Regarding topics raised yesterday here and elsewhere: We need to know what the standard is for judging whether John Paul II was a “failure” (the question Instapundit asks) or even whether the Catholic church suffered “terrible disaster” under him (the one Derb raises). The “job” of the Pope is not primarily to win market share for his church; it is to protect the deposit of faith and to serve as a witness to it. The prophets were not judged by whether they drew people into the temple. (See also John 6:53-69: Was the Lord Himself a “failure”?) I suspect that the numbers on mass attendance would have fallen more under a different pope confronting the same historical circumstances than they in fact did. On the pope’s understanding of the world, no life lived in fidelity to the truth is finally a failure and the Church, whatever setbacks and even betrayals and persecutions it may face, is guaranteed everything it rightly seeks.