The Pope has shocked theologians and opened a chink in the theory of papal infallibility by saying that people should feel free to disagree with what he has written in his latest book, a meditation on Jesus Christ.
I wish there was a shortcut to put something in all caps, because that screams for it.
Now, the article does quote a couple of sources for this contention:
No Pope has ever opened up his work and opinions to criticism before. Nor has any Pope tried to separate his personal and public personas, according to Professor Giuseppe Alberigo, a professor of the history of the Catholic Church at Bologna University.
"I really believe this is the first time this has ever happened," he said. "It is an extraordinarily important gesture. What it means is that the Pope is not totally infallible. As well as being the Pope, he is a common man, hugely studious in this case, but like all men he is subject to debates, arguments and discussions." He added that Pope John Paul II "could never have made a distinction between ‘official’ Pope and ‘ordinary’ Pope".
Well, here’s what I say, picking a fight with the esteemed professor. First of all, no Pope has had a lengthy career as a theologian preceding his election, as Benedict as. No Pope has previously published so many books of theology as Benedict has – as a theologian, Joseph Ratzinger.
Secondly, on the JP matter. John Paul may not have explicitly told people "feel free to criticize me" as Ratzinger rather winningly has in the preface to his book, but honestly. Do you think John Paul really believed or wanted us to believe that his reflections in Crossing the Threshold or Rise, Let Us Be On Our Way were infallible? Pshaw, as the Brits say, so perhaps they can understand me.
No, Pope Benedict, I presume, understands that something like this could be very easily misunderstood, especially in a day and age when, it’s obvious, people have a very difficult time understanding these things. He’s an academic, an intellectual, with a real and deep appreciation of the nuances of papal teaching authority as a conserving, protective function, and the contrasting characteristic of academic debate and dialogue. This is not rocket science, it seems to me.
I presume he understands that in this fevered media culture issues like this really need to be clarified because the media tends to overblow things and get them wrong.
And I guess he was right about that.
So…does that mean he’s infallible again?
The Roman theological schools have been thrown into crisis by Pope Benedict XVI’s recent disavowal of infallibility. High-level meetings between the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (The Holy Office), the Rectors of the Pontifical Universities and the standing committee of the International Theological Commission have struggled to come up with a plna of action following the Papal decree abolishing infallibility…
Heh. The really helpful thing Zadok does, besides making us laugh, is explaining who Professor Alberigo is…basically a central figure in interpreting the Second Vatican Council within the "Hermeneutic of Discontinuity" (from a "liberal" angle) and "Spirit of Vatican II" paradigm.
Read Previous Post