One of the intriguing features of Pope Francis is the contrast between his earthy and free way with words and the laboured earnestness of those exploring his words for hidden meanings. It is like watching Martians deploy a bomb disposal unit to deal with the football a kid has kicked into their spaceship. The incongruity is humorous but it also points to a sclerosis in public conversations.
When speaking to groups the Pope generally throws away his text and engages in idiomatic and spontaneous conversation. The everyday context discourages close analysis. So when he darts into the crowd to speak with an old man and lays his hands on him it is otiose to ask if he was performing an exorcism. Nor did his response to a school student who asked why he moved out of the papal palace that it was not good for him to live alone really conjecture about his psychological wellbeing.
And an exhortation in which he explains that God wants to save all human beings does not bear the weight of a changed church doctrine about the central place of Christ in salvation. Such spontaneous gestures and words are living and buzz about happily. Only spoil sports embalm them for dissection.
This deadly seriousness also infects political conversation. The stray words of politicians senior enough to count are scrutinised for any inaccuracy or inconsistency with the party line. Lapses from verbal impeccability are then derided as gaffes that can potentially lose an election.
The problem with this carry-on both in church and state is not that important people are ambiguous and make mistakes when engaging with others, but that they are infected by the drear earnestness of the verbal surgeons. Instead of laughing them out of court and resolving to be themselves in addressing people, they purse their lips, consult their aides and resolve that never will they or other spokespersons for their party sin in this way again.
So they padlock their minds and lips and allow only the leader and chosen deputies to speak of the party's platform. They exercise strict control over other ministers and party members, expecting them never to go beyond the party line, to support it unequivocally when questioned, and to vote for the party at penalty of being disendorsed. Debate about policy is private and in practice atrophies.
They also develop a private language to speak of party policy and its benefits for society.