While I am posting about revisionist history, here is an article from the Irish Examiner.
Will they seek a clone of the autocratic Polish Pope who has sat on the throne of Peter for the past 25 years, or look to the reforming vision of a Pope who died 40 years ago this month?
One Pope started a revolution, the other initiated a counter-revolution.
The big question for the Catholic Church in the 21st century is which papal blueprint to opt for?
Will it be the Roncalli model or the Wojtyla model?
I wonder if future historians might think that there were two John Paul IIs, one who is autocratic and overbearing and the other a liberal progressive. Either description is hopelessly inept.
…The publication of Humanae Vitae in July 1968 was to prove a watershed for millions of Catholics.
For many, it meant conscience prevailing over blind obedience to church authority.
Today, astonishingly, John Paul II still insists on obedience to the teaching of Humanae Vitae
I love that the pope sticking to church teaching is described as “astonishingly.”
…By a Pope who is an autocrat, and for whom the world’s bishops are merely glorified altar boys, or by a Pope who sits in a college with these same bishops, exercising collegial rule as primus inter pares?
Someone send this reporter a thesaurus so that he can find other words than autocrat. The rest of the article isn’t worth digesting since it just goes on about the marginalization of woman by not ordaining them and the issues of married clergy becoming the norm.