A wiser perspective after the event .....
Well, let this one faint voice then praise John Paul the Great for not only his worldly efforts, which indeed earn him a place in secular history, but also for his bedrock conservative values.
This is a hateful piece of trash. What is ironic is this nutball attaches himself to this Pope for the very same reason he castigates others - using the Pope to further their own unorthodox ideas.
I don't think criticism of Pope JPII was necessarily rooted in Charity.
I think jealousy permeated a lot of the criticism aimed at him. He used the technology of the age in such a way that he demystified the Papacy in certain ways. He didn't totally demystify it, he made it and the Pope more approachable. I don't really think there's anything wrong with that.
He may have merited some criticism, he was capable of error. He was capable of not seeing his error as error. He was capable of being hard-headed, prideful, etc. Until the Pope is no longer fully human, how can we defend against this? Whatever his errors, his critics are the ones who seem incapable of forgiving him.
As far as the Saint thing goes, I think it's a little premature too, but doesn't our History recall that many people were raised to Sainthood shortly following their death, and mainly because of a similar type of popularity?
THE POPE ON SEX ABUSE:
In 1960 (before Vatican II), there were 400 annual incidents of sexual abuse per year. In 1978, when John Paul II took the throne, there were about 750. In 1994, before the media caught wind of the crisis, there were less than fifty, about 90% fewer than before Vatican II.
THE POPE ON HERESY:
In 1978, the American Catholic Church was in OPEN revolt against the church, with bishops openly proclaiming the righteousness of birth control, abortion seriously debated among the Catholic "faithful," a faulty translation of the ICEL which contained the seed for literally dozens of heresies, a GIRM which was completely ignored, and the near-universal expectation that within a few years there would be women priests, a rescinding of the birth control proscriptions and even talk of the abolishment of the priesthood in favor of a "priesthood of all believers."
In 2005, while there is still disobedience at the parish level and in seminaries, the bishops at least speak as though the prohibitions on birth control and female priests were accepted as infallible. The eternity of the church's doctrines is presumed. Bishops dare not speak in favor of birth control, and if they come close (like Godfried Daneels), they quickly covered up.
This is the political equivalent of replacing a party of Ted Kennedys with a party of Rick Santorums: maybe many phonies, but the new direction is clear. And the new generation of priests are more like Tom Tancredos.
THE POPE ON THE PRIESTHOOD:
In 1978, the number of priests was in full-scale collapse around the globe. In 2005, the number is growing, although still insufficiently to make up for the previous collapse. More encouragingly, the number of seminarians in America is up, in spite of the terrible scandals recently. Plus, the distributio of priests is much more sensible. In 1978, the priesthood was European and American, while the native priests to congregants ratios of many 3rd-world nations was in the tens of thousands.
CONCLUSION: Pope John Paul II never put the genie of Vatican 2 back in the bottle. It is highly improbable that he believed it could or should be. But what devestated the church following Vatican 2 were terrible abuses done in the name of the "Spirit of Vatican 2." The Pope has stopped this slouching cold.
None of this can be appreciated by sedevacantists and so-called "traditionalists." All that matters to them is that the New Order liturgy (which they blaspemously call NO liturgy) is still in use.
Over a thousand posts say you (as well as the author of this nutty piece) are wrong!
Pure tripe. Why did you waste the bandwidth?
Chrissy Ferrara is so full of himself I'm taking bets as to when he's going to explode.
This is exactly what one can expect from an outfit whose stated directive to John Paul II was
We resist you to your face!
Notice how none of these guys can say something in 500 words. Prolix hounds, all of them.
From the article:
Here we see most clearly what was pointed out earlier: That certain Catholics are assisting world opinion in the use of one Pope to undermine respect for all the others. How pleased Arroyo was to elevate John Paul II as “the people’s pope” at the expense of all his predecessors, whom he suggested were vainglorious royalists and popinjays partial to red tassels. This is neo-Catholic hubris at its height: the Church of today is so much more enlightened than the medieval kingdom of forty years ago."
OK.
It's right there, on the first page.
I'll see it every time I read JPII's writings or reflect on his life or indeed pray for his intercession. It will surely make me pause and think "careful now..........".
Yawn.
Ferrara's latest screed against the late Pope reminds me of Bill Clinton's statement that Pope John Paul II "is like all of us; he may have a mixed legacy.":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378805/posts
At least, to his credit, Clinton doesn't claim to be a Catholic.
Nattering narcissists like Clinton and Ferrara and similar ego-driven petulant pygmies of pettiness on both the right and the left live in a dream world when they place Karol Wojltya and themselves on the same level.
They can now bid "Adieu" to what's left of their credibility.
John E