Replies

I am sympathetic to your complaint.

Only guess I have is that Rome was so full of termites when JPII came to town (and he knew it) that he couldn't be TOO active without some problems.

And I think that the biggest potential problem he faced then was that if he started shooting, the bad guys would shoot back with "outings", naming-the-Masons, and finding a few other little skeletons here, there, and everywhere.

That sort of nuclear war would be intolerable. Sure, the Church would be left standing--but if it cost several million Faithful who left in disgust, cui bono??

It's clear to you and me that saving one's soul is up to oneself. No Cardinal or Bishop can do it for you; we can't phone it in. It's also worth remembering that a mis-catechized individual does not necessarily bear total responsibility for sins they have objectively committed.

This is not an argument for flaccidity, by any means, and it is obvious that JPII's appointments in the recent past in the USA demonstrate that he knows who's who.

OTOH, the Torquemada Gentlemen's Club is still taking members. If you have skill with building fires, or tracking down perps, or cross-examination, feel free to join.

I accept your argument. I want to clarify one point. I was trying to make clear that if Rome is being too gentle by not excommunicating and such that they may be placing more souls in jeopardy than by trying to avoid a schism. Perhaps I am wrong. I am open to correction.

BTW, some on EWTN have made the point that Torquemada was a holy priest and badly misrepresented by historical revisionists.

That sort of nuclear war would be intolerable. Sure, the Church would be left standing--but if it cost several million Faithful who left in disgust, cui bono?? I hate to beat a dead horse, but the above is my point. I am concerned about losing many faithful. Which would be worse? Rome taking a stand and calling the Truth the Truth or quietly doing things while millions are taught error? Do you think I overstate?