If this is true, and I’d rather it was than not, then Pope Francis truly is a wonderful and inexplicable character. He’s a model human being, but not, I think, a balanced pope. Because while I applaud and love him for taking this stagnant religion into the direction of the humane, tolerant and global future, I am a bit worried for the radicalism in his actions. I don’t say “radical” as in dangerous or extremist. I say “radical” as in he might lose his position if he keeps this up. His power isn’t vested by the people of the modern era who adore him. A lot of things taught to us had very little to do with tolerance or relativity (there is that, of course, but the bulk of it waxes on absolute truths). And shaking that up won’t make a lot of people happy, or even enlightened. It’s not just the teachers who have to redraft lesson plans, or students who have to relearn material. It’s the people who lived decades on one particular idea: the idea of spirituality peculiarity. Chosen people, race supremacy, a sad misunderstanding of Leviticus, you name it. They are somehow all built on the tenets of Catholicism which the pope is steadily overturning. While Pope Francis had extremely valid points, Cardinal Arinze of Nigeria had some as well: “All of this talk of love and tolerance is hollow if we have no identity of our own, if we stand for nothing.” And what is religion but another aspect of identity? What is a Catholic now, if not a pantheist with a very particular leaning towards Catholicism dogma and practice –now that all religions are true? The question now settles on defining Catholicism and, indeed, religion as we know it. Such a controversy. (Lovely). Handle your words better, Pope Francis. You can change an institution overnight, but I rather you didn’t try. Pace out the progress (so that they don’t see it coming).