See an announcement here. I don't have time for religion in general, but I do recognize that he catered to a vast constituency, and his influence on world affairs has been significant.
John Paul's legacy has definitely had its negative aspects, especially where contraception and AIDS has been concerned, but with an eye on the long term, I do think that Karol Wojtyla will be assessed as having been one of the better holders of the Bishopric of Rome in a very, very long time, on the order of centuries; even disregarding the significance of his strong stance against communism, the mere fact that he wasn't venal, antisemitic or a cynical power-monger puts him head and shoulders above the vast majority of Popes. I'll readily acknowledge that this isn't necessarily so much a statement of the man's own high moral standing as it is a reminder of the sheer depravity of the typical holder of the office he occupied, but John Paul II definitely did come across as a decent human being who took his office seriously, and sincerely advocated the positions he thought most beneficial to his "flock" out of a genuine concern for their well-being, however much said positions might have struck those of us who are free of the affliction of religion as misguided. The Catholic Church would be very lucky indeed to get a man of equal caliber as John Paul II's replacement.
Yeah, I'm not religious either, but it is sad and he always seemed like a decent guy. I rember seeing him when I was a kid on his first visit to Poland (before the assasination, hence before the famous Popemobile).
Posted by: radek | April 03, 2005 at 04:28 AM
Well, let's just hope they don't elect yet another mediocre Italian to replace him. 455 years of Italians following each other in the Vatican didn't do the place any good.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | April 03, 2005 at 08:04 AM
NPR has a list of potential successors to pope John Paul II: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4570955
Die Presse (http://www.diepresse.at) has a nice picture gallery of potential successors (see: Papstamt: Mögliche Nachfolger, right bar).
Posted by: Michael Stastny | April 03, 2005 at 02:54 PM
Acouple of months ago there was a little op/ed in the NYT by an Italian to the effect that he hoped the next Pope would be Italian, because the Papacy was that Italy had left of the Roamn Empire - certainly the single most damning thing a person can say about the Church.
For a few years the name you most often heard as a succesor was Arinze, but he hasn't seemed to get much mention in the last few days, probably a good sign. All the front-runners are just a screening force for the man they will eventually choose.
Posted by: Jim | April 04, 2005 at 04:33 PM
"certainly the single most damning thing a person can say about the Church"
Yes, the Italian sense of proprietorship over the post of "Pontifex Maximus" really is telling.
Posted by: Abiola Lapite | April 04, 2005 at 04:37 PM
Well, I can understand why people in Rome might reasonably expect that the Bishop of Rome might at least be an Italian. What is astonishing is the implied comparison of the Church with the Empire. It has been said that it is not the fall of the Roman Empire that needs to be explained, but the fact that it survived at all. The Italians have yet to show much talent for running governments, and it's going on 2,500 years now.
Posted by: Jim | April 04, 2005 at 05:32 PM
"Well, I can understand why people in Rome might reasonably expect that the Bishop of Rome might at least be an Italian."
Yea.. a non-Italian Bishop of Rome would be like someone not from Washington, DC having plenary power over Washington DC! ...oh, wait.
Posted by: Andrew | April 04, 2005 at 10:41 PM
"Yea.. a non-Italian Bishop of Rome would be like someone not from Washington, DC having plenary power over Washington DC! ...oh, wait."
Well, more like a mayor, or well, a bishop. Mussolini winkled most of Rome out from under the Pope's plenary power.
Posted by: Jim | April 04, 2005 at 11:53 PM