Yes, it is. At certain points in the Catholic Church's history, it has even been encouraged. Rigorous theological debate was once considered, to borrow from the Synagogue across the street, a mitzvah.
However, the Pope, absent speaking ex cathedra, is still the ruling agent of the Church. The Pope sets the formal policy and the formal belief of the Church. The Pope, to go back to the phrasing I used above, speaks for the Church. That is, in fact, his job.
When we speak of someone like Rick Warren or Pat Robertson, we speak of them as "religious leaders," and in one sense that's true. They're influential in their churches. They are given great credence and great authority. But they do not speak for their churches. There are rather involved bodies of authority in the Protestant churches. At most, a given Pastor can be said to speak for his Congregation, with his Bishop standing as his supervisor. And plenty of times in the last few hundred years Protestants who disagree with their Pastors on fundamental theological questions stand up and walk out, and attend a different church in the same or a related denomination.
But for Catholics, the Pope is the end of that chain. The College of Cardinals can come up with anything they like -- if the Pope disagrees with them, the Pope's word goes.
A Catholic can disagree with Pope Benedict XVI. But what he can't do is claim the Pope doesn't speak for Catholicism -- there can be rigorous debate about his decision or opinions, but those opinions are the ones that go out on the official Catholic stationary, and no one can gainsay them. One must actively disagree with the Pope. One must go on the record. One must state, directly or indirectly, that the Pope is wrong, if one wants to step out from the Pope's umbrella. And sooner or later, the more someone does that the more they end up standing away from the Catholic Church in toto.
If a Southern Baptist says Pat Robertson doesn't speak for them, that's all there is to it. Pat Robertson doesn't even have a current congregation -- and his views are significantly more in the Charismatic camp than the Southern Baptist Convention holds to. But when the Reverend Sun Myung Moon speaks for the Unification Church, there is no body or convention jurying his statements. His statements are what the Church holds, and a Moonie who wants to dissent must do so openly, and accept the consequences.
A Catholic who doesn't believe that Homosexuality is innate self-destruction that is condemning the human race on a par with the ecological destruction accompanying the loss of the Rainforests will still be held to their Pontiff's beliefs. They have to make it clear they think the Pope is wrong. And in doing so, they have to risk the consequences.
This 'message' is reprehensible and hateful -- the direct codification of a policy that comes down to 'we feel these people are subhuman and their mere existence is an affront to God, so we must see them destroyed.' And it's being done in the name of the Catholic Church, as a whole, and in the name of the Catholics who make it up. Dissent can only come when it is active.
no subject
However, the Pope, absent speaking ex cathedra, is still the ruling agent of the Church. The Pope sets the formal policy and the formal belief of the Church. The Pope, to go back to the phrasing I used above, speaks for the Church. That is, in fact, his job.
When we speak of someone like Rick Warren or Pat Robertson, we speak of them as "religious leaders," and in one sense that's true. They're influential in their churches. They are given great credence and great authority. But they do not speak for their churches. There are rather involved bodies of authority in the Protestant churches. At most, a given Pastor can be said to speak for his Congregation, with his Bishop standing as his supervisor. And plenty of times in the last few hundred years Protestants who disagree with their Pastors on fundamental theological questions stand up and walk out, and attend a different church in the same or a related denomination.
But for Catholics, the Pope is the end of that chain. The College of Cardinals can come up with anything they like -- if the Pope disagrees with them, the Pope's word goes.
A Catholic can disagree with Pope Benedict XVI. But what he can't do is claim the Pope doesn't speak for Catholicism -- there can be rigorous debate about his decision or opinions, but those opinions are the ones that go out on the official Catholic stationary, and no one can gainsay them. One must actively disagree with the Pope. One must go on the record. One must state, directly or indirectly, that the Pope is wrong, if one wants to step out from the Pope's umbrella. And sooner or later, the more someone does that the more they end up standing away from the Catholic Church in toto.
If a Southern Baptist says Pat Robertson doesn't speak for them, that's all there is to it. Pat Robertson doesn't even have a current congregation -- and his views are significantly more in the Charismatic camp than the Southern Baptist Convention holds to. But when the Reverend Sun Myung Moon speaks for the Unification Church, there is no body or convention jurying his statements. His statements are what the Church holds, and a Moonie who wants to dissent must do so openly, and accept the consequences.
A Catholic who doesn't believe that Homosexuality is innate self-destruction that is condemning the human race on a par with the ecological destruction accompanying the loss of the Rainforests will still be held to their Pontiff's beliefs. They have to make it clear they think the Pope is wrong. And in doing so, they have to risk the consequences.
This 'message' is reprehensible and hateful -- the direct codification of a policy that comes down to 'we feel these people are subhuman and their mere existence is an affront to God, so we must see them destroyed.' And it's being done in the name of the Catholic Church, as a whole, and in the name of the Catholics who make it up. Dissent can only come when it is active.