credited to Reuters, under the headline “Conservative German elected Pope”.

This immediately struck me as odd, as I had already (this being the digital age, etc.) perused the original Reuters article on-line. I could have sworn that the headline there was slightly different: that Philip Pullela and Crispian Balmer, the authors of said article, had described Ratzinger as an “Arch-Conservative”, and not simply as a “Conservative”, as it appeared in The Times.

Intrigued, I read further, and... well, I won’t tell you what I found myself thinking when I compared the two articles in full. Instead, I will just leave you with a list of comments and observations which feature in the original Reuters article... but which spectacularly failed to make it into the version printed in The Times last Wednesday:

***

• “(Benedict XVI) is expected to defend Pope John Paul’s strict orthodox legacy and reject changes in doctrine, raising fears that divisions in the Church left by the Polish pontiff will widen.” (part in bold omitted)

• “The election dismayed liberal US Catholics hoping for a softening of Church policy on married priests, the role of women, homosexuality, birth control and abortion.”

• “But even in his home country some Catholics, especially younger people, expressed disappointment, saying it dashed chances of reform.”

• “Obviously it’s great that it is a German pope but whether Ratzinger of all people is the right one to address the issues in the Catholic Church, I am not so sure,” said Gerard Schrodat, among people gathered in front of Cologne Cathedral.”

• “Matt Foreman, of the US National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said: “Today the princes of the Roman Catholic Church elected as Pope a man whose record has been one of unrelenting, venomous hatred for gay people.”

• “Even his older brother Georg, 81, suggested he might be too old. “At age 78 it’s not good to take on such a job which challenges the entire person,” he said.

Well, thank God The Times was there to protect us all from exposure to such terrifying blasphemy. For you see, even though we are now five years into the 21st century, it is still plainly unacceptable that any reference to the election of a Pope should feature even the tiniest hint of anything resembling “criticism”... either of the incoming Pontiff, or – worse still – of his immediate predecessor.

In fact, even the simple observation that there may exist within the Church differences of opinion on a wide number of issues is by its very nature anathema in Constitutionally Catholic Malta. That such criticism might come from a political lobby group representing homosexuals... who, according to the orthodox views upheld by Pope Benedict himself, are “aberrations” of nature, and also “evil” ... well, that is clearly out of the question.

No, thankfully The Times spared us all such needless controversy. Instead, having removed all of the above (no doubt for lack of space), that newpsaper decided to go one step further, and add to the Reuters article an observation all of its own: “But even before the bells pealed, thousands of faithful in the square cheered and applauded, yelling ’A pope, a pope!”

***

Ah, how sweet. How kind. How thoughtful. And how very, very misleading...

***

For you see, although I missed the actual papal announcement, I nevertheless watched TV until late into the night. I saw, if not the announcement itself, at least the crowd’s immediate reactions... which were commented upon at length (and in less overtly biased terms) on other news media – not all of them necessarily as ultra-keen on “Papa Ratzi” as their Maltese equivalents..

For the sake of accuracy, The Times might also have added that – while it is true that the original “Habemus Papam” last Monday filled St Peter’s with enthusiasm – the cheering diminished noticeably the moment the identity of the new Pope was disclosed. In point of fact, even as the name “Ratzinger” reverberated around Michelangelo’s celebrated twin colonnades, there was an audible lull in applause... and as the television cameras swept over the audience, it was clear that a sizeable percentage of the assembled crowd was not cheering... at all. Some were seen shaking their heads and muttering to each other. I even saw one person walking away with his flag tucked under his arm, much like a disappointed football fan leaving the stadium before full-time to avoid the traffic.

***

Of course, I suppose it was too much to expect a local newspaper to comment truthfully on these unmistakable facts. (i.e., that the election of Cardinal Ratzinger was received with any amount of ecstatic happiness, yes... but also with trepidation, concern and even outright disappointment by liberal Catholics who were hoping for a real change.)

But then, this image does not quite fit in with the vision of the Catholic Church as a mirror-image of the celestial unity of the Heavens above... and in this, I must add that our local Christian watchdogs were not alone in their outright distortion of last Tuesday’s great events.

***

No, it appears to me that news media worldwide – especially the ones we normally associate with that elusive and tricky concept, “Conservatism” – all performed their own version of the miracle of the loaves and fishes when it came to reporting the Papal accession.

Take RAI Uno, for instance. Even as Pope Benedict XVI made his first appearance at the balcony, an intrepid journalist was busy scurrying in and out of the assembled crowd in search of the usual vox-pop reactions. The first two people she approached declined to make any comment whatsoever... a fact which is itself unusual, in a country where everyone always seems to have something to say... and the third, a young woman, claimed that she was very “delusa” at the choice of Ratzinger, adding that he was too “anziano” and too “conservatore” for her liking. She would probably have elaborated further, had she not been swiftly and peremptorily silenced by the journalist, who (by a huge coincidence, naturally) was suddenly informed by her “regia” that the time had come for “pubblicita”. Needless to add, when the commercial break was over, the same journalist was in another part of St Peter’s Square altogether, this time surrounded by a small but suitably ecstatic crowd, composed mostly of Germans, who were joyfully and triumphantly singing the praises of their newly elected

compatriot.

***

I must say, then, it’s nice to know that the media, in Malta and elsewhere, are always so keen to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And that they do this regardless of their own biases, their own preferences, and even the whims and fancies their own political masters.

But anyhow, back to Malta Cattolicissima and its papal coverage. As things stand, the only local newspaper to faithfully report things as they actually took place – that is to say, without embroidering facts to disguise the waves of shock and horror that accompanied Pope Benedict XVI’s accession – was last Thursday’s l-orizzont, which carried the headline “Bruda Papali” – impossible to translate without losing the original’s mischievous humour: let’s just paraphrase it as “Papal indifference”, “lack of enthusiasm” or words to that effect – and which went on to give a fairly accurate account of the many and various factors relating to this general fall-out... including public protests in South America and elsewhere.

This, incidentally, from a newspaper which has (let’s face it) not always been an entirely reliable bastion of truth in its long and illustrious career.

Well, what can I say? Habemus Ironiam?