Doubt is doubt.
Some are rosy followers of the Vatican.
Some are cerebral.
I am not Catholic because the Vatican tells me to be. I have studied my faith.
That JPII will one day be in heaven is something I trust. That he changed the process for canonization is something I know. That this is right, I have my doubts. I have no clue why one would consider that a Catholic can not have doubts.
I don’t blindly follow the cult of personality and the devastation of the Catholic Church is evident. You have to balance the collapse of communism with the collapse of the Catholic Church in the West. He presided over both. Record numbers of priests laicised; spectacular decline in vocations; churches closed and sold off; dioceses bankrupted by court fines. This cannot be simply overlooked, in the context of such a long pontificate.
Denying that is denying reality.
You are over-looking the many other factors having to do with what was happening in the Church during that period of time.
The decline in vocations, church closures, incurred debts, etc. have their origins in other factors that are too important to overlook. To heap the blame for all these happenings onto one person doesn’t make good sense and is also a form of denial in itself, I would say.
Scapegoating Pope John Paul II for everything that was happening is not a balanced, factually honest assessment of those times.
Why? Is this some sort of personal magisterium you're exercising here?
If he's responsible (at least in part) for a disaster of epic proportions, why isn't he in hell? I've had conversations with SSPXers and sede vacanatists who implied just that.
That he changed the process for canonization is something I know. That this is right, I have my doubts. I have no clue why one would consider that a Catholic can not have doubts.
When does "doubt" become "disbelief"? It's an important question. You seem to be dancing with words here. If the Church canonizes JPII, will you humbly accept that JPII is a saint of the Church? Yes or no?
This is critically important. If Pope Benedict XVI (or a subsequent Pope) tells me that John Paul II is a saint when in fact he is no such thing, why should I believe him when he tells me that embryonic stem cell research is immoral or that priestly celibacy is right for the Latin Church?
Where does it end?