[ultima ratio]

How so? --Specifics, please. Everything I have said is documentable, including this Pontiff's recent retreat into silence on Gibson's movie--despite the attacks on the Gospels on which it was based and the desperate need in the culture for a film like this after years of anti-Christian attacks in the media. Yet his defenders will insist he is a supporter of tradition. When it is demonstrated he is highly unorthodox--and in fact has placed in high places extremely unorthodox churchmen--the response is like yours--that I must hate the Pope, just as Dean hates Bush. But I am merely being factual and underscoring that the traditional faith and Catholic culture in general has been savagely undermined under the leadership of JPII. Supporters will blame everybody else but him for the long decline and the pandemic scandals, but in the end he alone must be held responsible since he alone has appointed the men who do these things. Having said this, of course we must respectful in our criticism--but this does not mean being willfully blind; nor does it mean we must not cry out when we experience so painfully how the faith is being daily weakened by men this Pontiff appoints and controls.

[RobbyS]

Let's focus on the question of canonization. It is well-known that most Christian saints have been picked by popular acclaim, or because their cause has been pushed by religious orders. As for the number of saints proclaimed, there are more than a billion Catholics in this world. I hope that more than a select handful qualify for public recognizion of sanctity.

[Unam Sanctam]

When it is demonstrated he is highly unorthodox

You have demonstrated nothing of the kind. I'm sorry, but unorthodox means teaching heresy, nothing more, nothing less. The Pope has not done so. It is unjust and inaccurate to throw the word around like that without any substantiation.