Does that mean he's imperfect? Or that God is imperfect? We've all probably addressed the issue of whether an omnipotent being can change its mind about something, but let's get down to Earth for a moment and address the issue of whether Catholics or anyone should give any respect or deference to a religious idol in the flesh who claims to be the spokesperson for God, but who, from generation to generation, and even within the same tenure, changes his mind on issues due to political and public pressure. In other words, the Pope is and should be treated only as the equivalent of a Prime Minister of a tiny little, but very influential, country tucked away in Rome. So, why do people give him so much credit where it's clearly not due?
The other day, Pope Benedict XVI accepted British Bishop Richard Williamson back into the church without any hesitation or penalty, despite the fact that the bishop openly denied the Holocaust. Then, after a furor of complaints, the Vatican yesterday demanded that the bishop recant. Bishop Williamson infamously stated that ``[t]he historical evidence? is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers.''
Papers are saying that the reaction is a sign of how much the Vatican had misread the public mood. The public mood? Since when was the voice of God swayed not by God's will, but by public mood?
What we have here is a failure to treat people like unelected politicians when that is all they are. The Pope, the Reverend Whatever, the Grand Poobah, Thomas Monson, Benny Hinn, whoever, should be treated with the same deference and respect given to people of the same caliber, like Charles Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and other highly influential people who claimed to have some greater insight into the supernatural than everyone else, but who are, to the rational observer, merely mortal men prone to greed, hatred, racism, sexism, and self-righteousness.
Take a look at claims of ultramontanism and papal infallibility, as well as reactions to the Pope's declarations about morality, this brief note about how Pope John Paul II was a divider, not a uniter, and what Christopher Hitchens had to say about Jon Paul II.
Papers are saying that the reaction is a sign of how much the Vatican had misread the public mood. The public mood? Since when was the voice of God swayed not by God's will, but by public mood?
What we have here is a failure to treat people like unelected politicians when that is all they are. The Pope, the Reverend Whatever, the Grand Poobah, Thomas Monson, Benny Hinn, whoever, should be treated with the same deference and respect given to people of the same caliber, like Charles Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and other highly influential people who claimed to have some greater insight into the supernatural than everyone else, but who are, to the rational observer, merely mortal men prone to greed, hatred, racism, sexism, and self-righteousness.
Take a look at claims of ultramontanism and papal infallibility, as well as reactions to the Pope's declarations about morality, this brief note about how Pope John Paul II was a divider, not a uniter, and what Christopher Hitchens had to say about Jon Paul II.