One of the last towering figures of the twentieth century has died. Pope John Paul II will be remembered for forcefully standing up to both Communism and to politicized efforts to force the Church to abandon its teaching on hot-button issues. Succeeding one of the shortest serving popes, John Paul II served longer than all but two of his predecessors. We are used to seeing this pope as an old man, but when the college of cardinals elected Karol Józef Wojtyla the Holy Father in 1978 he was then the youngest pope since 1846. He was the first non-Italian pope since the 16th century. The Communists tried to kill him in 1981. He survived, but Communism didn't--at least on the continent he called home. The next pope has some large shoes to fill, but then again so do all popes.

Truly a sad tale. JP2 was a giant of a man, spending his life as a leading figure in the struggle against communism, reforming the Catholic Church for the new world, and restoring good Catholic-Jewish relations.

The Pope stood up against evil in his times. He stood up to Communism in the 1980's and he stood up to Bush's war mongering bellicosity in 2002. He was a courageous and righteous Pope.

There are some really good guys of the 20c, but most of the really impactful figures were bad guys. If we have a formula to measure impact and goodness, I think JPII comes out higher than other other figure of the century.

Were most of the really impactful figures the bad guys? I think thats a pessimistic, and in the end inaccurate claim.

Who made a greater impact on the world? Adolf Hitler, who killed millions, or Winston Churchill, who refused to lay down in the face of evil and eventually helped make the world safe for democracy?

Was a greater impact on the world wrought by Joeseph Stalin or Ronald Reagan?

Who won out in the end? Lech Walesa or the Soviet oppressors he faced?

The 20th century was one of hardship, death, and war. But I think in the end, as we go into the 21st century, the victory has been won by the forces of good, not evil.

Ben its past your bedtime!!!!

The Pope was indeed a great man and leader. The larger question now is who succeeds him. Do they get bold and elect Arinze as the first African pope? Or Hummes from Houndoras? Will the Italian block demmand the Papacy return to Italy. One question that has remained unanswered is where does this leave Frank Stallone?

I don't want to dump on JPII too much, but not everyone looks at him with rose colored glasses. To me the Church is in a very weak state, one that the former pontiff could have done much to fix but rather he fiddled with ecumenism and soft balled a lot of issues rather than taking very hard stands.

"Ben its past your bedtime!!!!"

Yes Maury clearly only fools are consitently optimistic. Stupid, stupid fools like Gandhi, Churchill, Reagan, and Jesus of Nazareth.

Ben T: (1) Was Jesus consistently optimistic? ... about long-term stuff? Yes (but not for everybody). ... about short-term and medium-term stuff? No, absolutely not. Remember the "Go sell your cloaks and buy swords" line?

(2) You are confusing the question of impact with the question of victory. Who had more impact, Hitler and Stalin or Churchill and Reagan? No question: the Evil Duo. Look I love Thatcher, but (apart from the question of "who wins in the end") who had more impact, Thatcher or Lenin? No Doubt, Lenin! Explanation: It's harder to do really good things for people than it is to do really bad things to them.

Jesus was consistently optimistic about the fate of man, I would say. No, he wasn't optimistic about everything in the world, but if he hadnt been a long term optimist, why would he have bothered going to the cross?

Its a point of view matter, but i would say the evil duo had the lesser impact. Whether or not you end up winning is the crux of whether or not you have the greater impact. Democracy and capitalism rule the world, meanwhile, communism, and fascism are almost entirely memories of history.

I'm glad you agree that Jesus wasn't "consistently optimistic" about humans.

Look, if you start a fight, kill 100+ million people in the process, and a bunch of people (and reality) finally stops you -- who is more impactful, the one who starts the fight, or the people who responded and after a while ends it? Get real. I love Reagan. But Stalin certainly had more historical impact.

If Stalin had more historical impact than why isn't the Soviet Union the world's only superpower?

Winston Churchill said truly: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

The Dark Lords of the Sith have had the most impact!!...face it theyve killed all the Jedi but me and Yoda and lets not forget the entire planet of Alderann!