No one says he was perfect. He was, however, John Paul the Great. If you disagree, I would suggest that you will find easier and more valid targets in Benedict XV (1914-1922), John XXIII and Paul VI and that your memory may not be long enough to remember the bad old days of the 1960s. Most open criticism of JP II by those claiming Catholicism comes from SSPXers who are permanently angry over his application of justice to their heroes and to their schism. Most Catholics were more than satisfied. The schismatics were not.
If one is attacked as schismatic (i.e., an adherent of schismatic SSPX), it is sufficien to apologize if the info were wrong but reasonably founded. In the event that the target were schismatic, kindness is NOT owed to the performer of the usual dance of the schismatic pretending to be Catholic because the pope was wrong because_________(fill in the blank)__________. The pope sits in earthly judgment on us and not we on him. Examine your own conscience. Meanwhile, I will take your word for it in the absnce of further proof.
Seems to me that judgement(distinguishing good from evil) is a two-way street. If you cannot judge him as bad, you also cannot judge him as good. You seem to be setting yourself up as quite the judge of many on this forum.
That some may regard JP II as a less than stellar administrator is a mere matter of opinion. The conventional wisdom and the verdict of history are likely to disagree with that assessment.
It IS a matter of opinion Either Way. Conventional Wisdom is in the eye of the beholder. Fr. Richard McBrien believes that conventional wisdom dictates that Pope John XXIII is the greatest pope of all time. Here in Chicagoland, Cardinal Bernadin is seen as the best loved cardinal in diocesan history as you well know.