Bigger Than the Nobel

The New York Times ^ | 10/11/03 | David Brooks

[Pokey78]

I can't imagine he cares, but Pope John Paul II, who has had a more profound influence on more people than any other living human being, is never going to win the Nobel Peace Prize. For years, prize watchers have felt that the Norwegian committee would have no choice but to give him the award, even if he does have unfashionable views on abortion. And this, oddsmakers predicted, was his year. His health is fragile, and his fervent opposition to the war in Iraq would have pleased the impeccably liberal committee.

But I like to think the members of the committee understood the central truth, that they could not give the prize to John Paul. He is too big and complex for their award. The project he is engaged in — still engaged in — defies their categories.

Instructed by faith, trained by the hard history of Central Europe, the young Karol Wojtyla came to believe that "the evil of our times consists in the first place in a kind of degradation, indeed in a pulverization, of the fundamental uniqueness in each person." The Nazis tried to reduce individuals to their racial makeup, the Marxists to their class status.

John Paul II dedicated his life to the defense of the whole and the indivisible dignity of each person. At the core of each individual, he believes, is the moral need to seek truth.

The "fundamental error of socialism," he writes, "is anthropological." It tries to pare down human beings into something narrower and more degraded than they really are. It tries to crush, among other things, their search for God.

So when John Paul II went to Poland and Cuba early in his papacy, he told the crowds, "You are not who they say you are." The result was a cultural revolution. One young Polish student, quoted in George Weigel's biography, "Witness to Hope," heard the teaching and realized, "Now what I wanted to do was to live without being a liar."

The pope has tried to defend the dignity of personhood in all spheres, and this has meant that he does not conform to ordinary political categories.

While respecting private property, he has been suspicious of the utilitarian calculus of capitalism, and embraced welfare state policies that put him far to the left.

Defending the dignity of life from the moment of conception to the moment of death, he has fought abortion, euthanasia and the scientific refashioning of human nature, putting himself on the side of conservatives.

His main achievement has been to remind us — Catholics and even us non-Catholics — that you can't pare people down. We do this all the time without realizing it. When we write for newspapers, or talk in public, we generally speak as if democracy and freedom are ends in themselves. We give our heroes prizes for curing diseases and clearing land mines.

Those things, grand as they are, are insufficient, the pope is always insisting. Democracy is just a system. Freedom is just an opportunity to do good or bad. The essence of life is not long life, but true life.

The pope is always taking us out of our secular comfort zone and dragging us toward ultimate issues. You can't talk about politics, economics, science, philosophy or war, he argues, while conveniently averting your eyes from God and ultimate truth.

In its statement lauding this year's winner, Shirin Ebadi, the Norwegian Nobel Committee celebrates her commitment to dialogue and democracy. But where the authors of that statement stop thinking is where the pope picks up.

Dialogues toward what truth? Democracy for what? He understands we will never persuade a radical Islamist to give up his absolute grip on what he sees as God's truth if all we are offering is a tepid dialogue on the need to get along. We need to show him truth with tolerance. This is the challenge of the increasingly religious 21st century, and the pope, a philosopher more than an activist, is far out ahead.

Shirin Ebadi is obviously a courageous person, doing vitally important work. Nothing takes away from her heroism. But when history looks back on our era, Pope John Paul II will be recognized as the giant of the age, as the one individual who did the most to place democracy and freedom at the service of the highest human goals.  

[Agnes Heep]

The Nobel Peace Prize is given for those who do the best job talking about peace, not those who actually secure it.

[Support Free Republic]

Hi mom!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Jimmy Carter received the N prize to send a political message to George Bush.

It is a joke that this woman got the prize over the Pope this year. She was a long shot even with those who dislike what the Pope stands for.

She may 'deserve' it, but everything considered, the fact that the Pope was passed over while on his deathbed (and against the Iraq war to boot!) can only be construed as another Nobel "message"...

[freedumb2003]

Nothing takes away from her heroism. But when history looks back on our era, Pope John Paul II will be recognized as the giant of the age, as the one individual who did the most to place democracy and freedom at the service of the highest human goals.

How the Pope must create problems for the NY Times. The Catholic Church is basically Leftist: against the Iraq war, for Illegal Immigration, believes in Commmunist ideals in terms of taking money from those who earn it and giving it to those who create more kids than they can afford -- but the Church is also for the things the Left abhors: Personal responsibility, anti-homo, anti-abortion, pro-family.

I am astonished they actually published this! The Pope is a Man Of His Word. Agree or disagree with him, he has standards, scruples and integrity. He knows where he stands and doesn't vascillate.

God Bless the Pope and I hope everyone is praying for him. And, yes, he was ripped off. A post-mortem Nobel will be of little significance.

[per loin]

The nobel would be but a trinket attached to this man.

[I still care]

Excellent, insightful article. Thanks for posting this.

[publius1]

Why would a Nobel mean anything to him, when his gaze is so firmly focused on things that dwarf any prize in this earthly vale? And to the rest of us, what is it that makes us want these people to hold the pope up there with the likes of Jimmy carter and Arafat? Are we so desperate to have our views of this holy man validated by those who denigrate our values?

I confess, I would have liked the pope to rexceive the recognition too; but I'm not sure that I know why.

[jocon307]

"The nobel would be but a trinket attached to this man."

Yes, well put.

[catonsville]

After the recent scandals at the NYT, they decided to add Brooks as their second token conservative columnist. (Saffire Is the first) Good selection: he is a terrific writer and idea man.
Took the scandal though to get him a proper place on the TIMES.

[Cicero]

Good article, and very much on the mark.

Safire writes a good article like this about once a year. The rest of the year he just messes around with trivialities. If Brooks does better than that it will be a real plus. Not that I would ever spend a dime on the Times.

[mezz]

David Brooks makes the dubious claim (facetiously, I guess) that the reason the Pope wasn't given the Nobel Peace Prize is because he's "too big and complex for their award."

No, sir. I'm guessing it's much more to do with his open hostility towards gays. Earlier this year, he couldn't resist the urge to come out and advise people of another church not to ordain gay men.

Brooks goes on to say, "The pope has tried to defend the dignity of personhood in all spheres, and this has meant that he does not conform to ordinary political categories."

All spheres, huh? No, that's just not true. Did you know that the Pope has met with Yassir Arafat (who also ironically is a Nobel recipient), but he refuses to meet with gay Catholic leaders?

I hope a man so openly hostile to the gay community never wins the Nobel Peace Prize. He simply doesn't deserve it.

[per loin]

I hope a man so openly hostile to the gay community never wins the Nobel Peace Prize. He simply doesn't deserve it.

I understand that there are bunches of you folks who believe that getting your butts banged is the single most important issue on the planet, but there are others, such as the pope, who have a healthier view of the human condition. Endure your sickness rather than trying to convince others that it ought be celebrated.

[mezz]

How sad and typical that you'd presume that because I'm defending gays, I must be gay. What a narrow little world you live in.

Homosexuality isn't a sickness. It's not a choice. And any religious leader who treats gays like 2nd-class citizens, shouldn't pretend to "defend the dignity of personhood in all spheres" (as Brooks says). That makes him a hypocrite.

[per loin]

It's a deformity. I class your championing of that deformity with those in "the deaf community" who campaign against medical research to cure deafness on the ground that such research could cause the shrinkage or even disappearance of the deaf community.

[mezz]

If homosexuality is a deformity, why do you feel such contempt for gays? Do you hate the deaf and the blind?

If homosexuality is a deformity, what is it about this deformity that prevents gays from enjoying their lives? (Nothing I can think of except perhaps for external forces beyond their control: e.g bigotry.)

If homosexuality is a deformity, why don't gays want to be healed? Perhaps because they feel right about themselves and believe they can live thier lives quite happily without having to be straightened out to be like the rest of us.

If homosexuality is a deformity, why are you so afraid of it?

Being gay isn't a deformity, my friend. It's a joyful experience for many people and you should either learn to acknowledge that or ingore that which doesn't appeal to your tastes and move on.

Hatred towards gays is a human rights issue. And trying to change people who are enjoying their lives to suit your (mistaken) personal beliefs is a human rights issue, too.

[mware]

I recall right after the death of John Cardinal O'Connor an end of the year review by INSIDE NY, had a 10 best things to happen in the year. A columinist representing Gays sited the number one event as the death of the Cardinal.

I just wonder if the author of that column knew that the Cardinal volunteered thousands of hours to going to hospitals comforting those afflicted with AIDS. I would like to see just how many hours the columinist spent comforting dying people.

The Holy Father has made it quite clear that one should love the sinner not the sin.

[per loin]

So my assumption about you was right on, eh? Much more accurate than your assumptions about me. I neither hate nor fear you butt bangers. But neither am I willing to pretend that such a deformity ought be treated as healthy. It is a deformity.

Does that mean that I favor homosexuals being denied civil rights? No. But our ideas of what constitute civil rights may differ widely. Having the pope endorse your mistaken views on your deformity is not a civil right.

[mezz]

No, your assumption was completely wrong. Again, apparently, your thinking is so incredibly narrow, your ability to assimilate new ideas so limited that you can't even begin to imagine a heterosexual defending a homosexual.

Also, you're not very accurate - I never mentioned civil rights - I mentioned human rights. And furthermore I made a case for homosexuality not being a deformity and you haven't bothered to answer it. That's clearly because you don't have any answers. If you can't properly engage in a debate, just go ahead and step out of the arena. If this were a court case, you'd have lost it. Which really confirms for me that you're not about ideas, just feelings. And the feelings you have are hate, contempt, and apparently willful ignorance. I don't have time for such rubbish.

One more thing though - you do hate and fear. Otherwise you wouldn't care what other people did in the privacy of their own homes and you wouldn't refer to them with in such a vulgar fashion ("butt bangers"). Are you a "pussy banger"? Would that be an appropriate way to refer to heterosexuals? Maybe you're enough of a Cro-Magnon to think so.

[mezz]

So your point is that the Cardinal *may* have visited more people in hospital with AIDS than a single columnist. *May.* You haven't even proved that. Even if it were true (and it may well be), you'd be engaging a propaganda device: you can't take the single example of one mean-spirited columnist and paint a whole portion of society with the same brush.

Your assumption about loving the sinner and not the sin is steeped in presumptuousness, too, since it presumes homosexuality is a sin (and that I agree with that). Such a belief in the 21st century amounts to the same sort of superstition that had our forefathers burning "witches" at the stake. Your Bible (or at least your reading of it) certainly describes homosexuality as an "abomination." I have a simple answer for that point: I don't believe your Bible. So it's up to you to prove to me I should before you can successfully use the Bible to support your arguments.

You should know, however, that I was raised Baptist and I done learned the Good Book real good. I then concluded that although the Bible has a lot of good things to say, it's not really inspired by God and there's a lot of stuff (if you'll forgive such an imprecise word) that holds no relevance today. Much of it was stepped in the fears and bigotry of the day in which it was written. Unfortunately, so many centuries later, we're still struggling to leave these primitive prejudices behind.