The Death of John Paul II


As a non-believer in any kind of religion I have found it interesting to read the various assessments of his reign (if that the right word) as head of one of the richest institutions in the world with a following claimed to be 1 billion people. Like any flawed mortal his legacy is a mixed one. The positives clearly are his opposition to the Iraq war, his opposition to communism, his opposition to the death penalty, his support for the free market system over socialism (although this is a bit murky as he also denounced the excessive "materialism" of the capitalist west), his apology to the Jews for centuries of discrimination and for Vatican policies during WW2, his efforts to reconcile the Church with modern science (Galileo and Darwin - a plea not heard in some parts of the US - but which did not include one of the most exciting development sin the history of medicine, stem cell research), and his dialogue with non-Christian religions (although I regard this as a dialogue of the deaf). The clear negatives are his reactionary theology which demeaned the role of women outside the home and lessoned the power of women over their own bodies within the home, the centralization of power in the Vatican over regional autonomy, the coverups of sexual abuse with the Church, the fostering of the cult of personality (Mary, Jesus, the Pope himself), and the refusal to allow the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDs. [More]

As a non-believer in any kind of religion I have found it interesting to read the various assessments of his reign (if that the right word) as head of one of the richest institutions in the world with a following claimed to be 1 billion people. Like any flawed mortal his legacy is a mixed one. The positives clearly are his opposition to the Iraq war, his opposition to communism, his opposition to the death penalty, his support for the free market system over socialism (although this is a bit murky as he also denounced the excessive "materialism" of the capitalist west), his apology to the Jews for centuries of discrimination and for Vatican policies during WW2, his efforts to reconcile the Church with modern science (Galileo and Darwin - a plea not heard in some parts of the US - but which did not include one of the most exciting development sin the history of medicine, stem cell research), and his dialogue with non-Christian religions (although I regard this as a dialogue of the deaf). The clear negatives are his reactionary theology which demeaned the role of women outside the home and lessoned the power of women over their own bodies within the home, the centralization of power in the Vatican over regional autonomy, the coverups of sexual abuse with the Church, the fostering of the cult of personality (Mary, Jesus, the Pope himself), and the refusal to allow the use of condoms to stop the spread of AIDs.

A couple of interesting articles of a positive kind are: Jeff Tucker on his pro-free market views; Justin Raimondo on his anti-war views; Timothy Garten Ash in The Guardian; Neal Ascherson in OpenDemocracy

The more negative ones are: Terry Eagleton in the Guardian; Phillip Adams in the Australian; John Connolly in Counterpunch; Caryl Rivers in WorkingForChange on women's reproductive rights; Jonathan Steele in the Guardian on who really brought down communism; Vicente Navarro in Counterpunch on the Pope's ties to Opus Dei; David Araanovitch in the Guardian - "like the man, don't like what he stands for"

Posted: Mon - April 4, 2005 at 08:55 PM        

©