The Death of the Pope



I went to Georgetown University, a Jesuit learning institution. One of the requirements for graduation was two semesters of theology. My first semester, freshman year, I took introduction to theology. For my second theology course, in the spring of 1991, my first choice was The Theological Implications of the Holocaust, however I didn't get that class.

My second choice was the Problem of Evil. Didn't get that one either.

My third choice was Introduction to Catholic Theology. I admit up front that, prior to that course, I didn't really know much about Catholicism. That may have been part of why I chose that course. Not my first choice, but I don't mind that much...

By the time the semester ended, I have to admit that I was completely amazed that anyone could actually want to be Catholic.

If you ever want to take a good look at your own opinions, help to either solidify them or to tweak them to the point of wending your way through a complex issue, it is often helpful to research the side that, on the surface, you don't agree with. Defend the positions that are opposite of your own.

During my introduction to Catholicism, I found that several long-standing pieces of doctrine are, quite literally, indefensible. Declaring all forms of birth control -- other than the rhythm method -- to be immoral is the easiest example of this. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the human condition to think that people will always want to engage in in sexual intercourse for the purposes of procreation, but the Catholic Church stands by its stance that you shouldn't have sex unless you're trying to make a baby (in this case, more Catholics).

The rationale is that this is the only proper use of sperm. An extension of this doctrine basically says that, given the choice of masturbating and raping a woman, a man would be more justified in the rape. I just can't accept that.

Another position that the church takes that I consider completely indefensible, is the notion that the priests and leaders of the church may not marry or even enter into relationships with anyone other than god. These are the people who will be listening to our problems in our relationships, providing us with advice on how to keep a marriage healthy, but they won't be able to do that with any firsthand knowledge.

Pope John Paul II was steadfast in his defense of the indefensible. I think the best thing you can say about the man is that he was consistent. But consistency, as Ralph Waldo Emerson pointed out, is the hobgoblin of small minds. I never perceived him as a man of nuance.

I think the most telling thing about his papacy was when he attempted to reach out to other religions, especially other branches of Christianity, and tried to get them to get along, which would be easiest if they all just accepted that the Catholic Church was the way to go. (Isn't that why the protestant reformation started in the first place, because someone felt that it clearly wasn't?) This is by and large similar to when, in the late 1990's, when the Israeli Knesset declared that the only true practitioners of Judaism were the Orthodox Jews.

Orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism share a misogyny that I cannot abide.

What does Pope John Paul II mean to me? That if you ever want to look for a great way to ruin a good idea, all you have to do is institutionalize it. Christianity, Communism, Democracy..... All great ideas, just bad ones once you get them off of a piece of paper and into practice.

President Bush declared the flag to be flying at half-mast in response to the death of the Pope. This marks the fifth time since he took the oath of office that he has made such a declaration. And it's the third time he's made a farce of it. First was in the aftermath of September 11. He declared that they should be flown at half-mast for two weeks. Considering the scope and breadth of that disaster, a month would have been more important. Second was after the Space Shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. I've got no real problem with this. Third was when Ronald Reagan died. By tradition, the death of a president warrants flying the flag at half-mast for a month. He raised the flags a day early. Fourth was after the deadly tsunami struck the Indian Ocean. Considering that it took place half a world away, and considering that relatively few Americans were killed, I'm actually a little bit impressed that we recognized it at all. Fifth is now, in the aftermath of the pope's death. If he doesn't want this country to be perceived as a theocracy, then he made a mistake by not ordering the flag to be flown at half-mast after Yasir Arafat (another important world leader) died last year.

I recommend going to the website beliefnet.org and taking their quiz as to which religion suits you best. Roman Catholicism is at the very bottom of my list. That should not be a surprise.


Posted: Wed - April 6, 2005 at 11:42 PM        

©