" And ye shall know them by their fruits"

Enemy of communism,
Philosopher and theologan.
Supporter of oppressed peoples.
Defender of his faith.
Man who led by example.
Spoke the truth no matter what it cost.
Could draw bigger crowds than any rock star or tyrant.
Quite happy to tell world leaders that they were wrong.
No "quality of life" issues while he was suffering from Parkinsons disease.

Took it as it came.

Requiem in Pacem.
You will be remembered long after your detractors are forgotten.

Yes, and lets not forget, Cardinal Pell, the suffering which the Pope himself perpetrated. A useful counterbalance to your hagiography of John Paul II is provided by an obituary in the Guardian newspaper, by Terry Eagleton. The last paragraph reads:

The greatest crime of his papacy, however, was neither his part in this cover up nor his neanderthal attitude to women. It was the grotesque irony by which the Vatican condemned - as a "culture of death" - condoms, which might have saved countless Catholics in the developing world from an agonising Aids death. The Pope goes to his eternal reward with those deaths on his hands. He was one of the greatest disasters for the Christian church since Charles Darwin.

Like many ex catholics who still send our children to their schools,there is our hypocracy of disbelief,while wanting our children to have some sort of moral framework and discipline which state schools are almost bereft of.Regardless of your beliefs,John Paul the 2nd showed courage and tenacity beyond the norm of human endurance.In this reality such perserverence and resolve he deserves our our respect.Religions have perpetrated many wrongs in the past,but have also improved the human condition in many ways.

It is not what you believe that make you a decent human being ,but your actions that facilitate "The Common Good"

Yes, I'm neither a Catholic nor a Christian, and I must say that I have great difficulty imagining the motivations of the large numbers of people who would queue to file past the Pope's corpse. While I can accept that his supporters would want to mourn the passing of a man who they regard as a great leader, what's the point of idolising what is, after all, a lump of dead meat?

Also, while a certain amount of hagiography is to be expected, the glowing praises enunciated by Catholic conservatives like Pell don't accord with sentiments that have been expressed to me by Catholic clergy whom I know personally. I'm friendly with a priest and a nun, both of whom are supporters of neither John Paul II or George Pell (which may be why they've been banished to the moderately remote country town where we live).

I agree that one of the most damning aspects of the late Pope's legacy is likely to be his pig-headed opposition to the use of condoms, both for contraception and disease prevention. To me and many other non-Catholics, this exemplifies perfectly why it is that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) still exercises far too much influence in the world in the 21st century.

So it is the deeds of JP II in not handing out condoms to oversexed and unfaithful husbands and rapists (yes, those plundering soldiers carry and use condoms!) that sees innocent women dying and children born with HIV/AIDS, and silly me thinking it was those scumbag excuses for manhood who were causing the trouble?!

What pisses me off about non thinkers like "Reality Check" is their single issue tunnel vision mentality that clouds all their judgements.I agree with many of your views,but you have to see any institution in it's totality.There are many good people in that institution that give a lot to humanity.Just because you or I don't agree,doesn't mean we shouldn't show respect for all the good things they have done.Single issue fanatics are more a blight on our society than any Pope who is bound by tradition and laws in many areas.
I'm no Pope apologist,since I don't believe in the notion of god,but I do respect the other achievements of this now deceased person and the education and discipline this religion stills gives to our community.
It is just the same mentality of the "Howard Haters." They carry their nap sack of small minded venom around as their crutch as an
excuse for them not achieving,or the sole reason for the existence of some social injustice.Just get over your own egocentric ideals
and look at the positive and negative achievements of all whom you despise before passing judgement.

Surely the previous two posts display a degree of "venom" with which the late Pope would disapprove? Is it not possible to defend his record without using such language... you might even understand what each other is talking about!

As far as I can tell, "Reality Check" is defending the late Pope's abysmal rulings with respect to condoms. That said, her/his reference to "oversexed and unfaithful husbands and rapists" and "those scumbag excuses for manhood" seems a very extreme position for even a Christian to take. What is s/he saying? That the only men who use condoms (or would if their beliefs allowed them) are oversexed, unfaithful, or rapists?

Isn't "scumbag" a slang term for condom anyway? What an odd turn of phrase.

The intemperance of the language used by "Arjay" is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that he has the wrong end of the stick firmly between his bared teeth. Dear oh dear.

JPII & the Church teach that sex is a marriage thing, and involves fidelity and other such outdated notions as loyalty, procreation etc.

These teachings have no impact on people that are sexually active for non-matrimonial reasons. Condoms are neither here nor there in the saving of lives unless you can tell me that people so subject to the rule of passion are going to use condoms when they rape people or force their wives to have sex when they are involved in high risk activities.

If you can explain to me (and future popes) how condoms increase marital fidelity and can reduce excessive western consumerism (and arms dealers) depriving third world states of resources, then we can start to have a debate.

George Pell chooses his own self-serving interpretation of others’ opinions when attempting to denigrate radical secularists. He says their view is “that suffering is meaningless, that a life of suffering is without value,” and he concludes that that view is no longer enough. Indeed if there are people who have that uncompassionate attitude I too would recoil.

My own view, whether secular humanist or not, is that all suffering has a cause and it is one of the great endeavours of human beings to search out those causes and find cures. I understand the proposition that belief in the supernatural is a product of the brain and consequently the efficacy of that belief is confined to the brain and what bodily actions flow from it. There has not been, nor can there be, any evidence that the images of gods and ghosts, angels or elves which are held in the brain have any other physical effect on the world around us. If those images can soften the pain of suffering they are welcome but they are not the source for finding the causes or effecting cures.

Poverty is the cause of enormous suffering and death. Disease is the cause of pain, death or blighted lives. The people who deserve the appellation “great” are those who have identified the causes and cures of these blights on humanity.

Words about the magnificent dignity of suffering are no substitute for the earthly task of understanding the causes and applying the known cures for that suffering.

I agree with John Warren and would also take issue with Pell's quite ridiculous characterisation of 'radical secularists' (and i'm not sure what they are apart from straw men) as believing suffering to be 'meaningless' and that 'a life of suffering is without value'. Since suffering is part and parcel of every human life, the clear inference is that secularists don't value human life. What a cheap shot in a piece supposedly dedicated to a loyal servant of his deity.

Brought up in the bosom of his church since infancy, Pell clearly has no idea of what secularists think, and his guesses are singularly inept.

The vast majority of Christians and non-Christians agree that we should do all in our power to alleviate unnecessary human suffering, which blights human lives and stunts human potential. Most suffering is caused by poverty, cruelty and neglect, and can be reduced though never eliminated. To proclaim the glory of suffering is very easy to do from Pell's comfortable position.

The likes of Peter Singer, under the guise of the philosophy of utilitarinism, are probably the radical secularists that Pell has in mind. We should note that Singer couldn't pursue his 'faith' in utility -"Perhaps it is more difficult than I thought before, because it is different when it's your mother"?

As we in the west kid ourselves about deprivations & suffering, in equating the worth of human (or other sentient beings) life in relation to the concept of pleasure and the absence of pain - within the context of resources needed to care for the sick & lame - we are likely to see most of the third world open to socio-economic euthanasia, for their own well being of course.

Suffering is naturally inflicted - earthquakes, viruses etc - but a great deal of suffering is due to human vice, or dare I say it, sin.

Unless we are to reject radical consumerism and adopt a more radical culture of life, one that accepts concepts of natural law and the protection of beings from conception to grave (regardless of economic/social power) then we will continue to see science & profit, pleasure & individual 'rights' triumph over faith & reason, solidarity & responsibility.

Mind you, one large asteroid or super volcano could make this all academic...

George Pell accuses secular humanists like me of not valuing suffering, of seeing it as meaningless. Nothing could be further from the truth. All human growth is achieved through suffering. On that, perhaps, we agree. The difference is in whether the suffering we are talking about is going to result in some kind of growth. Pointless suffering that can be avoided and was not freely accepted by the sufferer but imposed on them by people who feel they know better (like Cardinal Pell, perhaps) should, it seems to me, be avoided.
I am prepared to suffer, have suffered and will no doubt suffer again. But, as a secular humanist, I reserve the right to decide on my own response to such suffering. Whether I wish to submit to it, or not should be my decision, not someone elses, no matter how much supernatural authority they may claim.
I celebrate your right to practice your religion, Mr Pell, and make your own moral choices accordingly. Do you accord me the same rights, I wonder?