Like everybody else, I have several thoughts concerning the life and death of Pope John Paul II. He was obviously a very popular pope, traveling around the world and speaking out against crimes against humanity while charming everybody he met. However, the fact that some people believe he should be ordained a saint immediately demonstrates the shallowness of those people who equate personal popularity and charisma with saintliness.

Beyond his personal charisma, John Paul II was a very old-fashioned conservative, almost a relic of the 19th century rather than a modern leader of the 21st century. I have serious questions about his refusal to allow women any role in the priesthood, as well as enforcing priestly celibacy, both relics of the Church’s ancient origins which have nothing to do with Christ’s original teachings, but more with the will of the early Church fathers.

I also have a problem with John Paul’s support of Cardinal Law of Boston who was one of the American archbishops who protected pedophile priests. That scandal in the American Church emphasized how the political structure of the Church has not really changed as much as it seems since its era of greatest power in Europe during the Middle Ages. So many members of the Church hierarchy who were more concerned with protecting priests rather than with enforcing morality illustrates what is the major difference between religion and church. Religion is based on the beliefs of such philosophers as Moses, Buddha, Christ and Mohammed, and it creates a way of life and a spiritual and moral blanket in which one can wrap oneself. Church, on the other hand, is a political structure created by humans who are usually followers of the original philosophers and who supposedly base their organization on those beliefs, but as often as not end up corrupting those beliefs for their own material purposes.

Which raises the question: do humans instinctively corrupt everything they create?