…my commentary about Pope Francis is largely irrelevant. While we’re all on the Jesus Team, he’s not in my chain of command.
And I know, I know – is “infallability” is, doctrinally, entirely a matter of theology.
All I know, goy that I am, is that many more remarks like this and people are going to start mistaking him for Joe Biden.
You can take the archbishop out of Argentina, but apparently you can’t take the Argentina out of the archbishop. Sigh.
He’s in my “chain of command” but I’d have to say that he’s not terribly well qualified to understand the dynamics of the situation. He’s the liberal arts major trying to run a tech company in today’s info economy: he understands the situation superficially from the theory he was taught in college, but he stumbles badly on the nuts and bolts details that really make things work.
(Chauvinism? When well over 2/3 of marriages are ended by women, taking at least half of the man’s assets and usually their children? Ironically, the game is rigged to the degree that War Game’s conclusion is true: “A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”)
Whenever liberals attack their local Catholic church leadership, we also say that they are shocked to discover that the Catholic church has chosen a Catholic to lead it.
Its looking more like the Catholic church has chosen an ELCAer to lead it in Rome. Okay, not quite that bad, but he leans that way.
I have a good friend who is RC. Attends mass every Sunday. Very active in his Parrish affairs. Every once in a while we indulge in some religion talk.
At the end of it I always shake my head in wonder and tell him he’s more of a Lutheran than I am.
The Church has existed for thousands of years, led by more than 260 men who brought their own perspectives to the job, some wiser than others. We’ll survive this one, too.
I have a relative that was raised Roman Catholic (like me) that has been an avowed Atheist for twenty or more years (He’s also a Lefty, of course). For the few times I’ve seen him over the last few years, anytime religion came up – once even in getting directions to where another family members wedding was going to be – he brought up pedophile priests, Pope Benedict being a Nazi/Catholic complicity during the time of the 3rd Reich and the general ignorance/anti-SCIENCE! nature of Christians in general.
There was always a lot of ridicule for we who, however imperfectly, try to follow the teachings of our Church. He routinely would put up click bait on Facebook regarding this, that or the other atrocity perpetrated by the Catholic Church such as teaching sexual abstinence or refusing to distribute birth control & condoms in Africa or coming out against same-sex marriage. (Yet the Church also has one of the best records for caring for the truly poverty stricken and treating & comforting people with AID’s when no else would – go figure).
Lately I’ve noticed praise in his feed for what Pope Francis has said. So long as the Pope caters to the ‘belief’ systems of the Atheistic Left, I’m guessing he’ll get some converts of those who currently bend knee and bow head only when a government proclamation is read.
Member of the Church have an obligation to make sure others have heard The Word. But having heard it, they have Free Will to reject it and if they do, that’s between them and God. Not my problem (I have plenty of my own, thank you very much).
As for those who want to pick-and-choose which of the Church’s teachings to follow, the last two paragraphs of this Florence King column are for you:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/211373/conscience-claws-florence-king
I don’t get what he teaches about global warming and economics and I don’t put much stock in it, agreeing on the whole with Joe Doakes perspective. But this I actually get. Feminists thought that easy divorce would emancipate women. Except in cases of abuse it generally doesn’t. Where before two people shared an income, childrearing and other responsibilities now each go their separate ways, two households to keep. Money can’t replace it, even a lot of money in the best of circumstances. Marraige used to put responsibilities on both people. Maybe you weren’t always happy, but from society’s perspective (which the Catholic church admittedly cares more about than the individual’s right to self fulfillment) it worked. The takeaway for men is (a) don’t have kids and (b) don’t get married even if you have kids. You’ll want that freedom to walk away. The US is a little different with child support and family court law and certainly the courts have been biased in favor of the mother. But in terms of the outcome does the law promote an essentially chauvinistic attitude towards women and children. I’d have to say yes.
Most anti-Catholic people are western whities. They want some kind of cultural imperialism…forcing their liberal views on a giant world-wide church. They are demanding the church change its doctrines, with roots going back to Jesus and Peter, to match their 2015 white western liberal views. Most of those people are one generation away from Atheism anyway.
Joe, you have to be very careful when that infallibility is invoked, since the Pope does it pretty rarely. He can shoot his mouth off without invoking the doctrine of infallibility since in Catholic teaching infallibility is invoked only “when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.” And no, a “definitive act” isn’t a newspaper interview.
In other words, it’s a big deal when the Pope tries this, and in general it’s only with ecumenical councils called to settle questions of doctrine that he really invokes the doctrine, since “[A]lthough the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith.”
Besides, even the Pope will tell you that not all Popes and their pronouncements have been equally worthy (which is why the Church is very particular on when infallibility is invoked) — when was the last time you went shopping for an indulgence? (Actually, an uncle got one a few years ago, but not for money as it used to be done, and they do look pretty cool.)
Sometimes the greatest enemy of a pope is another pope:
My favorite Pope was Urban II, who preached the First Crusade in 1095 at Clermont, in France. His exact words are lost to time but Ann Coulter succintly reprised their spirit on September 14, 2001, saying:
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.”
Pope Ann of the Righteous Wrath. I could live with that.
Joe, you have to be very careful when that infallibility is invoked, since the Pope does it pretty rarely. He can shoot his mouth off without invoking the doctrine of infallibility since in Catholic teaching infallibility is invoked only “when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals.” And no, a “definitive act” isn’t a newspaper interview.
Yep. In fact, the last Pope to speak ex cathedra was Pius XII back in 1950. No Pope since then has done it.