It would be nice if pope's were perfect human beings capable of saying and doing no wrong, but such is not the human condition. Paul rebuked Peter, after all.
The only time a pope is guaranteed to speak correctly is when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals. There have only been a couple or so ex cathedra pronouncements in history, and JPII's one-off about dogs have souls was not one of them.
Its also a false assumption to think that the Holy Spirit will always give you what you need, rather than what you deserve (regarding a certain pope).
A quote by someone I can't recall goes roughly along the lines of "If Judas could be an Apostle of Christ, why should we be surprised that there are vile popes?"
It would be nice if pope’s were perfect human beings capable of saying and doing no wrong, but such is not the human condition. Paul rebuked Peter, after all.
What I can not understand is that the Pope can make an amusing comment and every one takes it serious, obviously he was only making a point with a little joke.
I don`t think any one should be baptized unless they plainly understand what baptism is all about but that’s another argument.
I don't think anyone expects Popes to be perfectly, sinless humans, but, shouldn't your Popes at least be held to the same strictures Paul and Peter said were required of church leaders? You know, stuff like:
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. (I Peter 5:1-4)
Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap. In the same way, deacons are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. (I Timothy 3:1-10)
But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning. (I Timothy 5:20)
The only time a pope is guaranteed to speak correctly is when speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals. There have only been a couple or so ex cathedra pronouncements in history, and JPII's one-off about dogs have souls was not one of them.
Granted, even Popes misspeak and can be misinterpreted, but I don't think it is unusual to think, since they are looked up to in your religion as THE leader, what they publicly say ought to match what are official church doctrines. Paul reproved Peter OPENLY and he changed his ways, some Roman Catholic Popes have been allowed to continue in that position even after their gross immorality was public knowledge. It is and was a scandal that nothing was done to depose some of them and they only were replaced when they finally died (occasionally being murdered by their waiting replacement).
Some Catholics trot out this "ex cathedra" excuse to somehow rationalize the times Popes have said things that contradict Roman Catholic doctrines, but these doctrines and dogmas are not under the category of "ex cathedra" in nearly all cases, so there IS, and should be, an expectation that Popes at least would express and believe what the Catechism teaches and not say things that imply they don't, don't you think?
Its also a false assumption to think that the Holy Spirit will always give you what you need, rather than what you deserve (regarding a certain pope).
Once again we can turn to Scripture for that answer and see that such positions within the church are NOT to be taken lightly:
Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you. Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (I Timothy 4:12-16)
I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of His chosen angels, to maintain these principles without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality. Do not lay hands upon anyone too hastily and thereby share responsibility for the sins of others; keep yourself free from sin. (I Timothy 5:21-22)
A quote by someone I can't recall goes roughly along the lines of "If Judas could be an Apostle of Christ, why should we be surprised that there are vile popes?"
Okay...but Judas wasn't allowed to continue in their ministry and wouldn't have been even if he hadn't committed suicide after he betrayed the Lord. We can easily see that in the exhortations both Paul and Peter gave to those they passed on to the ministry of reconciliation. I don't deny that your church has had some truly Godly men in its past and present, even, but I don't believe there should be any reason to gloss over the failings of some of them - failings that were MUCH more than simply human errors or slip-ups. These men, I think, were allowed to reign because of moral failures within the hierarchy, and not in spite of them. Just ask yourself this, would St. Peter have ordained men such as Urban II, Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI or Leo X, as well as the others counted as "bad Popes"? What were they doing in that position in the first place IF the Roman Catholic Church truly is THE church Jesus established and whom He promised to lead into all truth with the "gates of hell" never prevailing? I think these are legitimate questions those outside of Catholicism, but still Christian, have and which Catholics should not brush off as insignificant or count as anti-Catholic bigotry.