Pope John Paul II was a pope that I think many in the Gulch would have agreed with on a large number of things, other than Christianity and God of course. The current pope is one that I am no fan of. I do not have much evidence of this, but from what he has said, I think he has been influenced by "liberation theology" way too much.

I'm waiting for his "I am John Galt" video.

What? We're all humans?

Glad to know I'm in good company. :)

If you're not Catholic and you have an understanding of the word "infallible" reading the above is bizarre. If the mystical conditions are just so-a claim can be made. The Pope is like any other public person with authority. When he makes absurd statements-it's reasonable to call him on it and question how he might use his influence and authority to take the statement to an action. His earlier statement about capitalism adds to it. They are political statements which are untrue.

Ranter's statements about papal infallibility are correct.

No Catholic would see that as an infallible statement. For the Pope to speak infallibly, under the teaching of the Church, several conditions must be met:

1. He must state that he is speaking "ex Cathedra" (form the throne of Peter);

2. He must be defining a formal dogma on faith or morals that all Catholics will be required to believe;

3. He must be stating a teaching on faith or morals that the "whole Church" already believes, but that is not believed by all in the Church or that is under attack by some in the Church. In short, the majority of bishops in the Church must agree with the teaching; and

4. He must use this power only because it is necessary to define the teaching and an Ecumenical Council cannot be convened to decide the matter by majority vote of all the Bishops of the world.

In all other words spoken by Popes, the Popes are as fallible as any other human being. Popes have spoken thus infallibly only on three teachings in the 2,000 year history of the Church. This occasion was not one of them.

Did you need proof?