As a fallen away Catholic who believes very much in dogmas that are diametrically opposed to Catholicism, I can't work up either any teary treacly plaudits for this Pope or much condemnation.

I think when it comes to modernity, the pontiff hasn't a clue. I think his policies and practices, as others have written, have led to reprehensible practices and outcomes. The molestation scandal was centuries in the making and was revealed only because the church was exposed to the looking glass of modern society.

Consequently, birth rates in the Third World continue to reflect the struggle between the modernity of birth control and the dogmatic requirements of Catholicism. One expects that the successor Pope, coming from the College of Cardinals stacked by the present pontiff, will continue these policies that are seen as unshakable and never-changing.

The thing is, no one is necessarily forced to be a Catholic. It's interesting, I think, that among the Italians who are grieving in St. Peter's Square, I have to wonder how many of them are practicing birth control in direct defiance of Catholic doctrine. Right now, MSNBC is showing thousands grieving in Mexico City and Brazil, so many of them young people. I thought the same for those crowds as well.

Isn't it interesting on some level that so many are grieving the passing of a man whose lecturing on critical areas of the faith they ignore and violate?

A Polish citizen just quoted on MSNBC saying he doesn't believe in priests and churches but he believes in the Pope and is grieving his passing.

It's puzzling. One could say this Pope has transcended Catholicism and is the beneficiary of a cult of personality.

What I can't stand about all of this is the coverage in the media has also transcended any real discussion of the "news" value of the event and broached rank advocacy of religious dogma, especially Joe Scarborough's coverage on MSNBC last night. When he brings together Bill Donohue of the ultra-right Catholic League and Pat Buchanan, both to trash any criticism of the Pope and propagate the most conservative religious apologia, then the coverage crosses the line.

I have yet to see Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice or even noted author and critic Father Andrew Greeley as guests. Maybe the networks don't think it would be proper. I believe it would provide a counterbalance to the slavishly fawning coverage so far. If nothing, people need to know of disagreements among the faithful.

The aforementioned proponents of the conservative papacy on MSNBC kept asking each other: "Will he go down in history as Pope John Paul the Great?" This is journalism?

A visitor from outer space who is watching this coverage might be forgiven for thinking the Pope somehow ruled the world in some way and that the vast majority of the world's inhabitants were adherents to his religion.

In the end, though, no one can deny or take away that this pontiff's reign straddles the last century and the beginning of this one as a major force in Catholicism, Christianity, and political and social thought. It's a shame that the coverage of his impending death is so one dimensional on one hand and shallow on the other.