The Catholic 'Man of the Year'

[Biggles of 266]

Surprise, surprise. Sydney's august journal, The Catholic Weekly, took advantage of the festive season to ponder who should be crowned Man of the Year. His picture is splashed all over the front page of this week's issue. And the winner is ... Pope John Paul II.

Gosh, who'd have guessed? The choice was all the work of acting editor John Pierce, who held the reins while his boss was on leave. Pierce argued yesterday that JPII had enjoyed "such an incredible year ... for a guy seen to be at death's door".

The Weekly's centre spread rightly notes the 82-year-old Pontiff notched up 30,000 kilometres, doing six countries in three months, "lodging for the first time in a hotel". Would Pierce have been escorted from the building had he unwisely picked anyone else; say, the whistleblowing victim of a pedophile priest? "That thought hadn't crossed my mind," said Pierce.

We bet someone who's blown his chances of being named The Catholic Weekly's next Man of the Year is Mario Conti, Archbishop of Glasgow, who boldly confessed to The Scotsman this week: "I have doubts ... particularly relating to the afterlife." The archbishop also courageously revealed his worry about the church's stand on condoms. "I hope you are not going to get me hung up on this one ... I am being very daring here," the archbishop began, adding " I think it is legitimate to ask whether there are any circumstances in which, not for contraceptive but for hygienic purposes, condoms may be used in order to prevent the spread of AIDS."

 

[TicklingDuo]

I wouldn't worry too much about Abp. Glasgow. Keep in mind that JPII, while a priest, then bishop and then Cardinal Abp. Woijtia continually studied Marxist and other controversial writings and was very quick to buck the system when he felt that an injustice was being done. While some of the Church's teachings on sexuality have stood for a long time, teachings about condoms and the like have never been done ex cathedra and therefore are not among those considered to be infallible. So, they're still open (officially) for debate...even when that debate isn't very welcomed.

For those who are unfamiliar and may be interested: Only those teachings given ex cathedra (from the chair) are considered to be infallible. This is based on the Scriptures where Jesus says to Peter that the Church will be built upon him and that hell will not prevail over it and from where he tells him that what is bound/loosed on earth will aslo be so in heaven. That, obviously would mean its teachings as well as its existence.

Peter and all of the popes since him have been very human. Some have been downright power hungry and evil. That is the reason for the gift of infallibility. It isn't that these guys are so good that they thiink they can't make a mistake. It's that they recognize their humanity and dependence upon the Spirit to keep them from doing so in serious matters like these. When stating an official teachiing on faith and morals, we believe that the Spirit prevents them from teaching in error. After all, the Lord wouldn't support a teaching that was in error. All other teachings not done as officially from the chair of Peter are subject to change and debate...though that isn't always very welcome.

Ann