I detect a creeping infallibilism in what you're saying to mlizzy.
There are teachings that the Church proclaims to which all must submit. But not every word from the Curia is infallible.
In fact, not ANY word from the Curia is infallible (although at times, the Curia can make binding judgments). The charism of infallibility cannot be delegated by the pope to anyone else, not the Prefect of the CDF, nor by extension, from the Prefect of the CDF to Msgr. Fleetwood working in the films office or whatever.
In fact, not even every word from the pope is infallible, or even binding.
If we wish for folks to respect (and for Catholics to submit to) the actual binding and infallible teachings of the Church, we should take care not to beat folks up when they disagree where disagreement is permitted.
It's a good thing to take seriously the opinions of curial officials when they act in their proper area of competence. Myself, I wouldn't lightly disregard the words of Msgr. Fleetwood.
But neither are these opinions binding on the consciences of Catholics. They are worthy of respect and consideration, but may be considered alongside other sources, as well, especially other worthy Catholic sources, and including one’s own intellect, reason and wisdom.
Msgr. Fleetwood's own words regarding the controversy implicitly accept the freedom of Catholics to differ on the point. He doesn't condemn the views of the exorcist in Rome whose opinion differs from his own. Rather, he acknowledges that each one of them has an opinion, and that his opinon, Msgr. Fleetwood's opinion, is as worthy of consideration as the opinion of the other priest.
I notice no claim on Msgr. Fleetwood's part that anyone is morally obligated to submit to his views. He makes no effort in his argument to assert thusly. Rather, he tries to persuade through the actual making of a logical, coherent, rational argument (which, I might add, he does very well). He appeals to reason, not to authority.
I have no dog in this fight. Our judgment concerning Harry Potter around our house was that it was something of a poor effort when compared to the works of Tolkien and Lewis. So, I've never made much of an effort to research the series to see what conclusions to which I might come.
I have sympathy for both sides of the debate. I know folks who have eschewed the works because they believe that they're evil. I also know devout and truly observant and good Catholic families who have permitted the works in their homes, and their children seem no worse for wear, no less Catholic, unharmed by the exposure to the Potter series. In fact, my own son's "steady" is such a young lady.
But this strikes me as an area where there is freedom for each one to come to his own conclusion, as best he can, and within reason, to argue for the rightness of those conclusions.
Not much is solemnly defined as de fide. We should be careful not to go beyond the Church's own claims Her authority.
sitetest
>>Not much is solemnly defined as de fide. We should be careful not to go beyond the Church’s own claims Her authority.<<
Listening to a random priest or author, instead of listening to a Vatican official. How different is that from listening to Father Michael Pfleger over what the Vatican says? It’s not a matter of dogma, but a matter of authority. While not infallible, Vatican officials have more authority to speak on matters which are their specialty.
Are you saying that Father Pfleger has just as much authority to speak on Catholicism as a Vatican official?
It’s a very slippery slope.