rush of thought

floating around in my thoughts makes the passing of time seem so tranquil... and yet i need to anchor myself for the sake of pragmatism.

on the dear pope's death - a number of questions:

1. why didn't he retire? yes, his predecessors have never done it before; yes, he's a stubborn conservative. but he also knew that his health was deteriorating rapidly (cue Parkinson's), that he had the authority to resign even if it would be unprecedented, and that had he retired (and allowed himself to be nurtured back to health) his utter talent in doctrinal studies could continue to be used for the benefit of his congregation worldwide. yet he chose to die in office 'as Peter did.'
2. does this constitute excessive zeal? in a sense, he had committed karochi - working oneself to death. worse... could he have been somewhat an egoist, attempting to follow tradition for the sake of his reputation? (i must stay in office until i die, if not i might be branded a 'bad' pope.) was it not for the pride of his position that he chose to remain pope till he choked?
3. what function does this tradition of 'working to death' serve? is a pope only considered 'great' when he exhibits the 'extraordinary courage' to serve his office till his last breath? is this not a (rather pointlessly) romanticised notion, possibly serving no function? are not those who wish to watch their leader serve, even in ill health, till they die, guilty of promulgating a needlessly cruel tradition? is this not a form of sadism-masochism?
4. one named function of this tradition is, ironically, the global unity in praying for the papal crisis, and the worldwide mourning for his funeral. sensationalism of his ill health and death had the effect of committing thousands of catholics from every nation to unite in prayer. this can't be bad, can it? assuming the pope knew of this phenomenon, could it be said that he wanted a sensational death? is adhering to this oddest of odd traditions for such a result morally acceptable (especially by the church's standards)?
5. given this train of thought, could anyone really say "God has called his servant back to his fold" when, i) the pope was confirmed to be suffering from Parkinson's 4 years ago, back in 2001; ii) various groups did call for the pope's voluntary retirement and/or setting a term limit for popes; and iii) Parkinson's could be treated (although not cured, and is certainly not abated by constant travelling) to some extent, and his life (along with his great contributions) could be extended? are not his various health scares prior to the 2001 diagnosis of Parkinson's also interpretable as "God telling his servant to take it easy?"
6. or perhaps... dying in office is better than prolonging a sickly life? after all, he did go without too much of a fuss, and the Vatican repeatedly assured us that "he was peaceful." indeed, our dear pope may already have heard the news of his death during his prayer... and was already prepared to work up to it. after all, who among us is to say when death will arrive but God? how dare i question the pope's God-inspired choice? this, i fear, will only lead to the next question - which part of this decision was made by a) the pope, b) God, and c) society/media/church?

what is the meaning of one such death? how should we interpret this?

on another note, we definitely should not let his death obscure this great man's achievements over his 26-year reign in Vatican. not to be cheesy or anything, but do take a look at a summary of his life's work at wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. the (lengthy) official list of accomplishments on the Vatican home page is another great tribute to his inspiring life.

he is truly a man to be honored. few could boast of a life more fully lived than his. thank you, holy father, for sharing your life with us. may you rest in peace and continue praying for all mankind in the company of the angels.