I think it bothers some traditionalists that John Paul would be called the “Great” because they don’t think he did enough. I think they make some valid points. On a related note, here’s a sort of compromise between the two sides:
John Paul the Fair. It’s not derogatory.
cornellsociety.org/2006/04/john-paul-the-fair/
*Some will allege John Paul’s string of accomplishments: he defended life, he upheld the unity of the Church, he brought some to the Faith, he spoke before princes and powers, and he lived a holy life. Macte! But this does not make a pope “great”; at most, this makes a pope “fair.” This much, remarkable as such feats seem to us, is the minimum expected of each and every Universal Pastor of the Church: history, the Church, and the many sainted occupants of the See of Peter, have set the bar very high.
Of course, there are a few extraordinary elements of John Paul’s pontificate that might still seem to indicate some superlative in his title. The most obvious would be the tremendous length of his reign, the breadth and magnitude — in length if naught else — of his writings, and the resulting influence he has had on the Church and the faithful. What, then, of the recent Blessed Pius IX, or Pope Leo XIII, both of whom exerted a similar presence, yet were unaided by modern media? Also frequently cited is John Paul’s undeniably heroic stand against the demonic spectre of Communism and his role in its downfall. Yet can we honestly ascribe the fullness of this downfall to the Pontiff without giving credit to Reagan, Thatcher, and others? Or should they all be called the Great?
It seems that the core of these claims is this. Because great things were afoot and John Paul responded in some positive way, he is himself great. Surely John Paul was foremost among other leaders who made their name in the end of the twentieth century: he was great as a man who lives a Christian life in view of the entire world, but not great as the Church bestows this singular title. Nothing in his list of accomplishments makes him exceptional in the history of the Church; at the end of a thousand pages of vindication, we will at best agree that he did his duty.
Instead of “the Great”, Ambrosius, Iacobus and Iosephus propose the title, John Paul the Fair, and this for several reasons. First, such a title needs to be revived - not that it was ever applied to the popes - but it is a classy medieval title, one which we be loath to see completely abandoned. Second, with the stipulation that we do not yet have the perspective of history to aid our judgment, it seems clear that John Paul II did not allow the Church to disintegrate on his watch; this is expected of every pontiff, but perhaps we are living in exceptional times, in what many have called the greatest crisis in the Church since the days of Arius, and so what was normal in other ages may come to be regarded as heroic in our own. Third, there is no doubt that John Paul was an handsome, athletic man, suave, with the refinements of both an actor and of a great education; he was more popular and well-known throughout the entire world than any rock or movie star.
It is this final element which seems to have vaulted him, beyond the merit of his deeds, beyond the sober judgment which would defer to history, into ranks of men like Gregory, Leo, and Nicholas. So we add a voice of caution to the clamorous multitude at this time when we remember the death of John Paul the Fair.*
