Fishwrap – swamp of pseudo-Catholic wokeness: CANCEL JOHN PAUL II!

Here is a spectacular example of “fundamental osculation” from the Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter).

Keep in mind an old principle: Everything before “but” is B as in B, S as in S.

Editorial: US bishops, please suppress the cult of St. John Paul II

In many, many ways, Pope John Paul II was an admirable man. The last decades of the 20th century were enriched immeasurably by his deft use of papal statecraft in raising up the voices of oppressed peoples across Eastern Europe, in his various efforts toward inter-religious dialogue, and by his personal witness to the dignity of aging.

But …

Over the last few years we have seen a systematic attack on the teaching legacy of John Paul II. The deeply flawed McCarrick Report is another shot at that legacy.


As the Vatican’s devastating report shows clearly, the late pope’s decision to appoint McCarrick as Washington’s archbishop in 2000 came despite severe warnings from his highest-level advisors on both sides of the Atlantic.


Here’s the problem. The report, while partially informative, is still flawed in that it doesn’t give us enough information on who was giving whom information and what John Paul was being told.

So, what does this swamp of pseudo-Catholic wokeness want?

CANCEL John Paul!


There is no way anymore to escape the truth. John Paul, in many ways an admirable man, was willfully blind to the abuse of children and young people.

Suppressing the late pontiff’s cult would not mean telling people they need to throw away their relics or their medals — people could still practice private devotion to him. But [there it is again] for abuse victims, their advocates and many others, John Paul’s memory is no longer a blessing. It should not be celebrated in public.

Liberals. The first thing they want to do is stomp the life out of their enemies – and Fishwrap is the enemy of all things John Paul – and then apply their cancel culture tactics, otherwise know as damnatio memoriae.

I have never been convinced by the hand-wringing of the Fishwrap about abuse of minors.  This issue is just a club with which they can trash those whom they desire to repress for the sake of tearing down structures and rebuilding in their own image.  It’s convenient.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Kathleen10 says:

    “There is no way anymore to escape the truth. John Paul, in many ways an admirable man, was willfully blind to the abuse of children and young people.”

    But they just evaded the truth! Notice they didn’t say the abuse of “boys and young men” which would be far more accurate, because that’s who homosexual clergy prey on. They substituted their ridiculous “children and young people”. They know that’s more accurate, everybody on Planet Earth knows that’s more accurate, but they won’t say it. Why, because in reality they provide cover. Hey, how about this, Fishwrap, instead of fussing about the pope that’s dead, why don’t you worry about the one that’s alive, the one that made it clear he endorsed the pro-abort presidential candidate in America, as did the USCCB. Oh, right, you agree with him, so it’s not a problem.

  2. thomistking says:

    “I have never been convinced by the hand-wringing of the Fishwrap about abuse of minors.”

    Especially damning in this regard is the fact that their writers were aware of the rumors around McCarrick but totally uninterested in investigating them.

  3. Kenneth Wolfe says:

    At the same time, this is a textbook example of why a pope — or just about anyone for that matter — should not even be considered for canonization until decades after the person’s death. Just like the custom until, well, the JPII era.

  4. iamlucky13 says:

    “Suppressing the late pontiff’s cult would not mean telling people they need to throw away their relics or their medals — people could still practice private devotion to him. But for abuse victims, their advocates and many others, Saint John Paul’s memory is no longer a blessing.”

    I fixed the quote for them.

    As far as I know, the Church has not formally defined canonizations as infallible, but they are generally taken to be so. Regardless, the Church has, after carefully discerning the evidence of miracles attributed to his intercession, declared that Pope John Paul II is in heaven. I would like to present three thoughts that arise from this:

    1) Weighing uncertain evidence of his alleged negligence against the evidence of God having worked miracles through his intercession, I would ask if the authors of this editorial for clarification if they are arguing that Pope Francis erred in canonizing him.

    2) Assuming the negative, would they assert that God can not work miracles through Saint John Paul’s intercession? To use their language, is the intercession of a saint not a blessing?

    3) Assuming the worst of the accusations against Saint John Paul II are true; If he is, as the authors assert, a wretched sinner who attained heaven only by repentance and God’s merciful redemption, then is that not all the more valuable testament to how far God’s redemption extends? Such a person joins the ranks of Saints Paul, Dismas, Mary Magdalen, and Augustine.

  5. B says:

    I’d much prefer:

    Editorial: US bishops, please suppress “Catholic” from the National “catholic” Reporter.

  6. James C says:

    Isn’t this the same publication that published a worshipful profile of McCarrick in 2014, an article that celebrated McCarrick’s ‘ministry’ and his return to action under Francis after Benedict “put him out to pasture”?

    Oh yes, it is.

    The two men had known each other for years, back when the Argentine pope was Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires. McCarrick assured Francis that he was doing fine.

    “I guess the Lord isn’t done with me yet,” he told the pope.

    “Or the devil doesn’t have your accommodations ready!” Francis shot back with a laugh.

    McCarrick loves to tell that story, because he loves to tell good stories and because he has a sense of humor as keen as the pope’s. But the exchange also says a lot about the improbable renaissance McCarrick is enjoying as he prepares to celebrate his 84th birthday in July.

    McCarrick is one of a number of senior churchmen who were more or less put out to pasture during the eight-year pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. But now Francis is pope, and prelates like Cardinal Walter Kasper (another old friend of McCarrick’s) and McCarrick himself are back in the mix and busier than ever.

  7. James C says:

    I remember reading this article at the time and feeling disgusted. Why? Because even I, a layman and a nobody, had heard about McCarrick’s extracurricular activities.

  8. Matheus Oliveira says:

    Here in Brazil, we’ve managed to judicially suppress the “rights” of the abortionist group “católicas” pelo Direito de Decidir (“catholic” wymyn for the Right to Decide) of using Catholic in their title.
    It was done by the rather outstanding Centro Dom Bosco editorial group. Perhaps, with a good willing and deeply knowledgeable person or group, this could be done with Fishwrap as well.

  9. Kevin says:

    While the Church has never officially defined canonization as an act of infallibility, the consensus of theologians has been that it is.

    As St. Thomas Aquinas noted:

    Since the honor we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the saints, we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error (Quodlib. IX, a. 16).

    Because the Pope is officially decreeing that all Christians are to believe that a certain person is in heaven, it is believed to fall under the definition of papal infallibility. –

  10. PostCatholic says:

    I’m up to page 325 of the report. Indeed, the problem identified in it is that bishops all along the chain of command did not relay complete and relevant information (Bishop Hughes of Metuchen, for instance) to the nunciature or the Vatican, delivered accusations only to the accused (Cardinal O’Connor, until he realised his mistake much too late), contradicted valid information when they had good reason to be doubtful (Bishop McHughs of Rockville Center), or did not fully and properly investigate information when given solid leads despite urging so to do (Nuncio Montalvo by Cardinal Hickey as but one example). When finally it was judged that the information was true in McCarrick’s retirement, no one wanted to bother the Pope to make penalties official (Cardinals Re et al.) Moreover, several exceptionally craven bishops didn’t even intervene when they actively witnessed the sexual groping of a young priest by a drunken McCarrick in a New Jersey banquet hall.

    How was John Paul II supposed to make a good decision when on the one hand he had reports that his management team mischaracterized as “rumours” and on the other, decades of only positive interactions with McCarrick and a letter from McCarrick with falsely precise denials? I don’t think it’s fair to lay the blame entirely or even mostly with John Paul II, as the NYTimes article implied that the report did.

    It seems very much to me that what operated, in this case, was the culture of bad clericalism that you’ve explained, and that Pope Francis has railed against, both many times. If you see something, do something and say something. In re McCarrick, cowardly New Jersey bishops gave the church a cardinal fashioned in their own image.

  11. rwj says:

    The left truly never lets a crisis go to waste.
    McCarrick would still have been in mothballs were it not for his cronies and pope Francis.

    Francis revived him, and promoted his friends. Cancel that!

  12. Benedict Joseph says:

    Often during Saint John Paul’s pontificate I wondered why he did not let the hammer fall on a host of situations, movements and individuals. I attributed it then and still do to his anxious desire to maintain unity and reconcile the aberrant. There is no doubt in my mind his intention was good. It was a tumultuous time when he assumed his office and we were relieved by his willingness to wrestle a terrible situation into order. The leftists despised him yet he could not have been more gentle with them and responsibly exercised his office. He was far to gentle. His episcopal appointments were not infrequently ill-founded and we live with that reality today. Oddly enough McCarrick was not the worst of them as is quite apparent. Immoral conduct is always founded upon erroneous “theological” notions and those are cultivated and are rampant today.
    As we all know the CEO most frequently is not aware of what is transpiring in mail room. Should he? Perhaps yes, when circumstances demand, but it is up to the supervisor to ring the executive suite. The clerical class is a very small town. Everyone knew what was going on with McCarrick — I heard about it in 2001. If I knew the bishops of New Jersey knew as well. They concealed, deceived and lied anxious to protect an individual for whom they had either allegiance or fear or both. They were also constrained as are we all by court protocols which need to be abandoned. Deference to the exercise of authority of any sort malevolently rendered is an offense against the proper exercise of evangelical obedience. It is a sort of sacrilege and has led to many tragedies beyond the ones which hit the headlines. This is a very serious problem in our Church and perhaps the root of all the others. It is far beyond time that it be addressed.

  13. PostCatholic says:

    I don’t understand what you mean by “I have never been convinced by the hand-wringing of the Fishwrap about abuse of minors,” and I don’t want to misunderstand you. McCarrick was credibly accused by a minor according to a unanimous vote of the Archdiocese of New York’s inquiry board; the abuse of minors at the hands and other body appendages of “celibate” Catholic clerics is extremely well documented in enormous numbers worldwide. I must be missing some nuance; I know these abusers outrage you as well. [My meaning is clear. I don’t think there is anything sincere about the sentiments expressed by the Fishwrap in this regard.]

  14. PostCatholic says:

    I ought to have said, McCarrick was credibly accused of abusing someone then a minor…

  15. Benedictus says:

    I’m in favor of suppressing, or at least heavily investigating, every post from Pope John the 23rd to the current one. our churches is in a dire mass because of their picks of Cardinals. How can it be that none of these popes were scandalized by even rumors of the immorality in their ranks? bring back the ceremonial degradation of the bishops.

  16. Semper Gumby says:

    God bless St. John Paul II. With the benefit of hindsight there are several things St. John Paul II should have done and should not have done. Shame on those who whine about a “cult.” Take a closer look you uninformed ingrates.

    St. John Paul II was in the arena for half a century against National Socialism and Communism, survived an assassination attempt, and inspired many, many Catholics and non-Catholics to a closer relationship with Jesus Christ. Praise be.

Comments are closed.