With all the talk about John Paul's legacy, I've noticed an interesting contradiction. Some commentators say that John Paul neglected the inner workings of the Church and allowed dissent and disobedience to Church teaching to flourish. They blame him for not being strong enough in bringing the Church back to order. Others say, instead, that he tried to micromanage the Church, overly centralize his authority and control everything. Some even claim that he tried to undo the reforms of Vatican II and go back to an 0ld-style church.
The proponents of each of these views are coming out of very different perspectives. Where do you think the truth lies?