Peter, much of what you said is solid and reasonable. I certainly will agree that People Pius XII does not deserve to be proclaimed a saint because he failed to show heroism at a time when heroism was required - but there is much evidence that he did many things to quietly protect Jews and only limited evidence to indicate that he did anything actively that might have promoted the cause of Fascism.

I don't know much about Cardinal Stepinac, except that he was revered as an anti-Communist in the 1950's. If he was a Croatioan Catholic leader during World War II, then he probably should not be canonized, because Catholics Croatia supported the Nazis and there was no vocal Catholic opposition. I doubt that he was involved in pro-Nazi activities, but there is no evidence that he made a courageous attempt to oppose them.

I think saints should be heroic in the defense of the ideals they believe in, expecially in times that demand heroism. Maybe Pius XII and Stepinac were pretty good guys (or maybe they weren't), but they certainly did not stand out for their courage in the face of Fascism. So, I agree that they shouldn't be made saints - but you have polluted your argument in this thread and in the past with a lot of unproven innuendo that implies far more than you can prove.

As for the circumstances of the death of Pope John Paul I, what does it have to do with John Paul II? Your inclusion of JPI's death gives a not-so-subtle implication that JPII was somehow involved. You say that JPII "isn't fit to lick the boots" of his predecessor, but his predecessor had only a 30-day history as Pope and there is no way to tell how he would have performed in the long run. While I disagree strongly with John Paul II on many issues, I think I have to applaud him for supporting Solidarity in Poland and Corazon Aquino in the Philippines, and for strongly opposing George Bush on Iraq. You accuse John Paul II of giving Bishop Marcinkus sanctuary during the financial scandal, but neglect to say that Marcinkus didn't have sanctuary for long.

"Hysterical tabloid smear jorurnalism"? Yes - your anti-Catholic posts are always filled with the very same misleading tactiocs the tabloids use.

You make many good points, but then you defeat your own argument by clouding it with a bucket of unrelated accusations that cloud the issue and diffuse the argument to the point that it's so scattered that nobody can possibly post a logical argument to either agree or disagree with you.

You use emotion-charged tabloid terms like "thug," "spout bile," "power-crazed mob of cardinals" and "gall." Heck, you even try to make an issue out of John Paul II's choice of a name.

Yep. Tabloid journalism. It's too bad you feel driven to that, Peter, because you could make some very good points is you would take the time to logically and specifically present them.

And your one major error is that you imply that because you've found some detrimental evidence against the Catholic Church and some of its leaders, then the church and these individuals must be totally corrupt. That just isn't case. The Church and these individuals have faults that should be explored - but they also have good points that should be stated in the balance.

-Joe Offer-