A respons to Polly Toynbee, a writer for the Left wing British paper the guardian, in response to a op-ed in which she blames JPII for the deaths of millions from AIDS in Africa:

I sensed a certain degree of emotivism in you article "Not in my name," which claims to speak for "rationalists who thought they understood this secular, sceptical age."

Many of your points may be valid, living here in Rome I know that many of the people who came were here because of the herd effect. However, I spent two days caring for and giving water to those who waited for as much as 14 hours in line to see the Holy Father's corps and I must attest that vast numbers of them were praying the Rosary, singing religious songs, and giving an awesome witness of Christian charity. Your quite right that ignorance of history and theology played a role in attendence of some of the world leaders in attendance, but with the vast numbers of Orthodox and Muslims present, as well as other groups, you must admit that part of what made that gathering of world leaders possible was not simply indifference but the ecumenical and inter-religous efforts made by John Paul.

This being said, what I really take issue with is your main premise the John Paul is somehow responsible for the deaths of millions. I believe you make a vague comparison between him and Stalin. There is a saying in the Church, "the Church doesn't impose it proposes." By this I mean, wereas Hitler, Stalin, and your own Queen Elizabeth I literally put people to death--in John Paul's case he proposes the Gospel and people choose to live or not to live by it (the Pope did not threaten to put their head on the Tower of London or something of that nature). Ironically, it was ussally those who choose not to live by the Pope's proposals who in the end died, both physically and spiritually.

Simple logic would hold that if the Pope's teachings were followed by all then few would die from AIDs, etc.

The Church and the Holy Father taught:
1) That sexual relations within marriage, and only within marriage, that were open to the
unative and procreative dimensions of the marital act, are good.
2) That contraceptives were dangerous to ones relationship with God and others.
3) That people even within marriage had to exercise their rationality concerning the
prudence have a child given an individuals circumstances.

Following these three clear teachings of the Church very few people would die from AIDS, and women who are at risk could make a conscious choice with their husbands not to get pregnant thus protecting their health. In fact following the Church's teachings is by far a safer course of action than using condoms, which have a about a 87% method failure rate and a 56% user failure rate for the AIDS virus, not to mention other viruses and infections for which "safety" varies. Following the Church's teachings also forces men to realize that women are other human persons, and not just things to be used for pleasure.

If you propose that somehow he forced people not to use condoms, then I ask why didn't he force them to follow the other two teachings

You also suggest that what is wrong with these teachings is that they are not reflective of the human condition. By this I assume you mean that humans are animals who can't help but "doing it," as a young college student passing me on the street today said to his friend. This however seems to be logically at odds with your claim to represent rational people, if some people are rational then all are rational (in nature), they all can take in information, make generalizations, and make choices based on those judgements. If this is the case then anyone can clearly see that the Church's was is the only sure way. The Church's teachings have always promoted the use of reason, but true reason which doesn't view the world materialistically but interpersonally. What you seem to be defending is a tired old skeptical rationalism, which denies all else but the material, but there is more to life than the material, in fact 99% of what matters in this world is not matterial but interpersonal.

One thing your right about: for Christians suffering is redemptive--something that while not desired is lovingly accepted--after all we boast only in Christ and Christ Crucified. Suffering is accepted by Christians because it is truely part of the human experience, a part which helps us become detached from the world and focused on "the other." What Christians fear is not bodily suffering but spiritual suffering, because we know that this world and its agonies are passing away. But I don't think you get that, and I think that it makes you mad to see people acting interpersonally rather than inter-materially.