Why should anyone care what the Pope says without using the charism of papal infallibility? Patrick Madrid's latest blog article explains why one should be cautious using a Pope's opinion for proof of truth:It is a well known fact that Pope John Paul II, of blessed memory, was a stalwart supporter of Fr. Marcial Maciel, the disgraced, recently deceased founder of the Legionaries of Christ religious order and its lay arm, Regnum Christi. I can only assume that John Paul was truly ignorant of the many frauds Fr. Maciel had perpetrated for decades. How it is that the pope did not know the truth about that dastardly man is beyond me, but I'm not focusing on that question here. It's sufficient to remind ourselves that the charism of papal infallibility does not extend to the pope's private, personal opinions about people and things.
As we now know, Pope John Paul II was utterly wrong about Fr. Maciel. He had completely misjudged him. Like a whole lot of other people, including a few popes who came before him, John Paul was conned by a consummate con-man. His approval of the vaunted Mexican priest was in complete error. The gestures of honor and confidence with which he generously betokened Fr. Maciel over many years were completely undeserved. His famous comment that Maciel was "an efficacious guide to youth" could not have been more hideously incorrect.
We know that now. We know now the sordid details of many of the enormous frauds and crimes and sins which Fr. Maciel perpetrated over his lifetime. Since his demise, they have continued to belch forth from the grave like a sulfurous semi-dormant volcano that will emit its noxious fumes for a long time to come.
-snip-
Remember: Pope John Paul II was convinced that Fr. Maciel was a holy priest, an exemplary and faithful Catholic, and "an efficacious guide to youth." He could not have been more wrong about that.
Posts
6 comments:
Hmm....this statement:
"Maciel (is) 'an efficacious guide to youth'."
seems an awful lot like this:
"...I declare it (The Catechism of the Catholic Church) to be a sure norm for teaching the faith..."
Remember: Pope John Paul II was convinced that Fr. Maciel was a holy priest, an exemplary and faithful Catholic, and "an efficacious guide to youth." He could not have been more wrong about that.
But you can trust him when he says he is infallible sometimes.
"But you can trust him when he says he is infallible sometimes."
Yeah, I'm infallible some of the time too. That's why I'm qualified to be my own pope.
But you can trust him when he says he is infallible sometimes.
So is it a fallible decision on the Pope's part when he chooses to say something infallible? Or is choosing to say something infallible an infallible choice? Then, the question becomes is choosing to choose to say something infallible a fallible choice, and so on.
Pontificating over the pope. Hmmm.
James,
I suppose even more to the point would be the comment of Madrid concerning papal infallibility...
Madrid: "…the dogma being defined here is Peter’s primacy and authority over the Church — not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It’s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction (San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999), p. 254.
If the passages of Matthew 16 and John 21 have not been infallibly defined in their alleged connection to the dogma of papal infallibility, then what passages have been infallibly interpreted by Rome?
Post a Comment