CALL THE POPE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

I want to post something which I feel strongly about. On the first try, what I post may not be as clear as I want. If so, then I will return.

Again I have run afoul of a couple of catholic bloggers, and I think I know what the problem is. There are two basic approaches to finding the truth . First is mine and others way which says I think A is almost certainly true. But there is a possibility, as remote as it might be, that I could be wrong.

And then B,I will call it for purposes of this post, the catholic way. That is, I have been told by my church not what is 99.9999999 sure, but what is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and I accept that. You may argue with me, but there is ZERO chance you are right.

In the last century the church officially procclaimed the doctrine of Infallibility. Faced with science and its doctrine that anything may be subject to revision, even though on many matters that chance is infinitesimally small, the church adopted the principle of Absolute Certainty. The poor dumb people needed this so they would not be seduced by wicked scientist like Darwin. That is, the church, when it so desires can make statements of fact that have NO possibility of being wrong

My first point is that this doctrine "trickles down" to many catholics, and they become very intolerant of those who question their 'infallibility", based, they would argue, on what the church has stated cannot be error. Although not a blogger, Bishop Chaput of Denver is a good illustration. In his recent book "Render unto Caesar" he simply states what is absolutely true and urges catholics to enter the political area with the confidence that, as they have been taught, there is no possibility they could be wrong. Oh, yes, he would say, give arguments if it might help, but start from the absolute truth and then search for the rationales. I think the Key sentence in his book is seen when he brings up the subject of "personhood" as it applies to abortion. Most thoughtful people think this is a key discussion. Chaput simply reduces it to 'I will not discuss it as those who disagree with the church MUST be wrong. '

Now good conservative catholics follow his approach and think they are being totally logical. This is the TRUTH period. Of course, that is fine, but such an approach does throw a chill over rational debate. That is, we start with there is no chance I am wrong they say, and yes, I will deign to make an argument or two, but the discussion really has no meaning because my church, and by extension, I, as a follower, CANNOT be wrong.

Newman finally supported Infallibility on the grounds it would seldom be used. He thought to proclaim the doctrine was counter-productive. But the church is wise. It has used the doctrine only twice, frankly on matters that do not have great significance in our daily christian lives. But the 'rulers' of the church are not satisfied with such meager power since the proclamation of infallibility.. So we have the magisterium, which in all conservative catholic thinking is really 'infallibility' with not such a brute word.

And this 'magesterium' goes almost all the way. It can say with TOTAL, ABSOLUTE, certainty that one cell MUST is a human person, on exactly the same level as you and I . On a practical level this 'magisterium' is even more useful. It can tell you with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY who to vote for for president, or even maybe county sheriff. Of course, they don't give the name of who you should vote for, but you would have to be an ABSOLUTE, TOTAL MORON to miss the point.

In summary then, I am not arguing that the church should not speak out and that what it says should not be given weight. But I, for one, cannot accept that the church speaks with ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE OF ERROR on virtually any subject it desires from what to think and practice about sex in the most minute detail, to whom the president of the U.S. should appoint to any office, or to tell Obama (as John Allen wrote) that his first order of business is to call the pope and get his views.