On Papalotry

The Limits of Divine Protection There is a kind of papalotry going around. It acts as if no matter what comes out of Rome, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost. This line of thinking holds, …More
The Limits of Divine Protection
There is a kind of papalotry going around. It acts as if no matter what comes out of Rome, it must have been inspired by the Holy Ghost. This line of thinking holds, for example, that if Vatican II was called, it means that the Holy Ghost wanted to call it. But this is not necessarily the case. Convoking Vatican II was a personal decision of John XXIII. He may have thought God was telling him to call it, but who knows? He has no special charism that guarantees he would recognize such a decision as coming from the Holy Ghost with theological certitude.
We can say that the Pope has the power to call a council. We can say that the authorities in the Church can call upon the Holy Spirit to guarantee, in a very narrow set of cases, that what comes from this council is de fide. (And nothing in Vatican II was pronounced de fide, Ed.)
The glory of the Church is that it has supernatural help to define truth. It has supernatural help to guarantee that its sacraments …More
Holy Cannoli
Cardinal Burke has left no possibility of doubt, none, that disobeying Canon 915 is always a mortal sin. The reason is that disobeying Canon 915 is ALWAYS to commit the sin of sacrilege against the Eucharist and is ALWAYS to commit the sin of giving grave scandal to the public.
Cardinal Wuerl refuses to obey Canon 915. Yet, Cardinal Wuerl has been appointed to the Vatican panel that names future …
More
Cardinal Burke has left no possibility of doubt, none, that disobeying Canon 915 is always a mortal sin. The reason is that disobeying Canon 915 is ALWAYS to commit the sin of sacrilege against the Eucharist and is ALWAYS to commit the sin of giving grave scandal to the public.

Cardinal Wuerl refuses to obey Canon 915. Yet, Cardinal Wuerl has been appointed to the Vatican panel that names future bishops.

So here we have the Pope giving an important role in the selection of bishops to a man who has been living PUBLICLY in the state of mortal sin for many years.
Fr. A. M.

Setting aside his economics blunder, setting aside the lack of teaching regarding homosexuals, setting aside the pandering to Muslims, considering the Wuerl appointment alone, what more needs to be said about this pope and what his vision is for the Catholic Church?

tinyurl.com/canon915
Prof. Leonard Wessell
Years ago I had many discussion with a German moral theologian who spent a great deal of his time discussing with other moral theologians just how important this or that or the other or the next, etc. etc. etc. statement of a pope might be. Years ago, the then pope drove the moralists crazy. The current pope just keeps on blabbing incrementally. The best thing, said my professional friend, would be …More
Years ago I had many discussion with a German moral theologian who spent a great deal of his time discussing with other moral theologians just how important this or that or the other or the next, etc. etc. etc. statement of a pope might be. Years ago, the then pope drove the moralists crazy. The current pope just keeps on blabbing incrementally. The best thing, said my professional friend, would be for the popes to say less, MUCH less. I agree or, perhaps, turned around it would be better the press or commentators to listen less (in sense of publishing rapid fire interpretations. A more fundamental problem. however, to be considered is the use of papal authority in matters of fact and theory re secular activity, e.g., economics, which do not pertain to his professional expertise.

The pope has the authority to discuss matters of faith and morals. O.K., let's us consider one prime example of importance. Let us take "capitalism". Let us just say the pope morally condemns or censures capitalism (of free market type in the USA and not in Canada or in C'hile or in Poland or in Kirschner's Argentina). Which capitalism? Is there only ONE theory to fit all sizes. Just what is "capitalism", given dozens and dozens of different definitions? Before pontificating should not the pope have adequate knowledge of "what it is" that he is evaluating? Or, let us imagine that a pope with insufficient understanding of "capital" approves capitalism of Keynsian economics as truly moral. Does this mean that Misesian theory criticism of the validity Keyssian economics therefore become wrong, even if Mises is de facto scientifically correct or even if the pope knows nothing about Misesian ideas?

Consider: Between Mises and Keynes there exist diverging opinions on capitital(ism) that cannot be logically reconciled. Take unemployment of the youth, certainly a problematic lying at the pope's heart. A Misesian theoretical analysis leads to restricting and abolishing gov. interventionism of the type advocated by the pope. Misesian rejection of interventionism rests SOLELY on theoretical grounds that putatively describe the object (= economic activity) as "what it is". If Misesian economists are right, the "moral" way approved by the pope would not ameliorate youth unemployment. Hypothetically I have constructed a case wherein the pope is postulated as being "scientifically" wrong re the foundations of his moral judgment. What then? In other words, does his moral theory force extra moral areas to be other than they are (which is a perverted magic) or does the pope possibly make a false moral judgment about a subject matter of moral concern because the subject matte is not as the pope conceives.

I am not arguing against papal authority to speak out. I am concerned that the object spoken about is "what it is" and not what sd is falsely conceived. I see no reason to conclude that the papal authority to formulate moral assessments (except on matters of intrinsic moral, e.g., abortion) guarantees that papal moral judgments correspond of necessity to the "what it is" of the subject matter subject to moral evaluation.

Can anyone, please, correct my assessment? I would appreciate any evaluation of my thoughts. But, assuming correctness of my reflections, I must conclude that there is a dangerous problematic in the de facto papal usage of moral authority to morally judge and thereby to effect prattical politcs. In the spirit of my friend of years past, I would hope that popes speak less on moral matters, but if so, then speak precisely on them, admit limitations of knowledge of secular theory and acknowledge the probablisitic nature of his judgments. If the current pope had done so, his controversial onslaught on capitalism might have been avoided, a blanket assertion offending and scandalizing many Catholics (not to say non-Catholics) who hold to a different economic theory. Is my advice false?
✍️ 👌
linnville@gmail.com
So can't the same notion be applied to Vatican 1? How can we know that it was anymore inspired than number 2?
Dr Bobus
Conservatives think that the pope appoints the good bishops, but the bad bishops appoint themselves.
AnnaMaieV
👏