'Benedict is well known for handling priestly abuse cases in the Vatican before he became pope. While some have criticized his role in adjudicating such cases over the past two decades, he has also won praise from victims’ advocates for taking the issue more seriously, apologizing to American victims in 2008.' Even if he covered up before, which, when reading the article, seems to me to not be proved, point is that he is taking a firmer stance now, so what happened previously is not really relevant.
"Not really relevant?" Covering up for the rape of children is not really relevant!? I have very low moral standards but that's just plain wrong. If you don't think everyone involved in any way shape or form with a crime this atrocious should be thrown in jail then I simply don't know what else I can say.
It's very relevant. I'm not surprised that now he's pope he's "taking a firmer stance", because he's under much more public scrutiny now. But it's what a person will do when the public isn't watching (or perhaps in his case, much less of the public was watching) that tells you what kind of a person one really is.
You're probably right. However, I think that there is still no evidence that is damning enough to condemn a man. Plus, what I mean about it not being relevant is that what the Pope did before he became pope often has no bearing on him as a Pope, because, and you'll probably disagree with me here, the Pope is doctrinally infallible. That is to say, a pope cannot preach 'heretical' or evil teachings as Pope. A good example of this is the story of a man who, in order to become pope killed, took bribes, and made deals with emporess Theodora, who wanted to make the Papacy her puppet. The man, who cannot remember the name of, agreed to preach heretical doctrine when he became pope in exchange for monetary backing. However, when he was finally made pope he turned his back on Emporess Theodora and refused to preach heresy. This lead to his eventual execution. That is what Papal infallibility is. Regardless of what they may have done before being made pope, they never preach heresy. That is all
So is it that anything he says becomes non-heretical because he said it, (sot of a meaningless idea in that case) or is there some magical force preventing him from speaking hearsay (would his head explode or something if he tried) either way sounds a bit goofy.
You seem to misunderstand me. What I mean is that no Pope preaches heresy because they are guided by the Holy Spirit. It's a fundamental Church doctrine. I'll bet you that if you went through the whole history of the Church you would not find a single pope that preached Heresy.
a quick search revealed that papal infallibility is not, in fact, that the pope can not preach heresy, but that his word is final when he acts officially to resolve doctrinal disputes, and that it's not a passive, omnipresent faculty. infallibility of the pope was defined in 1870 (according to the church, it was recognized but not formally laid down prior to that point) in Vatican I, and has subsequently been applied to different papal proclamations from before that time.
for the record, i got my info from here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp and wiki
Well, returning to the OP -- I have been a student at 13 or so different schools (over many years) and attended several seminars on top of that, but I have never ran into a conflict. Not even once. And I am very religious. On papal infallibility -- you left out morals, Fish. It's in CCC paragraphs 891 and 2035. (Why do Romans so conveniently forget that the doctrine applies to ecumenical councils???)
"Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." That's what I was trying to say.
BL93: You're willing to put unconditional faith in one man simply because of his office/title? I seem to recall verses in the epistles, where Paul tells the church to "test the spirits", "work out your own salvation" and "if any man preach a different Jesus, He is not of God". I don't recall any verses where any single man is given entire authority over the church.
However, Jesus says in the Gospel,"You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." This is the foundation of the doctrine, along with "those whose sins you forgive they are forgiven and those whose sins you retain, they are retaioned", and "Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."
And don't forget the episode where Peter was flat out wrong, and Paul publicly called him on it! Ya, Romans love that one. Not. No single person was given authority. Rather, authority was given to the collective body of Apostles, who passed it on to their successor bishops, who passed it on to the next generation of bishops, and so on. In the beginning East and West had the same definition for "primacy of Peter." The Eastern churches still hold to that original definition. The authority of bishops both individually and collectively is amply supported in early Christian writings and is still today recognized as the governing authority in the several traditions that actually have an unbroken living family-tree connection back to the Apostles: Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and maybe a few more.
Where is that? give me the verse. Please? Being a Christian obviously doesn't do much for your manners.
