As I am typing this, that massive jerk Steve Inskeep on National Public Radio is proving he doesn't know what he's talking about. The story is Pope Francis not only apologizing for what he said about the pedophile abuse of children and sexual sins of members of the clergy and hierarchy but he is doing something to change what was done. That does make Pope Francis a different and far greater pope than either of his immediate predecessors, why his papacy is the greatest since that of St John XXIII.
What Inskeep gets wrong is what just about everyone does, he claimed that the doctrine of papal infallibility is a claim that whatever the Pope says is infallible. Not only is that not what the doctrine claimed, it is nothing like what it claimed. There have been exactly two times that the controversial doctrine has been claimed, in 1854 when Pius IX pronounced the Immaculate Conception of Mary and in 1950 when Pius XII pronounced the Assumption of Mary bodily into heaven. And, as some have pointed out, those were widespread beliefs among Catholics long before they were pronounced "infallibly". I know lots of Catholics who don't believe in papal infallibility, some who have publicly stated their skepticism of it have been major and important Catholic theologians, such as Hans Kung, many scholars have cited many authoritative papal declarations and pronouncements that even those who hold with Papal infallibility would never claim were true, including saints who were canonized who are now known to have never existed.
Jeesh, Inskeep, get it right, you ass. I'm tempted to roll my eyes up and say "Protestants!" though there are plenty of Catholics who make exactly the same mistake. It was a lousy idea to make the claim, it's even stupider to keep it on the books. I'd say the Pope should call an new council and come up with some way to either get rid of the claim or to come up with Vaticaneese to make it, in effect, null and void. Or they should at least come out with a definitive and simple statement of what was claimed. I looked up the alleged explanation in John Paul II's Catechism and it is so badly stated that it leads even farther from understanding.
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
Geesh! no wonder people are confused! I think it's written to try to soften the claim because the people who wrote that and approved it don't really believe it, themselves. As I said, I know a lot of Catholics who don't. Though that doesn't let an alleged journalist like Inskeep off the hook. I wonder how many people who were listening to them believe they knew what they were talking about when they got that point exactly wrong. I'm not asking for Inskeep to be infallible, just informed. That should be what makes a journalist qualified for his extremely well-paid job. And I just told you that for free.
The line between "fake news" and "everybody knows" ignorance is a thin one indeed.
ReplyDelete