[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."

[Mike Fieschko]

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..."

Pope John XXII's sermonized once where he said that the faithful would not see the Beatific Vision at their particular judgments, but only at the last judgment. This opinion he changed during his pontificate. There is no evidence (that I am aware of) that John XXII intended this sermon to be a 'teaching', to which all Catholics must assent. If there's other evidence, and it's on the net or in a book, let me know.

As for someone being sinful in his life yet infallible, that's on the basis that the Holy Spirit protects the Church (not just the pope) from error.

[Mike Fieschko]

Therefore, the requirement of celibacy is a purely human policy which, in the author's opinion, should be changed.

That it is a human policy is true. That it is this newspaper editor's opinion is also true.

I don't have a paper with a nationwide circulation, but the guy's a layman (I'm assuming), so his opinion and mine carry equal weight with the hierarchy.

If I used sneering, mocking, snide, etc. remarks in broadcasting my thoughts to my readership, I'd be speaking volumes about what I considered their intellectual abilities.

[ninenot]

You state that Peter was married. If you wish to argue that "Peter was married" then you MUST argue that he continued sexual relations. You can't: you don't know. NONE of us know with moral certainty that Peter and his wife engaged in sexual relations AFTER his appointment as the Head of the Church on earth.

NONE of us know the bed-time practices of the other Apostles.

What we DO know is that celibacy has been a written rule for Roman Rite priests (often broken, like other rules, by sinners...) since around the year 300 AD, and the WRITTEN rule may have been long preceded by the OBSERVED rule.

Parallel: the Assumption was 'observed' by the Faithful LONG before the proclamation was made in the early 1950's.