I think whatever is said about the Dalai Lama's absence is pure speculation. I'm sure the Vatican invited him - to fail to do so would have no purpose. If he didn't go because of China's opposition, I'm sure the decision was jointly made by Rome and the Dalai Lama. Has he been known to show up at events like this in the past? Maybe he thought the cost of his trip could be spent better in other ways. As for Billy Graham, I don't know if he attended the funeral or not - but he's at the point in life where he limits his travel, so I wouldn't read anything into his absence.

I also think it's "iffy" to speculate about John Paul II's failure in his relationships with outside groups. He traveled infinitely more than any pope in history, and he reached out to an infinitely wider variety of people - but a large part of that is the reality of our time and the reality of his history. He was the first non-Italian pope in centuries, so he wasn't as likely to be ties to Rome. He was one of the youngest popes, so he had the physical stamina needed for extensive travel at the onset of his papacy. As he grew infirm, the mechanism for papal travel was already in place, so there were no great hurdles to prevent him from traveling.

He did reach out to Orthodox Christians, including the Russians. he constantly worked toward reunification between Rome and the Orthodox churches. Unfortunately, his vision of reunification didn't match the vision of the Orthodox partiarchs, so the distance between the churches remained. In any move toward unification, Rome views itself as "primus inter pares" (first among equals), and the Orthodox this Rome's view of "primus" is too dominant. It's a rift that has existed since 1054 (with animosity that festered for centuries before that).The churches have evolved differently in all that time, so unification is not something that can take place with the strok of a pen. The fact that there is even consideration of unification, is quite an accomplishment. Rather than speculating about animosity between Catholics and Orthodox and trying to assign blame, I think it's safer to say that the churches did not reach a satisfactory compromise, although both sides did make efforts. I don't know that I'd say there is real animosity on either side - but the relationship is certainly "guarded." Both sides are certainly considering unification, and that in itself is a huge step.

As for the Catholic Church being responsible for overpopulation, I think it's more a cultural thing than religious. You don't see large numbers of Catholics in the U.S. and Western Europe with families of ten children any more. In countries with large Catholic families, the factor determining family size seems to be as much cultural as it is religious. Still, I'd like to see the Catholic Church change its position and advocate population control - but changes like that take a long time.

As for the issue of child molestation by priests, I think it's fair to say that the Catholic Church did not handle it as well as it should have. I do think it needs to viewed realistically and with some balance. At least 95 percent of priests were not involved in child molestation in any way. Priests are supposed to be celibate, so they really don't have much experience in dealing with sexual matters, and their thinking about sex tends to be unrealistic. So, when a sex scandal erupts, it's unlikely that a bunch of celibate males are going to be able to deal with it effectively. And they didn't. They really bungled it. But on the other hand, child molestation happens everywhere, and nobody has really come up with an effective way of dealing with it. The American Way is to throw huge amounts of money at the victims, but that does little to heal the harm that has been done.

John Paul II was certainly more conservative than I would have liked, but I don't see him as a man driven by a conservative agenda. He did a decent job of administering the Catholic Church, and he did a lot to end the isolation of Rome from the rest of the world.

I suppose he'll be named a saint sooner or later, and I guess he deserves it. However, I think it would be a shame to canonize him before they get to John XXIII and Mother Theresa. I think Joseph Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago and Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker Movement should be in line for canonization before John Paul II, also - but I don't think that's going to happen.

-Joe Offer-