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

It is perhaps because I come from a non-catholic background that I must disagree with you when you say that a Popes role is not to change dogma but to enforce it. In world history, the pope has always had an incredibly large role in defining Dogma and setting the agenda for a church. Because Catholics believe the pope receives divine inspiration directly from god, he by definition has the power to rule on and overrule existing laws and establish new ones. Pope John Paul II himself took a strong stance in fact in apologizing for and clarifying the churches position on many of its most heinous acts such as its condemnation of science through the persecution of Galileo and the silence of some Catholics during the holocaust. It is precisely because he has this power, that I hold him culpable for his failures in truly eliminating some of the worst corruptions and flaws of the church. As someone not part of the church tradition, I am not going to spend too much time arguing about church dogma. All I will say is that when you argue about the traditional role of lets say women in the church, always ask yourself why does it have to be that way? In a religious tradition that lives not just through a stagnant book, but through an oral tradition, transformation compatable with liberal ideals is possible. I would point you towards non-orthodox Judaism as an example of a faith that has pioneered itself in a liberal direction on many issues. The pope could and should be a leader in directing the church in a more socially positive and constructive direction. As to the specific points, I still feel the evidence is in my favor. In regard to sex abuses, I doubt anyone could with a straight face feel that enough has been done to stem such activity. Molesting priests such as Father O'grady (Deliver Us from Evil) were allowed to be moved by local diocies from parish to parish even after they had already received complaints. O'Grady himself now is free in Ireland with no responsibility and a church stipend, but far worse is the fact that the diocies that turned a blind eye were not criticized or punished. The sex abuse scandal is systemic and not just the result of a few bad priests, but the popes condemnations focused solely on individual culpability and therefore failed to alleviate the problem. His actions were similar to the arrest of a few petty soldiers in the Abu Ghraib torture fiasco rather than a true examination of leadership and permissibility that had made abuse likely ( for a full analysis see Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect). It has been very effectively shown that abstinence only education failed magnificently especially in third world countries. Of course, I would argue that the pope has the power to redifine the churches stance on birth control and therefore could make a wise choice, but even if we do not hold this view and even if we give in to your position that birth control distorts the natural act of sex ( two positions which I agree deserve a debate in and of themselves), what we are faced with is a matter of priority. It is equally, and I would argue more, abhorrent to allow millions to die when their deaths could have been prevented, than to break a taboo on birth control. I would argue that the value of human life is much more clearly spelled out in the bible and in christian tradition than the value of contraceptive free sex. In this view, the pope had a choice between two sins, and the one he chose was far worse. Additionally, you can not argue that this was a choice between a negative and a positive moral violation and that therefore taking no stance was morally justified. Declaring the churches lack of support for contraceptives even in these countries was a positive declaration that interfered with the ability of international aid groups to function and be efficient in their missions. I brought up Euthanasia mostly because of the example of hypocrisy that I found startling. The pope claimed the same right to exercise control over ones own death that he denied to others. It is clear that in his dying moments, John Paul II acted with the same desire for human dignity and self respect he had denied so many. This is to me a strong example of a man of weak moral strength: One that denies to others something that he takes for himself. The church glorification of Mary is just part and parcel of true picture. The fact that the church recognizes that women can be chosen by god and receive his inspiration (In the case of John of Arc or Mary), but not that they are then qualified to pass on that knowledge to others in the role of a member of the church leadership is the definition of hypocrisy. When I see a female pope writing a treatise entitled "Men: God's Masterpiece" than I will cease with this line of argument, but until that time I can not but hold that the church gives token honor but deprives true power from the hands of females. A final clarification about the intention of this debate, we should question what makes a man great. To my understanding at least, it is about rising above expectations and demands to accomplish something truly great. I would agree with you that John Paul II rose above what was expected in the political sphere and helped hasten the fall of the soviet union.I argue however that he utterly failed in the same regard to lead in the moral sphere. By perpetuating old and stigmatizing dogma he stigmatized many and failed to effectively guide the church in a new era of light.