The Advocate - May 2005 Index

Mourning the Death of Pope John Paul II
Aleta Styers

An era has ended. The longest ponti?cate of the 20th century leaves us with memories of a man who at times seemed larger than life, but was so human we felt like we knew him. Memories, and what memories! So many memories to celebrate. So many memories to mourn. We look back with awe at his wonderful achievements. We look back with horror at the opportunities missed, at the cries for help turned away. His life, like all lives, was a mixture of strengths and weakness, of achievements and failings. What was different about his life was that he was called to a role where both the achievements and the failures were earth-shattering in their import.

Let us start by acknowledging the achievements. Those of us who are persons of faith can thank whatever power we acknowledge, in whatever way we address that power, for the blessings the life of John Paul II brought to men’s lives in the twentieth century.
We cannot rank those achievements, we can only name them. Who could not rejoice at his role in maintaining the Church in Communist Eastern Europe? Who could not rejoice at his role in Poland’s Solidarity movement and aiding in assuring the peacefulness of the revolution in that country? Who could not rejoice at his apologies for the sins (nicely euphemized “cultural intolerance” and “historic injustice”) of the Roman church in relation to the Jewish Community, to indigenous peoples, to immigrants, to the poor? Who could not rejoice at his insistence on Palestinian dignity? Who could not rejoice at his cries at the Irish border for an end to violence in Ireland?

But there is sadness, too. Sadness at John Paul II’s participation in the war on women. Sadness at the destruction of hope in communities formerly enlightened by Liberation Theology. Sadness at the refusal to punish institutional support for child abusers.
In the 1990s he intensi?ed his efforts to restrain, and even turn back, any progress women might make in society. He apologized for unspeci?ed past injustices against women, but continued to act in ways that harmed women and ignored their basic concerns. He acted publicly and his representatives acted both publicly and behind the scenes at United Nations Conferences in Cairo and Beijing to restrict women’s lives as much as possible. His teachings – which members of the clergy (many of whom still disagree) are forced to repeat – continue to de?ne a woman’s role as that of mother, teacher, wife, nurturer, and nothing more. As late as 2002 he publicly called for larger families.

The rejection of any form of family planning except abstinence has had the expected results and some unexpected ones. The most obvious result is the increase in the number of children who cannot be supported by their natural parents and will not be supported by society. The increased poverty of children is a global phenomenon. It is particularly, but not exclusively, obvious in what is euphemistically called “The Third World” or “The Global South.” Some of these children stay and starve within families; many beg and starve on the streets. Some have become child soldiers, killing other children and adults. Women – or families – who might have been able to support and care for a smaller household now watch as their children die from starvation. Some women even starve themselves trying to keep children alive. Far too often the results can be starving orphans. We mourn the death of John Paul II!

The rapid expansion of HIV and AIDS in poor countries is also one of the results of the war on women. Condoms are considered the best method of reducing the expansion of the HIV virus. Because they can also contribute to a reduction in the number of pregnancies, John Paul II and his clergy have actively and successfully opposed their availability. While other forces (including, inter alia, US policy) have also contributed to the lack of condoms in places such as Africa, prohibitions of condom use have led to a more rapid spread of AIDS than would have otherwise been the case. We mourn the death of John Paul II!

In much of the world the established political and social orders exploit the poor. This has certainly been true of the history of Latin America. Unfortunately, far too often the established church cooperated (and continues to cooperate) with that established order. In the middle of the twentieth century light began to shine in Latin America. Dedicated priests and laity went back to the gospel teachings of care for the poor and initiated active efforts within a Christian framework to end economic and social exploitation.

In the early 1980s John Paul attacked the hopes of the Latin American poor created by these activities. Certainly there are lines to be drawn between religious and political involvement, but Christianity has traditionally taught responsibility for the poor and downtrodden. John Paul refused to meet with representatives of Liberation Theology. Many asked why the church could stand against Communist exploitation in Eastern Europe but not against landlord exploitation in South and Central America. An open discussion might have established a mutually acceptable path. Instead, dissent was squashed; priests were transferred, silenced and driven from the clergy. Poverty is worse, and hope for anything other than violent revolution or drug revenues has fallen.
More poor children sniff glue on city streets. We mourn the death of John Paul II!
Believers who disagree with John Paul II’s teachings and actions on women and liberation theology can recognize that theological arguments might be – and have been – made supporting those arguments. Particularly unfortunate, indeed unacceptable, were his decisions to put his opinions on these critical areas of human concern outside the scope of further discussion. In an institutional sense this prohibits the voice of God being transmitted in the future by living members of the communion of the faithful. Admittedly there are others who agree with the late Pope’s views about women and the exploitation of the poor, but continuing discussion within the church on these critical matters should continue.

The greatest reason to mourn the death of John Paul II lies in his generous treatment of those members of the clergy – at all levels – involved in the pederasty scandals in North America. The errors, from parish priest to Cardinal, are indisputable. Thanks only to an alert press, the evidence is public.

The church is the community of the faithful. Obviously it is necessary to have buildings in which one may worship and institutional structures to administer the worship. But the church remains a community. At the time of the pederasty scandals some priests put the institution above the community of the faithful. Many practicing believers hoped that John Paul II would recognize the enormity of the scandal and the role of the institutional church in America in that scandal.

What happened? The American bishops met to institute measures to try to prevent future abuses. The Vatican required that those measures be watered down. Cardinal Law of Boston had to leave in disgrace as (his letters show) he had repeatedly assigned known pederasts to other parishes. The church was just as merciful.
Americans waited to see both justice and mercy. They were disappointed. Was Law punished? No! Was he even censured? No! He could have been sent to a monastery, preferably cloistered, to pray for victims and victimizers and meditate on and repent his own actions. Instead he was assigned to a post in Rome of such great stature that he was one of only nine priests to of?ciate at the Pope’s funeral masses. We mourn the death of John Paul II!

The call to communion – second only to baptism as a sacrament of the church – says “gifts of God for the people of God.” Unfortunately for John Paul II, the Latin American poor, the abused children of North America, and women who aspire to be more than baby machines did not make the cut to be fully included as people of God. We mourn the death of John Paul II!

Aleta Styers is a student in the PhD program in Political Science.