Misc

I have a date with Miss Colombia tomorrow. Very excited. She's working as a hostess at a restaurant right now, so we're going out in the daytime as she's working from 4pm until the end of the night. Not sure what exactly we're doing yet, but I have some ideas. Once again, she asked me out! Of course, I called with the intention of asking her out, she just got there first. I'm working on a few more Spanish phrases. It pays to have several Spanish speakers (including 2 Colombians) living in my house.

Re: Pope Talk

After watching the tele and reading up on the news, it's evident that the media is softballing the Pope simply because he's a revered figure by about a billion people. This is not to suggest that a dead guy (Pope or not) should not be remembered respectfully, but to suggest that the Pope was a "perfect" leader or even that his policies were "correct" in all situations is to ignore the glaring depravity of at least two, if not more, of his central policy issues. Of course, the online media is all over this, meaning that the mainstream media will most likely get there eventually, but here's my take.

Condoms in Africa

The Pope's "no contraception at all costs" based on "moral" beliefs has literally costs MILLIONS of African's their lives from the spread of HIV. Regardless of where you stand on birth control, their is a deeply profound motivation to prevent the spread of AIDS, something that the Pope never addressed. This is a problem for the radical right (and yes, I think this position is RADICALLY conservative) because the "protect life at all costs" platform is at odds with the "no contraception" platform in areas where the spread of HIV is out of control. While the Church would argue that they have not "condemned millions of African's to a painful death", it is absurdly fallacious to suggest that abstinence is a viable option on the sub-continent or elsewhere. The reality is, people are having sex, they're going to continue to have sex, and no "moral" statement from any religious body is going to slow the tide. The only question is, are they going to have life saving protection or not.

This issue is further complicated because the Pope's position suggests there is absolute gender equality throughout Africa, a position that reveals the true naivete of the Church's position (I would say outright intentional ignorance). Anyone who has ever read anything (say a UNAIDS report, for example) on AIDS in Africa will inevitably stumble across this issue which makes the Church's disregard of it that much more shocking. Gender inequality is cited as a central reason in both overpopulation and HIV literature because women rarely, if ever, have the right to say "no" to their husbands, men who often fornicate with prostitutes. The spread from prostitute, to husband, to wife, to babies is NOT something that can be stopped with a simple "abstain" message. It's equivalent to telling someone who is being shot at to dodge a bullet instead of giving them a bulletproof vest. Or, even worse, burning the bulletproof vests so that no one can use them (as one Bishop in Africa suggested that they do with condoms). And none of this even touches on overpopulation and the attendant environmental damage that goes along with that.

In sum, the Pope's "no contraception at all costs" position was morally objectionable, flatly ignorant, and ultimately contributed to millions of people suffering life ending disease that was preventable. That is a huge black mark that should be discussed openly because that policy desperately needs changing and now is the time. Not only are there external motivations, these policies directly contributed to declining numbers of Church members throughout the developing world. Whereas Americans completely disregard the order, other, more strict areas, saw a decline in membership. Brazil, for example, saw a 15% drop in Church membership during the Pope's tenure, something that has at least partially (if not wholly) been attributed to the "no contraception" policy.

Women

This Pope was also extremely regressive in the area of women's rights inside the Church. Vatican II started a reform process in the Church, a much needed process that would have liberalized some of the Catholic tradition while focusing on the central message instead of the dogma that was built around that message over a thousand years. One of those reforms would have been to recognize (at the least) the role that women play in the Catholic Church. I, for one, have great troubles attending mass because I feel that the institutions and ceremonies of the Church are sexist. While Vatican II in itself would not have made sweeping changes, it did start a process in motion that may, if allowed, have resulted in greater roles for women (perhaps even ordainment someday). To his credit, John Paul II did allow women outside the institutional structure to play greater roles. Women became eucharistic ministers, alter girls, etc. But inside the Church, the Pope ended any hope that women would be more than sideshows to the grand spiritual exhibition. Instead, he repeated Church mythology that "only [men] were present at the Last Supper" and "only men" were actually apostles, two propositions that have been clearly doubtful for sometime and look increasingly unlikely as more and more documents, records, and artifacts are turned up and analyzed.

Not only that, the Pope pontificated about the stereotyped notion of what is masculine and feminine (since he knows all about women and all): "Since Christ, in instituting the Eucharist, linked it in such an explicit way to the priestly service of the apostles, it is legitimate to conclude that he thereby wished to express the relationship between man and woman, between what is 'feminine' and what is 'masculine.'" This Pope literally slammed the door shut on any institutional role that women could play in the Church under the guise that the Christ wished for traditional gender roles (inequality), something that I find particularly galling.

In the end, what I don't understand is how anyone can term John Paul II a great Pope. The Church is dying in Europe, America largely disregards doctrine, the priesthood is in desperate shortage, there aren't any nuns left, and millions of people are now suffering long term fatal disease because of his blind advocacy for abstinence at all costs (and I didn't even mention that sex abuse scandal in the US). I'd say that puts him down in the category of abject failure, no matter how strongly he advocated against communism.

The Church now has an opportunity to liberalize in both structure and message, something that is long overdue and should be seen as an absolute necessity. Whether the Church rises to the challenge or not is a separate question, but there can be no doubt that reforms are in order and now is the time to make positive changes.