[Mike Fieschko]

Was John XXII, fondly referred to as the "whore of Avignon" and whose reputation was so sullied no one would take his papal name for the next 700 years, infallible?

[snip]

William of Occam would grab you by the ear and tell you to get thee to a Jesuit for some schooling in the trivium.

Since infallibility doesn't mean impeccability (sinlessness), what is your point about Pope John XXII ? Are you trying to prove something logically ?

[SteamshipTime]

Infallible, per Webster's, means inter alia"incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals." As I have read, admittedly not much, John XXII was suspect in both. You are drawing an extremely fine distinction by saying sinful, fallen man can be sinful in life yet infallible when promulgating doctrine. "For now we see through a glass dimly..."

As I read your posts, you argue that celibacy should be retained because popes all the way back to 500 years after the death of Christ say it should be. Well and good--a number of godly, wise men believed celibacy was correct doctrine therefore we can presume it is well grounded. This still does not address the underpinnings of the author's arguments, which are that neither St. Paul nor Christ considered celibacy a requirement for discipleship and indeed, the Church's first Pope, appointed by Christ Himself, was married. Therefore, the requirement of celibacy is a purely human policy which, in the author's opinion, should be changed.

By contrast, the response to this reasoned article (NB: I do not say correct) is a snarling denunciation that the author must be "anti-Catholic."