Other than that, your bizarre statement that: "There are priests and bishops who deny the resurrection, and others who think that atheists are saved by virtue of their denial of God. Others think that Buddhism is equal to Christianity, and others who think that Jews are all going to hell. Some think that gay marriage is just fine and dandy, and others still who believe that black people bear the mark of Cain. Some think that only Catholics can ever be saved, and others think hell doesn't exist. Good luck in trying to find anyone who can be "obedient" to all these authoritative clerics at the same time" is a perfect example of the speculative, utterly non-referenced nonsense you're spouting as Church teachings. Such "examples" as you gave are apostate, so why would you hold them up as requiring obedience?
The simple fact, which seems to send you into some sort of fit where you feel compelled to imitate an 18th century vicar sitting at high table and talking through his nose to a servant, is that the Church reserves final authority in spiritual teachings, above any Catholic's personal opinions. You finally ramble out that general idea, but you do it so disdainfully that it is hard to separate it from your indignation. Yet from where does such defensiveness come? Do I challenge it? No. Do I argue with it? No. I merely point out its existence. YOU try to confuse it with Catholics obeying errant clergy. Why would you do that? Why would you want to have both sides at once - both misrepresenting the nature of Catholic obedience, while declaring its existence at the same time?
I'll tell you why - because you're trying to soften the point I'm making. You're drowing it in overweaning contempt and insults based on fictional statements vague enough to be bumper stickers, in order to create cognitive dissonance. Then you're adding to that by making blanket dismissals of general points and creating absurd examples to further bury the issue, so that by the time you actually affirm the requirement of obedience, you can pretend that I have some bizarre problem with authority and some strange belief that Catholics aren't allowed to think for themselves.
Your defensiveness, and your massive effort at hiding a very simple truth, is intellectual dishonesty of the the highest degree. Because IN FACT, Catholics can have any opinion they want - but being Catholic means that they cannot accept any conclusion they have that is inconsistant with Church teachings. That is the literal truth. AND it is something that is a HUGE problem for the Church, since so many (especially American) Catholics believe that their opinions are valid enough to not only act on, but live within their understanding of Church teachings - and gay marriage, abortion, and other issues prove the seriousness of this erroneous conflation beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is a genuine crisis for the Church, and has created a tremendous split within Catholicism amongst Catholics about what they believe the Church is all about. And ANY resolutions of this problem are directly threatened, hampered, misdirected and confused by people like YOU who spend so much effort trying to destroy a clear understanding of the problem, in your misguided belief that refusing to accept its existence somehow protects the Church.
And THAT is what I am pointing out, you scheming, manipulative, insufferable, pompous ass.
Such "examples" as you gave are apostate, so why would you hold them up as requiring obedience?
But I didn't hold them up as requiring obedience. You did. From the very beginning of my presence on this thread I have upheld that there is nothing in opposition to Catholic teaching or practice if a lay person holds a theological opinion which differs from that of any given pope. And I have proven it again and again, and did so by recourse to Catholic sources and not just my own assertions. You, on the other hand, have insisted that the opinions of clergy must be obeyed. You went beyond popes and took it to all clergy, which means priests and bishops. Well, those things I listed are in fact theological opinions which some bishops and priests have maintained, and no Catholic is required to believe them. As a matter of fact, believing them is to indulge in heresy and endanger one's soul. So, either your assertion that clerical opinions are binding on all believers is false, or you actually think these above listed opinions are dogmatic. You can't have it both ways.
It is also interesting to me that you now are asserting that I am somehow playing both ends, and manipulating the conversation, and being scheming, and so on and so on. But, of course this is untrue, and to show it I will go all the way back to my first comment here, and which you then replied to. In that post I disagreed with the assertion that believing "a Catholic could hold a theological opinion that differs from the Pope" is "in opposition to ... Catholic teaching." In that post I said this: Only in cases where the Pope's opinion is, in fact, Catholic will this above hold true. But, if one should teach something less than orthodox, like say suggesting that atheism saves and that Catholics should encourage atheists to be more devoted in their atheism, then any real Catholic will certainly hold theological opinions which differ from his. Now, did I not say that papal opinions are not binding if they are "not Catholic"? Did I not give a clear example showing that heretical opinions do not bind people and so they are not obligated to agree with a pope in that case? And is that not exactly what I am saying now? Is it not what I have said all along? So much for scheming and manipulation.
What I have never done, not even once, is suggest that any Catholic should or could, in good conscience, reject any actual dogma or doctrine of the Church. This is a fiction which you have manufactured calumniously. Let me quote your oh so polite and thoughtful comment several posts back in which you said: Your rejection of the obligation of Catholics to obey the teachings of the Church over their own personal spiritual opinions demonstrates a level of ignorance about your religion that is to low for me to continue a discussion with you on this subject. Now, this comment is not just wrong, as I have demonstrated over and over, but it is also tacky. Actually, one could say it even sounds like the words of an insufferable, pompous ass. But, who am I to judge.