The discussion of Cardinal Levada's homily continues. I write:

"In so far as someone is criticizing a product which first exists in the intellect or soul of the author, then one can be said to be criticizing the author. But usually when we say we are cticizing someone, as opposed to a product, we are attributing to them moral failings, character flaws, and bad actions. Now, some have criticized certain popes and bishops for what they judge to be imprudent actions. But I think this is not equivalent to the first, although one may go from the latter to the former -- i.e. the cardinal was imprudent, etc. in giving a homily such as this. But it doesn't necessitate it."

Personally I think the homily had some good points but could have been reworded for the sake of pastoral sensitivity. But as it has been said, Cardinal Levada does not seem to be a "people person." Maybe that's an erroneous judgment, but there are a lot of people with long memories.

Are historians the only ones who can make a judgment about the pontificate of Pope Pius VI, for example? Or are traditionalists justified in judging him to be a rather weak pope, in his handling of the new missal and what transpired afterward, along with the various dissenters in the Church?