I have been in controversy over at Hallowed Ground. Jeff posted a portion of an article by Christopher Ferrara from The Remnant. The portion excerpted has some truth to it, but the final paragraph of the excerpt (and much of the tone of the overall article if read in entirety) I find to be untrue.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Are we better off than we were 26 years ago?
Here is the key to Mr. Feerara's belief regarding John Paul II's pontificate:
"Whoever wishes to love the Pope as he ought to be loved must be willing to say now, in charity and in truth, that John Paul II was a ruler whose words often said one thing while his actions said another, and that the contradictions which marked his reign have produced enormous confusion in the Church that must be undone by his successor."
I am not in this camp.
I don't believe John Paul was a bad pope. I believe he was a great pope. Unfortunately, great is measured over many, many years. I believe that both the 2nd Vatican Council and John Paul's pontificate are intimately linked and both are for the GOOD of the Church. Traditionalists correctly understand this - but some may not understand how Vatican II was needed and is still needed by the Church.
The 2nd Vatican Council's pastoral reforms (of which JPII as bishop has much to do with) have been hijacked and rejected over the years. Things are getting better in this regard - but slowly, too slowly. There is still time to implement Vatican II or finally reject it. Rejecting it will be rejecting the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church. Similarly the we can reject the proposals of John Paul II - but at our own peril.
A student of history will realize that personal holiness has always been the key to reform of the Church - from even worse times than these. We can grouse and complain - but our time is better spent on our knees. This does not mean we close our eyes to sacrilege, lies, etc. But we must realize that God can fix problems we can't - and thus we need to bombard Heaven with our pleas.
Oremus pro invicem!