So, the attitude in Rome is just a bit more sophisticated that you are giving it credit for in this thread, and why not try to comprehend it?  If you comprehend it better, at least you can criticize it more effectively, right?

Sorry you got a downvote; I tried to even it out. :) I think comprehending why Frank's methods are "working" for the world is a very important topic. Scary, but important. I don't think we can beat him, for one, because of human nature. Not being a Bible memoriser, but having a familiarity with It (I do capitalize the Word of God!), I believe Jesus and prophets before Him said people would want to hear the good things that make them happy. We (humans) are a fallen race, so we Tower of Babel it up (how many times have I seen that obnoxious photo on FB saying to stop using your hands to pray, and use them to build houses for the poor  :really-mad2:). People are literally hating a deity I think they actually believe in, while claiming they don't believe in God.

I have no hard numbers on that, by the way; it's the way my atheist acquaintances can seem more holy (more "fertile ground-ish") than the Cafeterias (who are sure they stand because Mass 3x year). These atheists seem "holy" in the secular Frank way, like "let's put our noggins together and feed these poor!" But (unlike Frank), they seem to believe by identifying as 'atheists', because without God there is no reason for their self-appellation. I don't believe in Thor, but I don't have pages and posts dedicated to aThorism.

Such atheists are possibly fertile ground, but definitely also dangerous ground, because I think they DO believe in God, but are angry at God and testing Him. Their questions #1, 2, 3, could be answered by the Ten Commandments, or Genesis 3, but they say they opt out because "how could God let a fall happen?" (I'll give atheists this: they know more about Catholicism than most catholics-little-c, by far. I'm talking about "thinking atheists" more than "wild child" paint-our-bodies-and-offend-for-fun "atheists", who are just crackheads with whom God will do with as He pleases.)

So assuming many atheists are "fertile ground" (believers in God), yet also very dangerous (for our souls, since they hate God, and one has to be strong to discourse with them since I fear demons have taken up residence in some of them), they are simply rejecting The Fall of Man (exactly as Satan would have them do), and maybe thinking they're fine without God (again, exactly as Satan would have them do).

If I understand the remainder of your post, then, the Wojtyla (which I can't read without the double-speak inducing quite a headache), and the Frank I can barely read without saying constant Acts of Contrition, is an attempt for the European church to re-capture the unFaith of the atheists in this lifetime. —But to what end?

1. a hope they fall into the new church and get baptised and have a shot at Heaven?, or

2. because the new church itself is asking the same questions as the atheists (eg, they hate God, too), or

3. ???

I do find it important to understand Frank's success, if only to understand and try to help the falling away to not fall away. It's not an easy thing to pronounce, "This world is doomed, but our destiny was always a more brilliant afterlife than we can imagine, but our deeds here, and our worship of God who visited His Creation, determines our afterlife." It used to be sort of common sense, but now it's seems like a foreign concept. (Common sense because of the Church; foreign now because of the little-c-church.)

In this environment, Rome has decided on a course of evangelization which essentially skips over the supernatural wages of unbelief on the grounds that preaching Heaven and Hell didn't keep people in the Church against these things, how will it bring them back into the Church?

And I think this is about the saddest (though truthful) statement of the 20th Century: the poor and bereft could visit Church at one point, and be filled with the spiritual gifts. Now, they can get a bowl of soup and a pamphlet about who to vote for. **sigh** (Act of Contrition AGAIN!) (I hope God doesn't tire of hearing that.)

Regarding evangelizing, I think maybe we Catholics weren't evangelizing in the past (I can't know; wasn't here yet), but we may be doing it more now. To gather members. (Or at least we're trying.) Trying to see a silver lining here :) but I don't much recall a time when we weren't "evangelizing", though it was the Truth (go to Mass or go to Hell, put in a holier fashion I suppose). I'm not sure we were ever meant to NOT evangelize. (In fact, didn't Frank say he didn't believe in proselytizing a few months ago? And something about consciences being one's guide?) We're supposed to evangelize; maybe we'd gotten a bit stuffy, but again, I can't know that. Catholicism was the law of the land, then fell over the centuries to bad European philosophy, and here we are. :/

So...I get what Rome is saying, and I see what they are trying to do.  I don't go along with calling Rome the 'seat of the antichrist'.

Well, I'd agree with that only because Frank hasn't gotten around to selling the seat yet. But the desk is surely gone.