[royalcello]

Good article. However, it does seem that many, perhaps even most, of your fellow traditionalists--Pat Buchanan, Joseph Sobran, Thomas Drolesky, Thomas Woods, the SSPX's Fr. Peter Scott, just to name a few examples--agree with the Pope on the war.

I've been struck by the irony that when it comes to the war, the neoconservative neo-Catholics are suddenly discovering the limits of papal infallibility, while so many of those "schismatic," "Pope-bashing" traditionalists are agreeing with John Paul II! I don't think the Pope's opposition to the war can be labeled as "tilting leftward" as there are many right-wingers who oppose this war, and have good reasons for doing so.

[ultima ratio]

I must agree with you. Many traditionalists, in my view, exceed traditionalism itself on certain issues. The war is one of these. On this, honest men can differ. I would include in this certain other issues as well. Christopher Ferrara had an article recently in Catholic Family News which makes much of the wearing of some sort of headress by women while in church--treating this custom as if it were a major dogma of the faith, the violation of which was exceedingly unCatholic. This is an exaggerated posture and gives the traditionalist movement in general a reputation for narrow-mindedness. Catholicism historically had always been marked by common sense, balance and societal adjustment. On these peripheral matters--war, politics, customs--traditionalists are as subject to error as anybody else.

[Danny Cent]

Papal Infallibility plays no part in what the pope is saying. Papal infallibility only refers to Dogma on Faith & Morals and has not been used since 1950 on any issue. If you are a Catholic theologian or canon lawyer and can tell me different, I would love to hear where it says that this is infallible teaching.