On balance, this pope has done more harm than good. In fact, the good has been minimal.
Sorry, I can't agree with your assessment in its entirety. We must remember that this is the era of the Fatima "or" (as Fatima gave the pope of 1960 and "rither/or" propsition. He chose "or" - and we are now living under the effect of that "or". There is a diabolic disorientation of the mind which is affecting all men, and particulaly the clergy. This Pope - even though he is under the special protection of Mary - is still mortal, and can be misled, swayed into making mistakes. And he certainly has. But not because he is himself evil - but because he is human. This does not excuse him for responsibility for what has happened these 25 years under his watch. Realize also, that now as a feeble old man, his enemies in the Vatican can get away with more, as they have more power, and he is less able to resist them. If he has erred, it has certainly been on the side of love and tolerance - perhaps foolishly. This I would agree with. But he is "the last pope of these Catholic times". And the one to come after him may well be the Antipope of history, according to prophecy. So, before he leaves us - flawed though he is - John Paul is trying to prepare us for the future. I dont agree with all he has done, But I do agree with the charity and love he has shown. Remember, the words of Christ to St. Peter: "when you are old, others will dress you and lead you where you would not go".
After Christ tells Peter about getting old and that others will dress him and lead him where he does not want to go,He tells Peter that what he must do is follow Him. That is;Peter must follow Christ. And as Catholics,we have believed that the Pope speaks for Christ on earth and we should listen to him and follow his lead. It makes me wonder about a lot of things.
You present a rational take on the topic of JPII. I think he's a 'liberal,' but more a Hubert Humphrey or Daniel Moynihan 'liberal;' he's certainly not a Modernist.
As to your prognistication about the 'last Pope of these Catholic times,' that's a bit vague. Perhaps you can explicate.
I never said the Pope was evil. I said he was a bad pope--in the sense one can be a bad teacher or a bad politician. I did not mean he was morally evil. But he has been reckless in his pontificate--and sometimes derelict. Both attitudes are dangerous indicators.
It is hard, for instance, not to blame him for failing to institute necessary reforms--in the seminaries, in the Liturgy, in the way we choose our bishops. He has reformed the canonization process, but the reform only did away with necessary safeguards--which has only cheapened the process and politicized it. He also reformed the College of Cardinals, reconfiguring the way a future pope will be chosen--again relaxing standards, to what end we can only guess. But other than this, he has allowed the Church to drift without using the full benefits of his office to institute reform. Not even the huge scandals that have washed over his pontificate have moved him to make heads roll when they certainly needed to. In fact, offending cardinals have more often than not been bumped upstairs. His general inaction or indifference to serious wrongs has inflicted huge damage on the Church.
He has certainly not been sympathetic to Catholic Tradition, and many of his actions raise eyebrows among traditional Catholics especially. It's hard to understand, for instance, why he opposed Archbishop Lefebvre so forcefully for defending the traditional Mass and the traditional priesthood, yet does nothing even now to oppose openly apostate bishops or bishops who are obviously corrupt or bishops who encourage outrageous liturgical abuses. People wonder about these kinds of double-standards.
I don't buy for a second he is now a feeble old man--except in the physical sense. He was sharp enough mentally in his opposition to the Iraq war and took it upon himself to meet with Saddam's representative to undermine the President at the UN. He is still traveling around the world celebrating his own celebrity it seems. But there are few signs he takes seriously the calamity of the present crisis. For decades he spoke of a coming springtime in the Church. Now finally he is beginning to talk about a "silent apostasy" in the Church. But it is too little too late. Meanwhile he has just published a book of poetry and a book of memoirs and is said to be preparing a philosophic discourse based on a discussion he had years ago with a European intellectual. That's all very nice--but irrelevant.
I especially don't buy the excuse that he is not responsible for an agenda that has been increasingly radical ecumenically. He organized Assisi I and II despite the advice of most of his curia. He is still pushing that pan-religious policy--which previous popes have warned was heretical.