He was one of the great leaders of our time. I like what Hugh Hewitt says:
With Reagan and Solzhenitsyn, John Paul II represents the three forces of opposition to communism that shattered the evil empire, the Soviet Union --the American-led West, the Eastern European resistance, and the Russian dissident movement. They also represented the three spheres of opposition: political, artistic and spiritual. Each man came into the field of his greatness later in life, and each has endured hard circumstances in their later years. I hope Solzhenitisyn is able to and inclined to write about his colleagues in the struggle that triumphed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
from Maxspeak:
THE GOSPEL OF
JOHN PAUL II
Whatever you think of his views, Karol Wojtyla was a remarkable person. The best show of respect for the Pope is to consider his intellectual output, which means taking it seriously, without patronization, criticizing vigorously where appropriate. I hope to do a bit of that this week.
Like scripture, there is something for almost everyone in the Pope's statements. Nobody except prix fixe Catholics -- as opposed to the cafeteria variety -- can really take ownership, though that is something ordinarily attempted with any renowned personage. Progressives could note his criticism of unregulated capitalism. Cultural conservatives point to his unreconstructed opposition to abortion and anything resembling euthanasia. Catholic traditionalists welcomed his opposition to the ordination of women and other possible modernist reforms within the Church. And democratic anti-communists of all stripes hail his role in liberating Poland and bringing down the Soviet Union.
On that last point, I'd like to note that the Pope himself did not credit outside pressure with the collapse of Communism. He insisted its internal, inherent weaknesses were its undoing. Perhaps he was being modest. I don't think you can discount his policital impact. I never bought the fables about Reagan and U.S. defense spending "bankrupting" the USSR. My own view, actually informed by some academic background, is that the communist systems functioned on a certain level, but failed in comparative terms to provide the mass consumption achieved in the West.
The viewpoint least congenial to the Pope's views happens to be the faux-libertarian/jingoist mindset prominent in Blogistan (the right-wing hemisphere of the blogosphere). After all, by their standards the Pope was quite the "idiotarian." He was wrong on their favorite issue -- the War on Terror. Not only did he oppose the Iraqi invasion, he also opposed the first Gulf War and the Clinton Administration's Serbian venture. Morever, this opposition was not founded on some Democratic 'realist' interpretation of the national interest, but of a more-or-less pacifist framework. Violence, bad.
Of course, insofar as the faux-libertarian view extends towards abortion, stem cell research, the Schiavo case, etc., the Pope was at odds there as well.
Why talk about the Encyclicals? Unlike some on the left, I've never bought the narrow, dismissive view of religion as some unbelievable fairy tale. Religious doctrine is philosophy, it's politics, it's literature, it's about the Meaning of Life. It's not about some bearded dude in the sky that can't exist because you've never seen him.
Of special interest in the case of the Catholic Church is the Social Gospel. How much does it matter? We hear a lot about the Church's involvement in abortion politics, and much less about its dedication to social welfare. John Paul II came down hard on "liberation theology" in Latin America, but this could have created space for the Church to press for liberal reform.
Even without the Social Gospel, the Church would be relevant. What business does a secularist or other person have to delve into Christian theology? To paraphrase an old saying, you may not be interested in Christianity, but Christianity is interested in you.
We look for insight from our favorite Catholic bloggers, or if they prefer, bloggers who happen to be Catholic -- Body and Soul and Rittenhouse Review -- who are co-religionists in other respects. We're also checking out Professor Bainbridge for a serious, traditionalist point of view.
Most inane comment so far was relayed by Glenn Reynolds (shocking, I know) -- "Ordinary Poles 2, German intellectuals 0." Intellectuals. The swine. It happens that the Pope was an intellectual -- a professor of philosophy -- and Reynolds is a professor. One of these days I need to cook up a post to explain how in modern jingoist discourse, "intellectual" and "cultural elite" refer to the Jews. But that has nothing to do with Karol Wojtyla.
Post a Comment