Two of my thoughts on the late Pope (and one from elsewhere)

by Cliopatria

I should add the late Pope John Paul II to the 1980s Coalition of Globalization. His influential opposition to Marxism -- political or theological -- and support of social and economic conservativism certainly qualify him.

However, his outreach attempts to other Christian and Jewish communities, widely lauded, never felt genuine to me. With one hand he was visiting the Western Wall and acknowledging Judaism as the"elder brother" of Christianity, and with the other, like Jacob with Esau, he was canonizing baby-snatchers and anti-Semites. I never could reconcile the two enough to feel that progress was being made.

Thomas Cahill argues in the NYTimes that John Paul II wasn't all that good for Catholicism, either:

But John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

I think the rapid growth of the church outside of the liberal West speaks against Cahill's assessment as a global one, however.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Ralph E. Luker - 4/5/2005

Actually, Ben, that's a very interesting question. It is conceivable, whatever his record, that the election of Lustiger would enflame rather than meliorate relationships between Roman Catholicism and both Islam and Judaism.

Ben W. Brumfield - 4/5/2005

I take it you won't be pulling for Cardinal Lustiger in the conclave, then?

Ralph E. Luker - 4/5/2005

That's certainly fair enough. And, I should think, that numbers here make a great deal of difference. The survival of Christianity would hardly be threatened by the loss of a few children. The survival of Judaism, however, was at stake.

Jonathan Dresner - 4/5/2005

That's not the baby-snatching I was referring to. If a Jew is saved physically but loses all cultural and religious connection to the Jewish people and tradition, how is this good for the Jews? How is this different from the looting of property? Lives are precious, don't get me wrong, but don't expect extra credit when they're padding their own rolls at our expense.

I don't expect Jewish concerns to rank high when Popes are making decisions, but then you can't expect Jews to ignore them when evaluating the Popes in question.

Ralph E. Luker - 4/5/2005

I'm thinking about your post, Jon. I'm not sure which anti-Semites John Paul canonized, but I don't deny that he canonized any. My favorite extra-biblical theologian of all time, Martin Luther, said some perfectly awful things about the Jews. Some saints have very big flaws. The "baby-snatchers" thing does grate on my nerves a bit. I've not been in that position, but if my people were threatened with extermination and some faithful Jews saved my children from my fate I think I'd find the grace to be sufficiently thankful to them for that and even that they raised them as faithful Jews, that I wouldn't think of them as "baby-snatchers."
The excerpt from Thomas Cahill's piece bothers me, as well. The point about excepting the liberal West may be exactly the point. The excerpt from Cahill has a western -- even an American -- pre-occupation with sex that much of the rest of the world finds pretty offensive. But let's say that John Paul found inspiration from the west and opened the church to all the possibilities that Cahill condemns him for excluding. In fact, we do have a church in North America -- one not far removed historically from Catholicism -- the Episcopal Church, which has opened itself to all the glories Cahill wants the church to embrace. The result? The Episcopal Church is populated by more priests than it knows what to do with -- women priests, gay priests, masturbating priests, etc -- and its membership continues to decline so fast that in 25 years, at current rates, there will be one Episcopal priest for every two lay Episcopal church members. It is also a church which is out of communion with at least 2/3s of the Anglican communion around the world. John Paul's vision probably had fairly serious limitations -- but it really isn't clear that a liberal vision of the church's future, which takes its directives from the secular culture, offers a better alternative.