The Pope Has to Be Catholic. But the Times Have Changed

With the passing of Pope John Paul II, we take the opportunity to peer into the legacy of this extraordinary man. Obviously, there are varying evaluations of his pontificate for the things he tried to change and for those things he wouldn't. Much of the talk centers around this pope leading the Catholic Church into the new millennium, the "new springtime of Christianity," as he called it. That he did. But, a church is not a very flexible institution. Actually, its positions are dogmatic since they represent values and ideas inspired by God and are not relevant to space and time. Or are they? At least that's the concept behind a system of beliefs that are based on divine revelation; it's a take it or leave it proposition.
I do not hold such view, I confess. I do not believe that truth is found by divine revelation. It is rather found by research, examination, rationality, science, and it's based on human experience. It allows for the possibility of revision once something better comes along. Errors in judgment should be corrected. It's a Catholic tenet that the pope is infallible, at least when it comes to interpreting religious doctrines, but this applies only to those who choose to believe it.
I'm not going to go into a dissertation on the basis of human morality and human behavior--especially the need for religious dogma and institutions. There will be other opportunities for such. This is about John Paul II, and one thing certain about him is that he acted on principle. He, like any other pope, had to fight secularism and, to some extend, modernity. Granted, the church isn't there to explain the physical universe any longer, but it has to draw upon its tradition and centuries-old authority to maintain its leadership among the faithful. Arguably, closed systems must remain authoritarian to survive, otherwise revisionistic tendencies usually bring the demise of them.
For example, Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost didn't improve the communist system but brought about its collapse. China will follow too. [its economic reforms are not matched by political reforms so it's more stable right now, but inevitably it will have to surrender some political control to continue its economic growth; plus the Chinese are getting more educated, more in touch with the rest of the world, and having increasing expectations]

When Karol Wojtyla was elected pope in 1978, many, especially American priests ordained in the 1960s, hoped that he would break with tradition and bring some change in the Catholic Church. He didn't. On the contrary, he embodied religious conservatism. Under his leadership, there was no elevation of the position of women in the church--ordination of women wasn't seriously discussed, if at all--and he locked in the church for many years to come by appointing almost all of the cardinals and by his actions as the pontiff.
The question is how much a pope or any church can change religious doctrine to accommodate for cultural changes. The pope has to Catholic, in other words, he must adhere to long-established principles and religious traditions. However, there is some room to wiggle. In my opinion, John Paul II had his best years earlier on, when he pressed for change in the communist eastern Europe and even in countries with right-wing dictatorships. I think he played an important and positive role in transforming some of those cruel societies. His church benefited from that change, but a change from oppressing regimes was good nevertheless.
Later, he wrote and spoke about the harsh face of capitalism, and tried to illuminate the role of Jesus and his efforts to elevate human dignity, promote social justice for the society's less fortunate. He was against the death penalty, opposed the war in Iraq and condemned the human rights abuses at the Abu Graib prison. He was critical of the crude materialism exhibited by the U.S. and our lack of a social net for the underprivileged and the sick.

Yet, he remained largely silent about the huge scandals in America regarding the sexual abuse of thousands of children by Catholic priests. This abuse most likely has been going in other parishes all over Europe and the rest of the world, but only in America we make such a big stink over it, and we sue too! This view has been the unofficial reaction in the Vatican, something that most certainly has put any American cardinal out of contention for the papacy. The American Catholics are considered "too liberal" in the eyes of the Holy See.
Sex is a big taboo with organized religion. This pope wasn't much different in his approach. He insisted on a strictly male and celibate priesthood. He opposed abortion (the right of a woman to choose), and birth control.
When dogma doesn't allow room for reality, then we have a problem. If you think that sex is not to be used for pleasure, but only for procreation, then you have a big problem. Most Catholics want birth control. Even within the confines of marriage, Catholic women want options, including abortion and, if all else fails, a divorce.
The issue of contraception is a big one, especially when considering the HIV-AIDS pandemic that has been killing millions, many of whom in Catholic Africa where the Church is gaining most of its new converts.
The stubbornness against the use of condoms in preventing the spread of this horrible and incurable disease is almost criminal. This is a clear case when religious dogma--as expressed by an "infallible" pope--is allowing millions of people to die because they either don't get the proper sex education or are denied access to condoms. Today in Africa, the most dangerous thing a woman can do is to get married! The vast majority of women with HIV-AIDS in Africa are married, infected by their husbands! In Mother Teresa's Calcutta (one of the many cities in Asia where prostitution flourishes) teenage girls are being infected by killer diseases because condoms are not available and sexually active persons are not aware of disease-prevention methods.

John Paul II's pontificate obviously has many meanings. As a non-Catholic, I can only evaluate him from the outside. There are big philosophical differences between the secular humanists and organized religion, almost as many as among the various religious doctrines and their followers. Perhaps we can find common ground in the respect and enhancement of human life which should be examined and fully enjoyed. As a liberal, I would like all religions to be more humanistic, more in touch with real-life issues of the common folk. To do whatever possible to help people here and now. To alleviate fear, disease, poverty, and to help people avoid life-wasting predicaments. To elevate human dignity of both sexes, and, frankly, to make the world a better place to be.