The Moral Decline of John Paul II
Yes...it does seem a bit callous to write about a man's moral decline when his physical health is in such precipitous decline. But it was in between hospital bouts that the Pope launched into some of his most discordant screeds, and waiting for the obituaries to pour in means avoiding critical commentary. And since his last major statements, after one bout of near-fatal illness and shortly before another, were indicative of his collapse of the last few years, it is both an opportune time and fair game beside.
To start on a better note: Pope John Paul the II, third-longest tenured pope in the long history of the Catholic Church, has led what can fairly be called a remarkable life. An avid athlete and actor, the former Karol Jozef Wojtyla was gifted at many thing, movie-star good looks among them. He was also a poet of some good. And, much later in life, he was a surprise choice to lead the largest Christian sect in the world, becoming (at 58) the youngest pope of the 20th century and the first pope ever from Poland.
And it was on Poland, and by extension the rest of communist-blighted Eastern Europe that the pope first turned his attention. His 1979 visit to his homeland was, it is said, one of the thing that really jump-started the Solidarity movement, which eventually brought the degenerate government to its knees. John Paul understood clearly that he had a pulpit, and did not confine himself to dogmatic esoterica or muttering Vatican conspiracies. He spoke out strongly against the dangers of communism and how it destroyed the souls of men. He framed it in terms more theological than the current author may prefer, but the end result was a great good, and he was always very morally consistent.
Showing that he was not a one-note piano, the pope turned his attention, following the fall of communism, to the ravaging ills of excess, unchecked capitalism. He became an ardent supporter of debt relief for the Third World, an issue of such vital importance that even Bono supports it (this was a bit too arch: debt relief is important, and Bono, though grating, does good and sincere work). He also has spent a good bit of time apologizing for what the church has done wrong over the years, which, if carried to its logical close would take a lifetime, but it did inject a bit of humility in the cold, dim arrogance of the Church of Rome. He also overturned the church's support of the death penalty, an incredible and worthy act that would have made St. Francis proud.
Through it all, the pope carried a passion for building bridges between the Church and other religions, eschewing some of the muscular superiority of his predecessors. He obviously traveled tirelessly, but there was always a point. I happened to be in Cairo when he made his first visit to Egypt. Not a lot of Catholics there- the ones that were there were mostly foreigners and their children. But the pope was there to meet Muslim leaders, and leaders of the Coptic church.
His most moving meeting, though, and one that showcased his unique power, was his visit to Saint Katherine's, home of the Burning Bush, in the shadow of the mountain where Moses received the commandments, in the desolate heart of the burning, twisted, terrifyingly beautiful Sinai peninsula. The church was run by the eastern orthodox, and the head priest hated Pope John Paul, calling him "the anti-Christ" in William Dalrymple's "From the Holy Mountain". In the days leading up to his visit, it was unsure if the good brother would even let the pope in the doors of the monastery. But when the pope arrived, he was met with open arms, and the man who once said John Paul would be the first in hell let the frail pope lean on him as he showed him the sacred relics. It was genuinely touching and beautiful. I still have a picture of a sign someone put up, showing a clumsy drawing of the pope and reading "Mosslman Cristan Jooish are all the same," a worthy sentiment indeed.
And that was a showcase for his amazing ability to transcend sectarianism, to push history into a dark corner, to move people to rise above their confessional prejudices. And that is what makes this a tragedy, writ large. In his dotage, the pope retreated into his dogmatic superstitions and extremist prejudices.
In a way, this is unfair. He was elected pope because he seemed to yearn for a day before Vatican II eased some of the rules. This is true, but also doesn't capture the full essence of the man. He did try to break down the mystery of the church, did try to connect with people, and in that matter seemed in line with the changes in the church. But these pleasant differences served to obscure his more obscurantist tendencies, which began to come fully into play in the Cairo Conference on Overpopulation in 1994.
It was there that the Catholic Church made a partnership with the forces of extremist Islam to stifle talk of the usage of birth control. In other words, the leader of the church was saying to his massive flocks in South America, sub-Saharan Africa and his lesser ones in Southeast Asia: do not use anything that will prevent you from having children.
One doesn't have to go too far to realize the effect of this. Actually, one does have to go far: it is easy in America or Europe to dismiss papal edicts as a relic, or dismiss the pope as a figurehead. But he is not that to many in the conservative Catholic churches of Africa and South America. The laws of the church mean something, and in this case mean that overpopulation is not an issue.
Of course, it is an issue. Birth control goes against God's will and all that, gets in the way of the natural process of childbirth and is therefore a sin. Those are church laws. But here are human laws: overpopulation in these areas leads to ecological ruin, poverty, hunger, war, depredation and a life lacking dignity and full of misery and penury. Church edicts like to proclaim the dignity of poverty, but it is usually proclaimed from gilded chapels in Italy. This pope, who talked so eloquently about the soul of man under communism, and about human rights with excess capitalism, is so dogma-blinded that he is undermining the positive work he has done in the third world.
Birth control is of vital importance in elevating the rights of women and in easing suffering, not to mention helping slow the spread of AIDS. Yes, one can abstain from sex, but that is not an easy thing to do, nor a realistic thing to expect of people (Blake: "Abstinence sows sand all over/The ruddy limbs & flaming hair/But Desire Gratified/Plants fruit & beauty there"). Birth control and sexual education are of paramount importance in the third world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, and the church, under John Paul II, has come down hard, firm and consistently on the wrong side of it.
Closer to home: I am not worried about the letting priests marry/ordination of women issues. That is an inner-church matter, especially the latter one. It might be regressive, but it is clearly in their jurisdiction. What is worrisome is one of the possible effects of not letting priets marry- the molestation of little boys, which by all accounts is nearly (and unsurprisingly) pandemic in its reach (disclosure: I was raised Catholic and was a decent Catholic for about 20 years. I went to Catholic school and was an altar boy for many years. I have never known any but good priests, some whom I would say are great men- I am better for having known them. This shows that it is unfair to paint with too broad a brush, but it is equally absurd to use one personal anecdote to ignore overwhelming evidence).
This is where the corrupt and degenerate Vatican bureaucracy comes into play: the wheels of cover-up turned, and the pope, other than a few passing statements, did little to speak out against it. One can argue he is ill, and that the machinations of Rome are too much for any one man. But the Pope has always been concerned with preserving the image of the Church- apologizing for the Inquisition while the molestation crisis was in full swing. He has failed to use his bully pulpit, which he wielded so excellently in the past, to deal with one of the great moral and legal failings in the recent history of his beloved institution.
Instead, he has turned his doddering attention to the evils of gay marriage, euthanasia, stem-cell research and cloning. He also is outspoken, as always, about abortion, but this is hard to criticize. Abortion rights should be sacred in a secular society, but there are principled stands to take against it. This is similar to the backwardness of his birth control stance. Sex and pregnancy will happen (especially if one doesn't use any protection), and some women will be desperate to abort. If it is illegal, they will go the back-alley route, or even the coat-hanger method. This is a vile crime that shouldn't happen in an advanced society. The pope could better spend his moral capital arguing against having abortions, rather than against making them illegal. This falls squarely within the American mainstream, and would allow the Church a say in the discussion. But I understand the abortion thing.
To harp on and on about gay marriage, even going so far as to say it was incumbent upon Catholics not to vote for anyone who wasn't against it (read: vote for Bush) is to squander political currency, as the White House might phrase it. In doing this, in basically advising Catholics to vote for Bush (who was also against euthanasia, stem-cell, et al), he placed these weird old-fashioned dogmatic "principles" over the death penalty, the War in Iraq, social justice, and other things Catholics have frequently been on the forefront of fighting for. He clearly does not understand stem-cell research or medical cloning (cloning just an organ).
But it is gay marriage where his stance is most infuriating. He recently called it part of an "ideology of evil." Note: the sub-headline on this link tells you everything you need to know about his moral decline. I wish I had written it myself. It reads "Stresses Life and Family Concerns First over Food, Peace, Freedom." All ye need to know, my friend, all ye need to know.
And that is why this story is tragedy. Were another man at the helm, one could glibly say "Well, he is a Catholic, after all. That is what the church does." Anger would come easier. It is more difficult here; it is tinted with sadness. For a long time, food, peace and freedom were the most important things to this man. Especially freedom. But he has replaced, in slow-motion, the bondage of communism with the equally insidious ties of dogma and misery, of over-population and endless poverty, railing feebly against gay marriage while his flock roils with scandal and is ravaged by AIDS. One can ignore the inane creation of saints, including many dubious ones. Who cares? But what is inexcusable is the way he has betrayed his people, and tarnished his legacy, by this slip-slide in medieval theology that should have been beneath probably the most impressive man ever to sit on the Throne of Peter.
To start on a better note: Pope John Paul the II, third-longest tenured pope in the long history of the Catholic Church, has led what can fairly be called a remarkable life. An avid athlete and actor, the former Karol Jozef Wojtyla was gifted at many thing, movie-star good looks among them. He was also a poet of some good. And, much later in life, he was a surprise choice to lead the largest Christian sect in the world, becoming (at 58) the youngest pope of the 20th century and the first pope ever from Poland.
And it was on Poland, and by extension the rest of communist-blighted Eastern Europe that the pope first turned his attention. His 1979 visit to his homeland was, it is said, one of the thing that really jump-started the Solidarity movement, which eventually brought the degenerate government to its knees. John Paul understood clearly that he had a pulpit, and did not confine himself to dogmatic esoterica or muttering Vatican conspiracies. He spoke out strongly against the dangers of communism and how it destroyed the souls of men. He framed it in terms more theological than the current author may prefer, but the end result was a great good, and he was always very morally consistent.
Showing that he was not a one-note piano, the pope turned his attention, following the fall of communism, to the ravaging ills of excess, unchecked capitalism. He became an ardent supporter of debt relief for the Third World, an issue of such vital importance that even Bono supports it (this was a bit too arch: debt relief is important, and Bono, though grating, does good and sincere work). He also has spent a good bit of time apologizing for what the church has done wrong over the years, which, if carried to its logical close would take a lifetime, but it did inject a bit of humility in the cold, dim arrogance of the Church of Rome. He also overturned the church's support of the death penalty, an incredible and worthy act that would have made St. Francis proud.
Through it all, the pope carried a passion for building bridges between the Church and other religions, eschewing some of the muscular superiority of his predecessors. He obviously traveled tirelessly, but there was always a point. I happened to be in Cairo when he made his first visit to Egypt. Not a lot of Catholics there- the ones that were there were mostly foreigners and their children. But the pope was there to meet Muslim leaders, and leaders of the Coptic church.
His most moving meeting, though, and one that showcased his unique power, was his visit to Saint Katherine's, home of the Burning Bush, in the shadow of the mountain where Moses received the commandments, in the desolate heart of the burning, twisted, terrifyingly beautiful Sinai peninsula. The church was run by the eastern orthodox, and the head priest hated Pope John Paul, calling him "the anti-Christ" in William Dalrymple's "From the Holy Mountain". In the days leading up to his visit, it was unsure if the good brother would even let the pope in the doors of the monastery. But when the pope arrived, he was met with open arms, and the man who once said John Paul would be the first in hell let the frail pope lean on him as he showed him the sacred relics. It was genuinely touching and beautiful. I still have a picture of a sign someone put up, showing a clumsy drawing of the pope and reading "Mosslman Cristan Jooish are all the same," a worthy sentiment indeed.
And that was a showcase for his amazing ability to transcend sectarianism, to push history into a dark corner, to move people to rise above their confessional prejudices. And that is what makes this a tragedy, writ large. In his dotage, the pope retreated into his dogmatic superstitions and extremist prejudices.
In a way, this is unfair. He was elected pope because he seemed to yearn for a day before Vatican II eased some of the rules. This is true, but also doesn't capture the full essence of the man. He did try to break down the mystery of the church, did try to connect with people, and in that matter seemed in line with the changes in the church. But these pleasant differences served to obscure his more obscurantist tendencies, which began to come fully into play in the Cairo Conference on Overpopulation in 1994.
It was there that the Catholic Church made a partnership with the forces of extremist Islam to stifle talk of the usage of birth control. In other words, the leader of the church was saying to his massive flocks in South America, sub-Saharan Africa and his lesser ones in Southeast Asia: do not use anything that will prevent you from having children.
One doesn't have to go too far to realize the effect of this. Actually, one does have to go far: it is easy in America or Europe to dismiss papal edicts as a relic, or dismiss the pope as a figurehead. But he is not that to many in the conservative Catholic churches of Africa and South America. The laws of the church mean something, and in this case mean that overpopulation is not an issue.
Of course, it is an issue. Birth control goes against God's will and all that, gets in the way of the natural process of childbirth and is therefore a sin. Those are church laws. But here are human laws: overpopulation in these areas leads to ecological ruin, poverty, hunger, war, depredation and a life lacking dignity and full of misery and penury. Church edicts like to proclaim the dignity of poverty, but it is usually proclaimed from gilded chapels in Italy. This pope, who talked so eloquently about the soul of man under communism, and about human rights with excess capitalism, is so dogma-blinded that he is undermining the positive work he has done in the third world.
Birth control is of vital importance in elevating the rights of women and in easing suffering, not to mention helping slow the spread of AIDS. Yes, one can abstain from sex, but that is not an easy thing to do, nor a realistic thing to expect of people (Blake: "Abstinence sows sand all over/The ruddy limbs & flaming hair/But Desire Gratified/Plants fruit & beauty there"). Birth control and sexual education are of paramount importance in the third world, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, and the church, under John Paul II, has come down hard, firm and consistently on the wrong side of it.
Closer to home: I am not worried about the letting priests marry/ordination of women issues. That is an inner-church matter, especially the latter one. It might be regressive, but it is clearly in their jurisdiction. What is worrisome is one of the possible effects of not letting priets marry- the molestation of little boys, which by all accounts is nearly (and unsurprisingly) pandemic in its reach (disclosure: I was raised Catholic and was a decent Catholic for about 20 years. I went to Catholic school and was an altar boy for many years. I have never known any but good priests, some whom I would say are great men- I am better for having known them. This shows that it is unfair to paint with too broad a brush, but it is equally absurd to use one personal anecdote to ignore overwhelming evidence).
This is where the corrupt and degenerate Vatican bureaucracy comes into play: the wheels of cover-up turned, and the pope, other than a few passing statements, did little to speak out against it. One can argue he is ill, and that the machinations of Rome are too much for any one man. But the Pope has always been concerned with preserving the image of the Church- apologizing for the Inquisition while the molestation crisis was in full swing. He has failed to use his bully pulpit, which he wielded so excellently in the past, to deal with one of the great moral and legal failings in the recent history of his beloved institution.
Instead, he has turned his doddering attention to the evils of gay marriage, euthanasia, stem-cell research and cloning. He also is outspoken, as always, about abortion, but this is hard to criticize. Abortion rights should be sacred in a secular society, but there are principled stands to take against it. This is similar to the backwardness of his birth control stance. Sex and pregnancy will happen (especially if one doesn't use any protection), and some women will be desperate to abort. If it is illegal, they will go the back-alley route, or even the coat-hanger method. This is a vile crime that shouldn't happen in an advanced society. The pope could better spend his moral capital arguing against having abortions, rather than against making them illegal. This falls squarely within the American mainstream, and would allow the Church a say in the discussion. But I understand the abortion thing.
To harp on and on about gay marriage, even going so far as to say it was incumbent upon Catholics not to vote for anyone who wasn't against it (read: vote for Bush) is to squander political currency, as the White House might phrase it. In doing this, in basically advising Catholics to vote for Bush (who was also against euthanasia, stem-cell, et al), he placed these weird old-fashioned dogmatic "principles" over the death penalty, the War in Iraq, social justice, and other things Catholics have frequently been on the forefront of fighting for. He clearly does not understand stem-cell research or medical cloning (cloning just an organ).
But it is gay marriage where his stance is most infuriating. He recently called it part of an "ideology of evil." Note: the sub-headline on this link tells you everything you need to know about his moral decline. I wish I had written it myself. It reads "Stresses Life and Family Concerns First over Food, Peace, Freedom." All ye need to know, my friend, all ye need to know.
And that is why this story is tragedy. Were another man at the helm, one could glibly say "Well, he is a Catholic, after all. That is what the church does." Anger would come easier. It is more difficult here; it is tinted with sadness. For a long time, food, peace and freedom were the most important things to this man. Especially freedom. But he has replaced, in slow-motion, the bondage of communism with the equally insidious ties of dogma and misery, of over-population and endless poverty, railing feebly against gay marriage while his flock roils with scandal and is ravaged by AIDS. One can ignore the inane creation of saints, including many dubious ones. Who cares? But what is inexcusable is the way he has betrayed his people, and tarnished his legacy, by this slip-slide in medieval theology that should have been beneath probably the most impressive man ever to sit on the Throne of Peter.
posted by cairobrian | 1:32 PM
1 Comments:
Here, here, cairobrian. never have you been more on the mark. pope and empire and rythym method. a fantastic juxtaposition of ideas. for those interested in the profligacy of the catholic church, i recommend barbara tuchman's "The March of Folly". i personally care so little for the church that i was bored to tears by all the historical information, excluding the hilarious anecdotes about the extravagance and myopic political decisions of successive popes, the residence of the grand turk in the vatican, and what unfortunately was not the end of the catholic church, the fall and sack of rome because of the stupidity of the pope of the time. fun fact: at one point there were two competing pontiffs: one in rome and the other in avingon, i think.
what's my point: how many more people have to contract AIDS before the church starts passing out condoms at mass? i think that's what cairobrian is saying and what edyta doesn't quite get.
Post a Comment
<< Home