 |
|
|
|
On Faith And Admiration
Matthew Yglesias writes a piece that, at first glance, looks like a tough, hard-minded shot at Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church, but winds up falling pretty short:
Far from being "biting," the criticism he highlights is a) a bit of a reach b) old news and hardly edgy and c) an example of anti-Catholic bigotry. From the snippet to which to which Yglesias refers in the Ireland Times, the writer compares Pope John Paul II to Stalin. That sounds pretty serious, until you realize that Stalin had a brutal army and killed millions of people, and Pope John Paul II had Swiss guards and killed nobody. Yglesias also links to this Guardian piece by Terry Eagleton, which accuses Pope John Paul II of having "blood on his hands." Why? Well, Eagleton makes the reader wade through three-quarters of his rant before he gets to his point: the pope preached against the use of condoms. (The pope would not alter Church teaching, which holds that Catholics must practice abstinence outside of marriage, fidelity during marriage and adopt prayerful lives.) In his post, Yglesias suggests that not comparing Pope John Paul II to a genocidal Communist dictator is tantamount to treating him with "kid gloves." Writes Yglesias:
The point he and others seem to be making is simply that Pope John Paul II did not stray from church teaching on the sacredness of marriage and procreation, nor was the pope convinced to change his mind by people who took opposing views. And because of that, they suggest, the pope wasn't a good man. It's an opinion to which they're entitled. But it just plain ignores the fact that Catholic leaders rely on faith, not force, not focus groups, and, at the time of his death, the pope led a world community of 1.1 billion faithful. Pope John Paul II relied on faith, not force, not focus groups, to preach the importance of standing up for freedom to the oppressed masses behind the Iron Curtain. Those facts and numbers may not win the admiration of Yglesias and those who are like-minded. But it makes one wonder what they do admire. By Ed Moltzen · 5 April 2005
Comments
Issues of Catholic dogma aside, Pope John Paul's popularity remains a mystery to me. Where was this Pope while American children were being molested by his priests? Where was this Pope when his Bishops and Cardinals were moving pedophiles around the country, like some kind of carnival shell game? Assuming he didn't know there was a problem before it hit the newspapers, where was this Pope when the scandal broke? It’s wonderful that this Pope was the first ever to visit a synagogue, and to apologize for the victimization of Jews by Christians. But why didn’t he visit America on a similar mission, to give solace, and to apologize to these victims of the Church (many of whom were young people in the service of the Church, as altar boys and members of youth groups)? I'm fascinated by the pomp and mystery that will surround his burial, and the choosing of his successor. But he's gone three days now and I've had it already with the unending platitudes. A little balance is called for. There is much to commend about John Paul II, but there was evil that happened on his watch as well. Nobody is saying that on TV, or in the press, but it's something that needs to be remembered. Posted by: Tony Iovino at April 5, 2005 07:19 PMTony: When the first documented cases of priest-sexual abuse began, the pope was still a priest in Krakow. The scandals did not begin to open up until the very late '80s and early '90s - and there's been no evidence that the pope did anything - not a single thing - to protect molesters. In fact, he removed and defrocked priests accused; became the first pope to demand that priest-offenders be prosecuted according to local laws; and called American bishops to Rome to let them know he wouldn't tolerate it. As someone who had an opportunity as a reporter to view 1970s-era church documents in New York that discussed pedophile priests, I can say that many church officials - including Cardinals - made grave errors in judgment in handling individual cases. They favored intensive therapy, prayer and privacy for all involved. That was wrong. That was mistaken. It was harmful. But it was also not out of line with how public school districts, child welfare agencies, even the courts handled many cases of child sexual abuse through the late '70s and early '80s. They let molestation allegations be handled privately, behind closed doors. Don't believe me? Read what's happening in the Michael Jackson trial this week: Ugly allegations of child sexual abuse repeatedly handled out of court and hushed up in California. Did church officials make mistakes? Yes, like many others across the country. Did the pope knowingly protect any child molesters? Not a shred of evidence says he did. Should he have fired Cardinal Law? You could argue he should have. But does a management decision on Cardinal Law equate Pope John Paul II with Stalin? Posted by: Ed at April 5, 2005 09:24 PMRelated to the scandals, pope JPII was once known to ask Catholics to remember the faith, and not those of us who sinned. His point was not to ignore it, or sweep it under the rug, but remain faithful despite earthly failings. The fact that some priests broke moral, secular and religious rules does not make the Catholic Church hypocritical or evil. It makes it more human. Religion claims that we are ALL capable of sin, which means -- yes -- there are priests who are capable of doing "evil," as are teachers, cub scout leaders, politicians, sports heroes, and pop stars. And we have secular institutions which are designed to punish all those who break these codes. Those disillusioned by faith (or lacking it) continue to ignore the fact that religion transcends physical realities. And that a bunch of naughty priests does not deter one's faith, because millions daily serve their religion with dignity. By definition, that's what faith is. Posted by: Roy at April 6, 2005 08:59 AM |