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.
At times I claim things would be different if I were dictator-for-life, but never have entertained the thought of being pope-for-life. It's just not a job I'd want, I guess.
Even Jesus was a man, and wrestled with his own humanity. So who can fault the Pope for having a few human traits of his own. Our next Pope could make John Paul II look like a bleeding heart liberal.
But in the end, when I think of Pope John Paul II, I always, always, always think of my grandfather, who loved him. So, in memory of my grandfather, goodbye to you, Pope John Paul II.
I'm pretty sure they'd want me to be Catholic before they'd make me Pope. So I've never really considered it either.
While I recognize that you weren't accusing me of it, just for clarity's sake I'd like to point out that my criticism of the Pope is not that he was conservative or liberal. I consider that to be a matter of theology, and especially irrelevant for me as a non-Catholic (well, I might as well say non-Christian, which makes it double irrelevant). Catholics can certainly debate whether the church should allow women priests or embrace homosexuals or any other aspect of the dogma, but I don't see it as my place to do so as a non-believer. In a similar way I support absolutely the right of a church to outlaw homosexual marriage *within their church*. I personally wouldn't attend such an institution with opinions like that, but I recognize their right. My challenge there is with their right to enforce it onto the public at large.
My complaint with JPII is his not supporting that dogma actively enough or in a consistent way.
I wouldn't suggest he didn't have a right to be human and have faults, though I would suggest that we shouldn't treat him as though he didn't either.
OH! Hitchens! I was looking at the title and trying to figure out how you tied the death of JP2 to that Will Smith movie... maybe the Pope in the afterlife is told he needs to be married to get into heaven and enlists the help of... Yeah, enough of that.
1) Disturbing Lack of Moral Leadership when it was needed the most
Argeed.
2) Birth Control, AIDS, and the Third World
Agreed.
3) Life above sense
Agreed.
JP2 is guilty on all charges. I'll go one more. By remaining pope for so long in a state of failed health despite being unable to fulfill his duties or fully control his subordinets, he allowed entirely too much Vatican policy to be decided by unelected, illegitimate underlings, many of whom belonged to the radical and dangerous cult, Opus Dei. (The preceeing paragraph contains some editorializing and unproven/unprovable supposition and innuendo.)
But why then, when I heard about his death, was I so sad... tears welling up unbidden sad. He was a truelly great man, with whom I disagreed on a great many things. He failed in some regards because his institution failed (because much of his institution is built on a foundation of untruth). No one will be all things to all people. It's okay to celebrate the person none the less. We can pick at his flaws for years to come. Give us a couple of days to mourn. It's what people do.
I very strongly suspect that the next pope will be a reactionary who makes JP2 look like Barbara Boxer.
I'll accede to his greatness. But then praise is easy enough to find: Mourning is one thing and canonization quite another.
I suspect to make him look like Senator Boxer we'd have to do something different with his hair. But I agree with your assessment. I only hope the Holy Spirit guides without political bias.
Somehow I knew you wouldn't let Opus Dei slip by unmentioned. I almost bought you an Escriva pendant when I was in Rome, just because I knew how disgusted you'd be.
I don't really know what one is to do when a widely beloved person that you disagree with dies. On one hand, the decent thing to do is allow people to mourn and celebrate the person they loved. On the other hand, discourse must continue and it's hardly fair that one side gets to monopolize the debate just because their champion died.
I think the real problem is that we have a tendency to reduce famous people to a list of their beliefs and prominent actions in a way that we would never do to someone we knew. That means, when we talk about the person, the peson becomes a proxy for a political point of view. And when we try to have a discussion about a political idea, it often degenerates into a discussion of the flaws of the person expounding the viewpoint. Ideas should be ideas. Men should be men. And actions? Well, there's the rub. People are responsible for the results of their actions, aren't they?
I hope we're responsible for our actions. Else nothing has meaning, right?
I suppose you're right about how we reduce the famous to a C.V. and remember them differently. But don't we mourn them differently, too? So isn't it balanced?
You feel genuine sadness about the death of JP2. I believe this. But is it the same sadness one feels upon the death of someone we know personally? Will you miss the time you spent fishing or riding jetskis with JP2? Will you miss the rambunctious talks about dogma late into the night? I think really, its the idea of the person that we miss the most, because we don't actually know the person himself.
And after death, for most people the idea becomes the person. This is why I think its so important to get the idea right.
John Paul II (I would spell his real name if I had a prayer of getting it right) was a great man. Certainly he deserves respect. But for most of us, he isn't a father or a brother or friend or a co-worker, but rather he is the concept of what his life meant. Much of that life was great and deserves respect, but it is of no service to ignore the very large and important parts that were not. All we have left is the concept or the idea of the man. And it must be correct.
Wait, he was a jetskier? I hate him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7523254/
It's so hard being right all of the time, but I manage.
It would appear the Holy Spirit is in the mood for a smackdown.