Article by Austin Yost, published in the State Press, the ASU campus newspaper on Friday.
On April 2, 2005, Pope John Paul II, a man hailed by many as “The People’s Pope,” passed away.
According to the BBC, a month after John Paul died, his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, started the process to have him entered into sainthood.
While it is taking longer than some people expected for Pope Benedict to approve a miracle that John Paul supposedly performed (which would allow John Paul to be beatified and placed one step away from sainthood), it seems to be an appropriate time to begin the necessary evaluation of the legacy that Pope John Paul II left behind.
During his tenure as the head of state of Vatican City, Pope John Paul II certainly did many admirable and praiseworthy deeds.
According to the BBC, he is often credited with contributing to the end of communist rule in Europe. His consistent disparagement of communism played a significant role in its widespread and overdue demise.
In March 2000, Pope John Paul II begged for forgiveness for some of the wrongdoings that the Catholic Church has been responsible for over its history, according to Christianity Today. Among other things, he apologized for the Crusades, the Inquisition, injustice toward women and the Vatican’s silence throughout the Holocaust.
The good things he did are certainly appreciated and applauded frequently, but some people seem to have forgotten some of the less desirable positions Pope John Paul II held and supported.
I don’t think it can be said he deserves the constant praise and admiration that is so generously awarded to him.
His unwavering position on contraceptives, even in the face of a seemingly abject crisis with a fast-spreading AIDS virus, has been responsible for the deaths, anguish and despair of millions of people in Africa. His position has had devastating and tragic effects on the lives of many people, and we mustn’t be allowed to forget that.
For someone who many people say worked tirelessly to bring people together, Pope John Paul II had some rather troubling and questionable things to say about the inclinations of homosexuals. In his 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons he wrote, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” He deliberately further separated a portion of the world’s population, not for something they did, but merely for their natural and congenital inclinations.
In 2000, Pope John Paul II made Saint Thomas More the “heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians.” According to Christianity.com, Thomas More burned people alive in England for having the courage to own a Bible in English. Awarding Thomas More this title is rather ironic. To give him any recognition is to distort history and make a mockery of what actually constitutes as virtuous or praiseworthy.
The things Pope John Paul II did while he was alive will be remembered for many years. While I certainly concede that he did many good things, I refuse to forget about the abominable and iniquitous positions he held and urged others to hold.
Before we hop on the bandwagon for “The People’s Pope,” we need to evaluate Pope John Paul II’s life and the things he did and determine whether he really deserved the legacy that his supporters are attempting to build for him. I don’t think he did.
The pope's position on contraceptives is the same as the whole Church. It must be. Before we even get into the correctness of the position, let's look at the fallacies in the sentence:
His unwavering position on contraceptives, even in the face of a seemingly abject crisis with a fast-spreading AIDS virus, has been responsible for the deaths, anguish and despair of millions of people in Africa. His position has had devastating and tragic effects on the lives of many people, and we mustn’t be allowed to forget that.
As to the position; AIDS can be transmitted through many means, generally with contact from bodily fluids or the bloodstream. AIDS can be passed from one junkie to another by a shared needle, or from a mother to her child. Contraceptives wouldn't help either of these vectors for transmission. Sure, there are needle-recycling programs, and there's theoretically the option for abortion - but what if the junkies aren't in a town with a needle recycler, or the mother wants to keep her child? Sooner or later, it should be realized that these 'solutions' are simply addressing the symptoms rather than the disease.
Those people aren't dying because the Pope won't let them use condoms. They are dying because they're engaging in premarital sexual relations and illegal drug use. The Church has long taught against sins of the flesh, restricting the use of the sexual act to the marital union. Abstinence is infinitely more effective than contraceptives; contraceptives can break, but if they didn't have relations until they were married, it could only be spread from one person to their permanent partner; and most likely, they wouldn't even have gotten it in the first place.
For someone who many people say worked tirelessly to bring people together, Pope John Paul II had some rather troubling and questionable things to say about the inclinations of homosexuals. In his 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons he wrote, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” He deliberately further separated a portion of the world’s population, not for something they did, but merely for their natural and congenital inclinations.
Think about it this way. If we accept the premise that Darwin was correct on evolution, homosexuality would be a counter-survival mutation. Homosexuals cannot naturally have children with each other; the first gay gazelles on the African savanna would also be the last. It's different with us because we are more than animals; though we are also creatures, we have our intellect, will, and conscience.
As he said, the inclination is not a sin; in fact, we are called to love all our fellow Man, male and female alike. However, there is a difference between brotherly love and sexual relations. We are all inclined towards sin; it's whether we give in to it or not that determines the evil we do. Homosexuals who have carnal relations are engaging in an act contrary to their species; they are perverting organs that were intended towards the furthering of the species into self-gratifying acts only performed for the enjoyment they get from it. He is not deliberately separating a portion of the population; in fact, he is likening them to ourselves with the inclination towards sin; but he is condemning those who, like the previous point, are deliberately frustrating what should be a creative act, and subverting it for self-gratification.
In 2000, Pope John Paul II made Saint Thomas More the “heavenly Patron of Statesmen and Politicians.” According to Christianity.com, Thomas More burned people alive in England for having the courage to own a Bible in English. Awarding Thomas More this title is rather ironic. To give him any recognition is to distort history and make a mockery of what actually constitutes as virtuous or praiseworthy.
This one is just outright wrong. Thomas More was chancellor when 6 heretics were burned at the stake - and though he approved of it, they were burned for unrepentant heresy, not owning an English bible. And though it was in increase in number from the 30 that occurred in the century prior, 300 occurred during the subsequent reign of Mary Tudor, which almost would paint him as moderate. It was a common practice when dealing with heretics who refused to repent.
The reason that More crusaded against the English bibles that he speaks of was that they were poorly translated and theologically inferior to the ones they had available. (It should be noted that they were mostly the work of William Tyndale and swaths of it were incorporated to become the King James version of the Bible.) But putting all that aside - what does even his flawed premise have to do with statesmen or politicians, and his being a patron thereof?
So there really wasn't much in the way of truth to this particular expression of venom against the prior pope. Just like there isn't much truth in the allegations being leveled at our current pope regarding the sex scandals in the Church. These people are just using whatever ammunition they can find to level it against the Church. They really shouldn't be wasting their time, though; all the forces of hell will not prevail against its gates, so a few journalists with a chip on their shoulder don't have a chance.
Not to mention the tinier but dumber mistake of referring to Pope Benedict XVI as the *predecessor* of Pope John Paul II...
ReplyDeleteZOMG TIME TRAVELING!