OK, my understanding is that for Catholics, when the Pope says something it as good as if it came directly from God. So how can you be a Catholic and disagree with some of the Catholic Churches stances, like abortion, birth control, homosexuality, etc? If you disagree with the Churches (read the Popes) standing on these issues then I would argue you disagree with a basic tenet of the Church and therefore you cannot really be a disciple of that religon. Yet I have met a lot of people over the years who have called themselves Catholics, gone to church on Sunday, etc. yet disagreed with the Pope on these issues. And of course when it comes to birth control and pre-marital sex a lot actually practice in opposition to what the church says. I would not dispute your Christian beliefs, but why call yourself a Catholic then?
I understand that if my main suppostion from the first sentence is incorrect then my points are wrong and meaningless.
I suspect tom or Bricker will come along with a nice outline of the term “ex cathedra” …but simply put, the notion of papal infallibility, as it applies to the pope (and bishops with the magisterium) has not been used that frequently with church teachings.
Some of us suspect (hope?), for example, that some of the church’s teachings vis a vis the role of women in clergy will “evolve” over time.
Like Judaism, Catholicism can be considered a culture as well as a religion. A person can certainly be culturally Catholic without being at all religiously devout.
But in general, you are right, Tretiak – there are very, very few 100% perfect practicing Catholics in this day and age. However, that doesn’t mean people calling themselves Catholic are fooling themselves. They are simply identifying with common cultural aspects ultimately born of the religion.
Since the Vatican II council in 1960, the Catholic church has given its members a lot more freedom in interpretting these kinds of things for themselves. Try doing a search on “Vatican II”. You might find that a lot of things that are generally thought to be very important to the Catholic Church have changed.
As others have suggested, the basic concept that if the Pope says it, it must be true, is not accurate.
I think some of the links provided will answer this in great detail, but the short version is that the Pope only speaks with the voice of God when he explictly says he’s speaking with the voice of God.
The Pope is only infallible according to church doctrine under special circumstances, which is when the Pope is speaking “ex cathedra”, meaning he must do it in a certain way. The Pope is not infallibe in casual conversation.
Well, he could also mean that he wishes you a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether you wish it or not, or that he feels good this morning, or that it is a morning to be good on…
(Though in the case of the Pope, I suppose one can safely assume he always means that last one, whatever else… ;))
…but simply put, the notion of papal infallibility, as it applies to the pope (and bishops with the magisterium) has not been used that frequently with church teachings.