P. William Brusoe
The Eagle has always served an important role of making readers think, challenge their own beliefs, and either discard those beliefs or strengthen their previous positions. An editorial by Russell Allen appearing April 11 did just that. While there are numerous problems with the form, flow and structure of the argument, I would like to correct a few issues that he just was totally off on.
His first suggestion was that the pope is infallible, which is not entirely correct. From my religious studies during my sophomore year, I understand that the Catholic Tradition holds him to be infallible in all matters of faith and dogma. Simply put, when a pope issues a decision on matters of church teaching, it's not wrong. However, a pope is capable of sin and is capable of making mistakes not relating to faith and dogma. Indeed, this past pope made regular confession. In addition, the Catholic church believes that God works through these fallible cardinals to make the best decision possible.
Secondly, Mr. Allen attempted to construct an argument that passing of the supreme pontiff would somehow demonstrate hypocrisy among those mourning his loss. The Oxford English Dictionary defines hypocrisy as an individual assuming a false appearance of goodness with dissimulation toward his real qualities.
Of my Catholic friends who are grieving the loss of the pope, not a single one of them has ever claimed to be perfect. Indeed, far from it, they have acknowledged that they have failed to live up to the standard expected of them. Yet, every day they struggle and strive to be better people. Some heeded the advice of the supreme pontiff as an errant child. Yet, just as a parent would not give up on his child, the pontiff did not give up on his children. From my understanding of the writings of this religious figure, he constantly argued for the dignity of the human being and suggested that sexual activities may in fact be degrading individual dignity. Yet, in the Christian tradition, repentance is possible, and every day affords a new opportunity to be better.
Thirdly, there are some biological issues that Mr. Allen goofed up on. The argument behind condoms spreading AIDS is viable, if given in the full context. In order for AIDS to spread, some type of sexual contact must be occurring. Condoms give people a false sense of security; they can break, tear or weaken. When this happens during the carnal act, AIDS is spread. If, in the developing world, all sexual activities happened in a monogamous married relationship, the AIDS epidemic would not be such a catastrophic tragedy.
Finally, there is the discussion of the papal ring. While this ring has some type of material value, it did not belong to the deceased Karol Wojtyla. It belonged to the church, and the pope was allowed to wear it as a symbol of his authority. Indeed, Karol Wojtyla died without any worldly possessions. The ring is just like the scademic regalia that so many of our seniors will be wearing in a few weeks, with the notable exception that the ring was worn every day, while the academic regalia will only be worn once. Broken down into a per diem, the ring is a mere drop in the bucket compared with the rental of caps, gowns and honor tassels.
There are lots of places to look for improvement in this world, and no one is attempting to hide from the need or from his or her own shortfalls. I know that with the passing of this magnificent servant I am striving to be better and live closer in line with his teachings. After all, is that not what John Paul II wanted?
Thank you, Mr. Allen, for a thought-provoking article, and thank you for giving me pause to question and strengthen my faith.
P. William Brusoe is a graduate student in the School of Pubic Affairs.
