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

Because my opponent has failed to post an argument in the previous round, I will in part address some of the comments that have come up from others watching the round and also deliver closing remarks. My debate centers around the notion that what defines a great man are not the things he is meant to do due to his position of power persay but the choices he makes that exceed expectations. In that sense, John Paul II trip to poland was truly a great action because it was a powerful and symbolic gesture that required courage. In doing so, he had real courage unlike his predecesors who took half hearted measures to fight nazism and didn't do their part to save millions of Jewish lives. ( I didn't even get into the fact that John Paul II was the main proponent of the canonization of this clearly not great or holy pope- another serious strike against his legacy). Therefore, politically John Paul II was a great man. I have from the start conceeded half of the pro argument in this round, and hoped for some true clash on the more interesting second category of his moral philosophy. Kels1123 in the comments section suggested that my argument hinged upon the Pope turning his back on his beliefs. The truth is, the Pope has the unique power in all of the world of secular or divine law to set his own standards and beliefs. Anything the pope says according to catholic dogma is the word of god and must be believed by his adherants. Therefore, a pope has a vast amount of power to direct and change dogma. This is something that popes have traditionally done. In the face of Luther and preceeding "heretics", the pope invented a new standard of what acts were breaks from the church and deserved killing to encompase these dissidents. In the converse direction, in recent years the church has somewhat shifted its stance on marriage and the sanctity of latin as the only worthwhile church language. Even the church's stance on abortion has not been fixed in stone, with its official language changing over the past century from the fetus being a life at the momment of implementation to the momment of conception. These few examples just prove a broader point. The pope has the power to change dogma to best adapt the church to its goal of ministering to the worlds faithful. My other main arguement here is that the pope did not have to choose between valuing dogma over heretical views, but instead between two competing church values. When having to choose between actions that would save the most lives from poverty but somewhat change church positions, or a dogmatic stance that would condemn millions to poverty, death and disease, the pope chose the later. Of course, one could say drug companies do the same thing every day when they choose to raise prices rather than provide cheap drugs to starving or dying africans, but no one is calling the head of pfizer a "great man" Finally, I leave it to the reader to conclude if the church is truly gender equal in any just sense that we living in Western Society deem it. The responses saying that "women can become nuns or saints" reminds me far too much of the 19th century notion of women as teachers or maybe nurses but nothing more. A restructured church along the lines of gender egalitarianism would have been a true step foward in accordance to what the rest of the world deems is just. I don't think its unresonable to hold the church and its pope up to a standard of morality and justness which the rest of the world has found to be unfaliable ( to excuse the pun), and I will rest this argument when I see men and women both allowed into every major position in the church hiearchy. Similarily, the pope's reaction to the church abuse scandals may have been "adequate" but hardly the stuff of great men. Taking a line from U.S President Truman and truly believing the Buck Stops at the top rather than deregulating blame would have been courageous. Initiating a debate about celibacy or the structure of the clergy and how these things encourage an atmosphere of repression leading to rape and molestation would have been truly brave. Just like his march into Poland, these actions would have mattered and been great because they defined expectations. If only John Paul II had the theological courage to back his political one, the world would truly be a much better place.