EDIT: Here's a great perspective on the late John Paul II, a piece that transcends ideology and examines JP II inside the times and places he lived in (the rest of the blog is generally pro-Democrat stuff, but reading this one post I couldn't pick up an ideology).
There is no such thing as a universally admired person. Human beings have a natural tendency to tear down as well as sin, so you can always find one of the former to expand upon the flaws of the latter to condemn them.
Thus it is with the recent passing of Pope John Paul II, the former Karol Cardinal Wojtyla, Archbishop of Krakow. Just as some focus on the peccadilloes of MLK, Jr., and some on what they contend is the myth of Mother Teresa (although given that she's up for sainthood, such an investigation is warranted), or the tyranny of Abraham Lincoln.
Not that criticisms of any major figure isn't necessary, but it's easy to lose site of the bigger picture and end up being contrary for the sake of being contrary.
There are real criticisms or questions of this pope -- in fact, his greatness may be exemplified, in a way, by the intense look we must take at his life. But we're not here to tear down.
The complexities of Pope John Paul II
The most talked about aspect of JP II's reign is his considerable influence in the rise of Solidarity in Poland and the eventual chain reaction that caused in Europe. Many would like to pooh-pooh his influence, even in Poland, but no less than Lech Walesa said this past weekend, "Without Pope John Paul II, communism would have ended in a bloodbath". Walesa recalled how "the end of communism was already nigh, only the date was uncertain. But the Holy Father enabled its downfall to be almost peaceful. Without him", said the Noble peace prize-winner, "we wouldn't have done much. The Solidarnosc militants would have been assassinated. The trade union would have been wiped out".
Certainly, John Paul II influenced Reagan and the various Soviet leaders -- the papacy was a place to be acknowledged, met with, and considered for its deep, powerful, and all-encompassing arguments on behalf of humanity. Gorbachev certainly had differences with him, but noted that, "On the whole, this man was for a society where humanity was at its center. Not the state, not the elite, but humanity."
That alone would be enough. But John Paul II, for all his reputation of being a conservative, was intensely liberal in bridging gaps with Jews and Muslims, traveling to all corners of the world that had never seen a pontiff, embracing the growing faith of the Third World, and never failing to remind the great economic powers of the world to neither neglect those less fortunate nor display the hubris of worshipping capitialism.
This pope was a prolific writer, engaging in his prose and poetry, and a trained philosopher who could argue with and persuade both theologians and those who did not believe. And he truly deserves Reagan's "Great Communicator" title, having the fluent use of seven of the major languages of the world (English, Spanish, French, German, Polish, Latin, and Italian) and working knowledge of several more. His Easter greeting was traditionally proclaimed, personally, in 60 languages. There has not been a leader of any kind (and probably won't) who could directly reach so many parts of the globe with his original words.
Certainly, there's some real room for disagreement with the late pontiff. If I was a gay Catholic, I wouldn't have been too fond of him in recent years. Certainly, if right-wing Republicans didn't see him as an ally in their moral war, they would remember his opposition to war, the death penalty, and critique of capitialism. If liberal Democrats appreciated his support on those issues, they certainly were not thrilled with his stances on abortion and contraception. And if I was a Communist, well, I'd be a sore loser.
The pedophilia crisis was also inadequately dealt with -- although this has not been revealed to be as big a problem in other parts of the world, and the biggest resistance certainly lies in the bureacracy of the Church, both in America and Rome. A young Karol Wotjyla, I truly believe, would have addressed this issue much more forcefully for the base evil it truly is.
Policy isn't nearly the most important thing to remember about him, though.
This was a man who was both a pillar of the Church (quietly instrumental during Vatican II) and of the modern world. A man whose youth and early adulthood was spent under Nazi and Communist occupation and as such had a rare view of the modern world, and therefore was not enraptured with the thought of "progress" and the Hegelian march towards the end of history. Despite this, he utilized the modern advancements in travel and communication perhaps better than anyone of this past generation.
He never stopped advocating for humanity in general -- sometimes this meant controversial meetings, as seen with one of Saddam's lieutenants before the last conflict began, or meeting with Castro. (Christopher Hitchens, who enjoys writing scathing pieces all the time, but also after people die, uses that as one example of how the world is better off without JP II -- here's a critique of Hitchens) However, John Paul II realized that people can change, and that an honest dialogue, if possible at all, could happen when the man on the other side of the table (JP II) had only in mind helping humanity. He was a man who, throughout his lifetime, had major problems with capitalism and communism, but knew that nothing could be solved by ignoring either.
Essentially, while the Church in some respects was John Paul II, it has also regained a place among the major centers of thought, culture and influence in the world. It is a place that is much more in tune with where it should be (minus the pockets of radicalism that many forget are in nearly every institution):
The Church is no longer (if it ever was) marginalized, except perhaps in places such as Western Europe where all religions are becoming a bit marginalized. But that also betrays a Western-centric view -- the Pope, even in his infirmities, even with his delgation of duties to assistants who didn't always agree with each other and lacked the aura of authority, remained a massive hero in action and symbol to the places such as Latin America and Africa, and even Asia. Those places are the future of the Church, and perhaps the world. Look down on them (and Islam) if you must, but religion is diminished for only a haughty minority of people, and if you think you someday won't have to deal with religion, good and bad, well, you're in for a rude surprise.
The next pope has a brutal task -- can he be the humanitarian the last pope was? Can he demonstrate an ability to talk in terms that resonate outside the Roman Curia? Can he communicate in eloquence and tongue in a way that even pales to John Paul's charistma? Can he crack down on the pedophilia crisis and defy those powerful forces who still live in denial, or worse, conspiracy -- namely, please defrock Bernard Cardinal Law already? Can the Church update its views on sexuality -- not necessarily changing much of its views, but in reviewing the changes in culture, society, and science since 1978? In particular, can the Church reach people on these issues without the pettiness such as the debate over whether John Kerry should receive Communion -- can the next pope remember to promote a respect for life while acknowledging how politics is almost never that cut-and-dried? Can the next pope continue the Church dialogue with other faiths?
The Church has the fantastic opportunity to continue to develop as a unique world force that serves as a check on those who would let greed and power dominate the actions of nations, as well as inspire the faithful to do unto all men in peace and goodwill. John Paul II has done so much to return the Church to a sensible temporal relevancy without forgetting the focus of attending to the higher world. The Church (especially in America) cannot forget to stay true to that mission.
0 Responses to “Pope recollections”
Post a CommentLinks to this post
Create a Link