Pope John Paul II

[Arnobius]

It’s not my ‘sense of orthodoxy’ that i use as a basis; it isnt some personal view, or personal interpretation. I look at JPII’s actions in the light of centuries of sacred traditions. There were additions and alterations.

As i have said in other posts, i think a lot of JPII’s more liberal actions, the ones that really tick off traditionalists, arent really his fault as much as we sometimes think they are. I really think his papacy, especially the last bit of it, was hijacked by the left wing entrenched in the Vatican as he grew more and more frail.

Athanasius, in his excellent blog, comments on this:

athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2007/08/mai-santo-re-examining-john-paul-ii.html
athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/2005/11/john-paul-ii-should-not-be-canonized.html

As he says, “these are of course not judgements of John Paul II’s soul, but criticisms of his public actions which are in the open for everyone to view.”

But the problem is he is evaluating things from his own opinion of public actions, psychoanalyzing the Pope… I am not seeing the credibility of his evaluations here, and would not consider a blog a credible source.

The logic is bad:

1. *]The Pope was an actor
   *]The Pope had a sense of style of presentation
   *]Therefore he was trying to reclaim his acting past
   
   Garbage from an objective POV
   
   What it all comes down to is mere speculation without basis.
   
   It still is similar to Protestantism and the Personal Interpretation of Scripture they do. The issue is not the events. It is the interpretation of events that are being done, and when all is said and done, we still have the errors of Begging the Question and Affirming the Consequent where things are assumed that are not logically supported.