I have had to fly to Seattle from Newark and back twice in the past two weeks or so. In addition to affording the opportunity for uninterrupted work, these transcontinental flights also offer the opportunity for guilt free web-surfing (thank you GoGo--the airline internet!).In catching up up on the papal transition, I came across an article by Dr. Tracey Rowland--the Dean of the John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, Australia, entitled "The Pope and the Philistines." Written before the election of Pope Francis, it is clear that she wanted--even, say, expected, someone more like Benedict, about whom she's written a great deal. Cardinal Bergolio was not listed as an example of the kind of "hero-cardinal" she wanted to see assume the papacy after Benedict.Piqued by her dismissal of "loopy interpretations of Vatican II," I poked around further, to see what she said about Gaudium et Spes. This is what I found; I realize, of course, that I'm dealing with material for the popular press, not an academic book. But I think it frames the questions I want to ask those who are more expert in this area than I am:How do you think FSJ's interpretation of Gaudium et Spes will differ from JPII's and B16's? --Will Dr. Rowland consider him "loopy"? Or is there a third way? Is it significant that FSJ did his doctorate on a theologian who was also extremely influential on B16: Romano Guardini. If so, how?