The Polish Pope is Dead.

As a Polish-American, I was very proud to hear that a Polish cardinal was named Pope; the first non-Italian in some 400 years.

The fact that he was fluent in many languages, athletic, good looking and willing to travel all over the world, made me even prouder.

To me, his crowning achievement was being instrumental in the eventual demise of Communism. He not only freed his own people but also the countless millions suffering under the control of the USSR regime.

His willingness to visit Catholics all over the world changed how people perceived the Pope and the Papacy. The Papacy was no longer just a "European" institution. He became known as a Pope of and for, the people, especially the young who treated him like a Rock Star.

Pope John Paul II reached out to other religions, especially Judaism. Coming from Poland, he knew, first hand, what happened to the Jews in Poland under the Nazis; he lived in the Auschwitz vicinity near Krakow. He was painfully aware of the prevailing view of Poles, Catholics, Christians - that the Jews were Christ Killers and therefore somehow deserved the holocaust.

During WWII under Pope Pius XII, the Papacy came under extreme criticism for appearing to side with the Nazis against the Jews by not condemning the wholesale slaughter of the Jews. Even the city of Rome, the actual Vatican sector, is accused of not providing shelter to the Jews living within its confines.

Pope John Paul II tried to repair the damage between the Catholics and the Jews. In his last will and testament, the Pope mentions only two men; one, his personal secretary and the other, the Rabbi of Rome who welcomed him into the Roman Synagogue, early into his Papacy.

Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) was no John XXIII; he was conservative to the core. He believed in tradition and felt his main job was to maintain that tradition. He believed that deviating from tradition, rocking the boat in any way, only weakened the Church. He appointed like-minded individuals to positions of power in the Church.

He had a long reign (26 years) and therefore had some impact on the Church, Catholics and on our society in general. His impact will be debated but definite positives and negatives are quickly emerging.

To me, one very large negative was his lackadaisical handling of the priestly sex scandal. The scandal was mostly an American problem but only in that the crimes of priests in other countries have not yet been exposed.

The Pope, at first seem to doubt the validity of the accusations. Later, when forced to address the problems, he mumbled something about the need to protect the children. He flat out dropped the ball on this one and as the leader of the Church, dropping the ball was not permissible. To me he was out of touch. Maybe too full of tradition and not enough of reality.

His second negative, according to me, was his refusal to address the realities of contraception. We are not talking about abortion, we are talking planned parenthood as opposed to having all the children God intended you to have until you finally die in childbirth or you and your children starve to death because you cannot support all the kids God is blessing you with.

He banned the use of condoms as means of contraception, helping to spread AIDS and ironically, increase the number of abortions performed in the world. A majority of American Catholics just smile at this official stance of the Church on contraception and do what they feel is only sensible and rational. I don't see how they can suffer the hypocrisy.

Not allowing priests to marry is again the result of his blind devotion to tradition even though priests did marry in the past according to Church history. Priestly marriage was banned to prevent leaving Church money and property to the priest's heirs. The Church could have simply banned the heirs from inheriting Church property. Other religions, including Christian Orthodox , have allowed priestly marriage from the beginning without any problems.

The official Church position against priestly marriage is that the priest has to devote his entire being to the service of God, Church and his flock; there is no room for a family because that would detract him from his mission. I am afraid that argument does not hold any water; the Church already allows married priests with families (converts from other religions) so it can not be a critical factor.

Allowing priests to marry may have helped keep the Catholic Church from being a favorite destination of pedophiles. Some may scoff at this rationale but statistics do not lie and please remember we are only hitting the tip of the iceberg and what about the centuries we will never know anything about.

Women as priests? This was true in the early history of the Church. In fact, women bishops were very important to the growth of the early Church. It did not take long for men to get the upper hand and put women in their place.

The fact that Jesus had twelve male apostles means absolutely nothing in the tradition of having priests be only of the male gender. The male dominated Church made the rules and created the traditions. Who was present when Jesus died on the cross - only his female followers. Who did the resurrected Jesus appear to first - not to no stinkin males.

Most Biblical scholars agree that Paul's letters Timothy 1&2 as well as Titus were not written by Paul but by some later author of one of the churches. The author used Paul's name to grant "authority" to his own views about Church organization. The author insisted that women be silenced and brought under control.

Tradition yes but with modern scholarship debunking that tradition, change could be scripturally justified. Yet the Pope chose to keep the false pretense alive and he was reported to be quite a Biblical scholar himself.

Let us see what the new Pope will bring to the table. He needs to bring something because the Church is running out of priests and it is running out of credibility.

Janusz