John Paul the Great?

[palmas85]

I knew you did not agree. I am not alone in this opinion and am not naive. The last person I heard that held the same opinion was Peter Kreeft who called John Paul II the greatest man of the last century. We do not have to agree and hold the same opinions, but failure to do so is not a sign of naivete.

No but an obstinate refusal to see the truth in favor of holding on to a cherished opinion could be so considered.

 

[pnewton]

No but an obstinate refusal to see** the truth** in favor of holding on to a cherished opinion could be so considered.

Begging the question, pure and simple.

 

[RosaMystica]

As much as I love both Pope Benedict XVI and the late Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (who, I believe, was one of the first to use the word “great” in referring to Pope John Paul II), I would have to wait on the designation. I loved Pope John Paul II, but, I think that we need to look back with some objectivity as to what he did and did not do.

I think the best thing that came out of his papacy was his convincing a brilliant and eminent German theologian to come and clean up the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This ws the best gift that he could have left the Church.

Yes, he traveled the world, but, so did St. Paul, at least the known world at the time. Peter needs to see the flock and to strengthen them. However, during these trips, perhaps the time could have been spent to reign in the errant bishops and exercise some discpline. Even the ad limina visits could have been more effective, although, to his credit, he did clean up the mess with the Australian bishops conference which was allowing wholesale usage of General Absolution and other abuses. He also took a stand to curb liturgcial abuses, promulgating documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum and Ecclesia de Mysterio. And, through th Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, he laid the groundwork to fix the awful ICEL translations through the document Liturgiam Authenticam.

Yes, there were some huge blunders such as the Assisi debacle. As well meaning as his intenions were, the messages were certainly mixed and muddled. It was not one of his better moments. He probably should have taken a more direct role in handling the molestation mess, although, to his credit, he did delegate the duty to the former Cardinal Ratzinger who wasted no time trying to get the matter resolved.

Yes, I am giving the former Prefect of the CDF a lot of credit, but, he deserves it. He was John Paul’s most loyal collaborator and the one who pulled a heavy share of the workload.

BenedictGal,

I’m so glad you’re on this forum. You always say just what I want to say, but you say it better than I ever could! God Bless you!

 

[HollyDolly]

No not for me for reality. Look at it this way. Every area and action that the great supporters have brought up to prove the title is deserved can be said about a hundred other saints who do not carry the honorific the great. Did he reign for a long long time? Yes he did. But so did Pius XIV who reigned even longer and Leo XII who reigned just a little less. neither of them are even saints yet… John Paul II suffered greatly, lived a good holy life and touched millions. Yes he did but so did St Bernadette and to a much greater degree. Yet she is not called the great. Why not?

How about St Ignatius of Loyola?. He founded the Jesuit order which were arguably one of the most prolific missionary groups that ever existed and directly converted untold millions to the faith. His contribution to Catholicism is tremendous and dwarfs anything just about anyone else has ever done, yet he is not awarded the title the great Why not? How about any one of the scores of martyrs worldwide who chose death rather than to dishonor and discredit the faith. Who died rather than compromise. None of them carry that honorific and they actually died for the faith. Actually knowingly gave their lives up,

So I ask, what is the criteria? What actually counts?

Lets look at one who does carry that honorific, St Leo the Great, who reigned during a time of turmoil and destruction of the Roman Empire for about 21 years from 440-461 CE

He combated heresy throughout his entire papacy. He did not consider their viewpoints to be alternative forms of Christianity. He called them heretics and stood up for the faith unceasingly. He did not back down and accept a conciliatory stance. No, he knew what was right and stood up for it because he knew full well the enormous implications of backing down…

In a fateful face to face meeting with Atila the Hun in 452, rather than attack, Atila turned away from Rome based solely on the power commanded by Leo the Great, Several years later Leo repeated this with the vandal Genseric. Both of these encounters were done at great personal risk to him yet he did not flinch.

From just these few examples one can clearly can see what this man was called the Great for he truly was.

St.Leo showed he had guts. Attila and Genseric as leaders understood that, Leo was willing to die if need be for Rome and his fellow christians and they respected that.
I would not call John Paul 2 “great” because look at the sex abuse scandal in the church.
Surely reports must have been sent to Rome by lay people and other priests and nuns who were concerned and went to their bishops or sent letters to Rome about the problem,and it seems that JP2 made no attempt to do anything about it nor forced the bishops to either.And this was something going on for years.