A shining example of pure religious zeal
My assessment of the pope.
He was a shining example of pure religious zeal. And a marvellous example of the deep flaws the church has never really rooted out.
He naturally spoke out forcefully against atheist communism, but only once he was safely in Rome as Pope was anything more than an agitant.
Catholic doctrine rather than Christianity
He allowed the scandalous cover up of paedophile priests which cost the church money and incalculable damage to its reputation. He pushed Catholicism into Africa and (perhaps relative to its anti-contraception rule) witnessed the fastest spread of AIDS anywhere in the world in that wretched continent.
He did not so much stick rigidly to Christianity as to Catholic doctrine. The abortion, contraception, the unmarried/celibate priests, the anti-gay stuff, the canonisation of Mother Theresa (who didn't attempt to treat the sick, merely gave them a place to die - a commonly misunderstood fact) and other such highly objectionable stances were sourced from Catholicism in large part.
A man of peace
For my particular theological position, you can read it in the Anada archive and in Digital Spy (quick google search should do it). In short, I'm a fully paid up atheist.
That all said, he was, without question, a man of peace - although, his affect on the real world to establish peace cannot exactly be described as profound. During his time in office, more Catholic countries than ever before have been embroiled in wars (civil and cross-border) and turmoil (such as brutal dictatorships). Italy, itself, was wracked with corruption for at least a decade of his office but then we have Guatamala, Columbia, Ecuador, Panama, the Philipines, Argentina, Chile and so on all suffered despite the Pope's countless windowsill speeches.
But no, he was a man who passionately loved peace and sought to keep peace at the top of the world agenda - as do I (although, he had a bit more clout than I). He was a man who inspired his Catholic followers in clear ways but whether this was simply because he turned up rather than sipping wine in his golden palace is another matter.
What good did he do?
In the real world, and I think this is the only angle from which a non-Catholic can have any interest in judging him, I still have to ask what good did he actually do?
The sole answer I can conjure is in inspiring Solidarity in Poland. This was a Catholic-driven grass routes workers movement which formed just months after the new Pope's first visit to his homeland. It slowly reached a critical mass whilst the Polish communist government simultaneously withered and eventually, a bloodless handover of power from the communists to democracy (and a Solidarity government) took place. Now, this was good but how fundamental was Solidarity's (and, therefore, the Popes inspiration) existance to the tearing down of Poland's Red government? Had this happened out of the blue and in absolute isolation then I would have said "very". But, let's face it, Communism was doomed from the mid-80s and the Iron Curtain was due to fall anyway. Communism had eaten itself alive - the Communist (not Marxist) experiment had been shown to have a finite lifespan, more finite than even the West had guessed - and so Solidarity, it could be argued, was simply there to fill the vacuum. This in itself was good too, as many Eastern Bloc states did not have this comfy sofa of a back-up government to fall into, post-Communism. So for this, the Pope could rightly be given credit.
He was more Catholic than all the clergy put together and doubled
I am never one for eulogies of someone given simply because they are recently deceased. Just because they are dead, their faults and achievements survive still in equal measure.
One thing you cannot criticise him for is any kinks in his faith. The man was cut through with Catholicism. He was more Catholic than all the clergy put together and doubled. And in many ways he was the perfect example of a head of a church. Dedicated, passionate, intelligent, energetic and driven by faith and nothing else.
I have already outlined where this clashed with the real world but that is an argument not so much with the man as with the doctrine. He was not the first and he won't be the last to follow it so what I take issue with is the doctrine itself.
So I listen to many people spreading messages on radio such as "without John Paul II the map of Eastern Europe would be very different today" - nonsense. And we hear various representatives of other faiths paying their respects. Fine. And we hear hours and hours of coverage of this long expected event. I now look forward to seeing who the next Pope will be. Until then, what else is there to say?
