As a counterpoint to the current Papal Love-in appearing in the press, I'd like to offer a few comments.
1) Disturbing Lack of Moral Leadership when it was needed the most
The most serious and damaging event in American Catholocism during John Paul II's tenure was the Child Sexual Abuse scandal, and his leadership on the issue was woefully lacking. Not only did the Pope not seem to grasp how deadly serious this event was, he even seemed to feel it was an affront to even bring it up. For a much more damning article, see Chris Hitchens at Slate. As Hitchens indicates in the article, the most mind-numbingly disturbing part is the deference given to Cardinal Law, he deserved not a prestigious post, but rather a slow painful death.
2) Birth Control, AIDS, and the Third World
The number of Catholics in Africa has increased from 10 Million to over 150 Milliion in the last 50 years. Also during that period with the rise of AIDS has reached pandemic proportions. Yet still, the Church's stand on birth control remains the same despite condom use being able to save millions of lives. This is a clear example in which the "sanctity of life" becomes farcical, in which millions die to keep sperm sacred. The Holy See is complicit in these deaths, and should be criticised for it.
3) Life above sense
While I personally find the position taken by the Catholic Church on life to be ridiculous, I respect the faith's right to its own beliefs. However, immediately following the farce of fighting against the courts, the rule of law, the wishes of the legal guardian, and common sense to keep a dead woman alive for 15 more years of void existence, along with several followers being willing to kill to protect the life said dead woman, the Pope chose to allow himself to die, by refusing to leave the vatican for the hospital, where his life could almost certainly have been extended. Perhaps the difference would have only a day, or a week, or a month. But if a faith is willing to take so strong a principled stand on an issue, then it can't have hypocrisy from its highest officer. And I don't hear anyone talking about this. He refused full medical treatment to keep himself alive.
There is much to celebrate in the life of John Paul II. But if we ignore these shortcomings we risk allowing these errors to continue, and we canonize a man who, while serving Catholics as Peter's Successor was nonetheless human, and in his humanity was not infallible.
Notes:
The official Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility, holds that the Pope's official pronouncements on Church Catechism are infallible, not that his actions or opinions are.
If you're interested in a little more critical coverage on the Pope's legacy head over the Guardian's section of Special Coverage on the Pope. And anytime American press pisses you off, check out the Guardian to get a different take.
A general note on Christopher Hitchens-- If you aren't familiar with him, you really should read some of his stuff. While I often disagree with his positions, I consider him one of the most original voices you can find in journalism. A self-professed liberal, his views nonetheless always seem to flow from the real core of his values rather than some political positioning designed by the DNC. This has put him on the opposite side of many "career" Democrats, including his support of the Iraq War (an action he's supported about as long as Wolfowitz has). Part of this may come from his being a Brit, but I think its more just in his personality. He may enrage you or annoy you or delight you, but whatever it is, you can count that it's not the same thing you're hearing from every other political writer out there.
I usually find him in Slate, but he also writes columns for Vanity Fair and book reviews for The Atlantic. You can go to this site for all things Hitchens. Here's a transcript of a segment on Tim Russert's show with Hitch and Andrew Sullivan, who sort of fills the role of the Republican Hitchens.
Posted by ktismael at April 4, 2005 12:04 PM