"The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers."

Pope Francis chose his name in honor of St. Francis of Assisi because he is a lover of the poor, said Vatican deputy spokesman Thomas Rosica.

(This is from a Catholic "pro-life" site, so you don't have to click to it if you don't want to read all of it, but it encapsulates the subject pretty well. I also don't agree with it, but it's not about "just having lots of children.")

Paul VI, in Humanae vitae, stated that "If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate births without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier." Pius XII taught that unless some serious circumstances arise, spouses are obliged to have children. However, he also teaches that it is moral for the spouses to limit their family size or even to refrain from having children altogether, if they have sufficiently serious reasons. He stated that "There are serious motives, such as those often mentioned in the so-called medical, eugenic, economic, and social 'indications', that can except for a long time, perhaps even during the whole duration of the marriage, from the positive and obligatory carrying out of the act.4

Gaudium et spes teaches that "Among the married couples who thus fulfill their God-given mission, special mention should be made of those who after prudent reflection and common decisions, courageously undertake the proper upbringing of a large number of children." It also states that it is the duty of the parents, and of them alone, to decide on the number and spacing of children, and that they should take "into consideration their own good and the good of their children already born or yet to come, and ability to read the signs of the times and of their own situation, on the material and spiritual level, and finally, an estimation of the good of the family, of society, and of the Church."

In fact, he is considered infallible.

He is only considered infallable when sitting ex cathedra, menaing "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, (the Bishop of Rome) defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".

Basically it's happened twice - in 2000 years.

The real purpose of the RCC is (none / 0) (#85)
by observed on Thu Mar 14, 2013 at 05:23:59 PM EST

to collect money and exert political power. It's services are the method for gaining the trust and money of the adherents. It's just a variant form of state.

1. Vatican City actually IS a state.

2. Seems you're missing the charity part - especially since Catholic Charities is the third largest charity in the world.

3. Rounding up Jews as a youth?  Not true - even this atheist writer, who is highly critical of Benedict's past says "Not true"

There is absolutely no reason to think that Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, is now or has ever been secretly a Nazi. Nothing he has ever said or done even remotely suggests the slightest sympathy with any of the basic Nazi ideas or goals. Any claim that he is a Nazi is implausible at best. However, that is not the end of the story.

While Ratzinger was not a Nazi in the past and Benedict XVI is not a Nazi now, there is more than enough reason to question his handling of his past. It appears that he hasn't been honest with others -- and probably not honest with himself -- about what he did and what he could have done.

It's simply not true that resistance was impossible at the time. Difficult, yes; dangerous, yes. But not impossible. John Paul II participated in anti-Nazi theater performances in Poland, yet there is no evidence of Joseph Ratzinger even doing this much.

Ratzinger may have done more than many others to resist, but he also did far less that some. It's certainly understandable that he wouldn't have had the courage to do more and, were he any average person, that would be the end of the story. But he isn't an average person, is he? He's the pope, a person who is supposed to be the successor of Peter, head of the Christian Church, and symbol of unity for all Christendom.

The Pope can choose to ignore the advice of the various Vatican policy groups, as for example Pope Paul VI did when the policy councils advised him to accept oral contraception. Paul chose to oppose it in a Papal Encyclical, thus setting us up for the battle over contraception that continues today.

It is true that the Vatican is a huge bureaucracy. Like all such institutions, it resists major change. So, Francis I, if he intends to change things like the Vatican Bank, needs to be bureaucratically nimble, must put his own people in critical power positions, and must engage in the kind of down-and-dirty battles that seem to always come with such attempts to change an institutional culture.

Since, the screwups of gray smoke, the screwups in getting the smoke to be black or white, make for a funny story, as I read again last week.  (So, it's still out there, for anyone wanting to find it.)