Pope John Paul II was a great man. His philosophy and political thought was right on the money.

In taking the con position in this round, I have to first establish a clear burden for myself. I can not and will not argue that John Paul II did not contribute to one of the most mommentous events of the 20th century- the fall of the soviet union- or that by the standards of popes of the past century that he was a good one. However, I will argue that in dogmatic blindness he failed to bring relief to the lives of millions of impoverished individuals worldwide, and that therefore he culpable for their suffering. In this sense his philosophy was not great because it was held back in dogma rather than in a true desire to help people. I would first be remiss if I did not mention the sex abuse scandals that ravaged the church. The point here is not neccesarily that John Paul II could have single handedly stopped sexual abuse on the part of priests, but that as the supreme leader of a hierchal institution, he could have done a lot more to emphatically come out against the abuse and take a strong position in punishing offenders. Indeed, John Paul II is accused by many of being an autocrat and concentrating church power, so why didn't he also take charge here? The permisiveness on the part of the church is appalling and reprehensible. I challange anyone to watch the film Deliver Us From Evil and not come to a similar conclusion. Next I would like to talk about the Pope's moral hypocrisy in reguard to contraception and birth control. For a pope that spoke about the need to alleviate poverty, this is the completely wrong stance to take. His denial of contraception helped contribute to the epidemic spread of HIV/AIDS in the world. Through spiritual condemnation, he forced many to be torn between good health practices and their spiritual needs which is a torturous position indeed. Similarly, his position on Euthanasia and abortion led countless to suffer remain impoverished. His moral hypocrisy became even more stark when doctors reported that he may have actually practices passive euthanasia when he refused a feeding tube early on in his sickness. When it came down to controling his own fate, the pope was a capable moral actor and made a decision, but his denial of the right to make the same decision to others stands as abuse of the worst kind. Furthermore, his backwards stances on the role of Women in the church deserve much scorn. Rather than taking the lead on dismantling the church gender divide, the pope fell back to old Dogma and continued to stand ignorant. I am not christian or even a theist, so I will not argue about what is inherant in the christian testaments about a womens role, but only argue that a pope has the power to redefine dogma and lead it in a more constructive direction. Therein really boils down my main criticism of John Paul II. If only he had taken even one step in a theologically liberalizing direction as he had done in a politically modernizing one in Poland, then he would be a true great, but his unwillingness to improve church doctrine and make it more compatable with even a basic sense of morality leaves him at best an incomplete man and at worst culpable for so much more.