Is the office of the Papacy an abomination?

[memphis]

No, but some positions of the Church (past and present) certainly are.

[memphis]

No, but some positions of the Church (past and present) certainly are.

Example... and keep in mind that I want positions of The Church.

Historically, the Inquisistion, the fight over the heliocentric universe, the sale of indulgences. More recently, the Church's stances against birth control and condoms seem particularly worthy of the term abomination given the AIDS and overpopulation that is plaguing much of the less developed world.

[memphis]

No, but some positions of the Church (past and present) certainly are.

Example... and keep in mind that I want positions of The Church.

Historically, the Inquisistion, the fight over the heliocentric universe, the sale of indulgences. More recently, the Church's stances against birth control and condoms seem particularly worthy of the term abomination given the AIDS and overpopulation that is plaguing much of the less developed world.

Note I said The Church clearly you have not read my earlier comments.

First off, the Inquisition was launched by the Spanish Monarchy, not The Church, and it was actually condemned by several high ranking officials at the time (including one of the Popes I believe).  The Church never sanctioned it, nor was it ever supported by doctrine.  There were a few Inquisitions launched by Popes, but they were immediately slapped down once it was clear that the goal of the Inquisitors was punishment and not conversion or the truth and conversion.  Eitherway, this can be filed under the "human error" category.

The view that the Earth was the center of the universe was supported by academia at the time, it always had been.  It was the fault of pie-in-the-sky philosophers.  In fact, many scientists had long held to the theory.  The Pope at the time was highly sympathetic to Galileo, but he was pressed on by the academics in the ranks of the Cardinals who were very learned men and essentially saw Galileo's claims as an insult to their intelligence.

For the millionth time, it was actually against canon law to do what the "sellers" of indulgences were doing, this went ignored by corrupt clergy.

As for your other comments, actually, the Church is in the process of reviewing its stand on condoms, specifically in Africa, for AIDS prevention.  Benedict has thus far made supportive noises to this end... kinda funny how Benedict has turned out to be the exact opposite of what people thought he would be like and thus far no one has noticed (or been willing to admit they are wrong).  Benedict has done more to liberalize the Church in some areas than JPII did in all his 25 years (actually contrary to popular belief, JPII probably brought the Church way back to the right).  No one likes to admit they are wrong though, I guess.  Actually, it is worth noting, however, that instances of AIDS have dropped where governments, aided by the Church, have aggressively pursued abstinence, but its not enough, and the Church is coming around to that notion.

You can't claim divine authority and then say it was the fault of academics. Either your doctrine is god-given or its not. Oops, we were just going with the flow isn't a good explaination for a religion's failings.
You have the same problem today with contraceptives. The "infallible" Pope may very well change the doctrine of the last "infallible" Pope and say that you were just doing what people thought was right for the times, but this is ultimately very shaky ground that exposes all religion (the Catholic Church is hardly unique) for what is truly is: a political exercise.

[memphis]

No, but some positions of the Church (past and present) certainly are.

Example... and keep in mind that I want positions of The Church.

Historically, the Inquisistion, the fight over the heliocentric universe, the sale of indulgences. More recently, the Church's stances against birth control and condoms seem particularly worthy of the term abomination given the AIDS and overpopulation that is plaguing much of the less developed world.

Note I said The Church clearly you have not read my earlier comments.

First off, the Inquisition was launched by the Spanish Monarchy, not The Church, and it was actually condemned by several high ranking officials at the time (including one of the Popes I believe).  The Church never sanctioned it, nor was it ever supported by doctrine.  There were a few Inquisitions launched by Popes, but they were immediately slapped down once it was clear that the goal of the Inquisitors was punishment and not conversion or the truth and conversion.  Eitherway, this can be filed under the "human error" category.

The view that the Earth was the center of the universe was supported by academia at the time, it always had been.  It was the fault of pie-in-the-sky philosophers.  In fact, many scientists had long held to the theory.  The Pope at the time was highly sympathetic to Galileo, but he was pressed on by the academics in the ranks of the Cardinals who were very learned men and essentially saw Galileo's claims as an insult to their intelligence.

For the millionth time, it was actually against canon law to do what the "sellers" of indulgences were doing, this went ignored by corrupt clergy.

As for your other comments, actually, the Church is in the process of reviewing its stand on condoms, specifically in Africa, for AIDS prevention.  Benedict has thus far made supportive noises to this end... kinda funny how Benedict has turned out to be the exact opposite of what people thought he would be like and thus far no one has noticed (or been willing to admit they are wrong).  Benedict has done more to liberalize the Church in some areas than JPII did in all his 25 years (actually contrary to popular belief, JPII probably brought the Church way back to the right).  No one likes to admit they are wrong though, I guess.  Actually, it is worth noting, however, that instances of AIDS have dropped where governments, aided by the Church, have aggressively pursued abstinence, but its not enough, and the Church is coming around to that notion.

You can't claim divine authority and then say it was the fault of academics. Either your doctrine is god-given or its not. Oops, we were just going with the flow isn't a good explaination for a religion's failings.
You have the same problem today with contraceptives. The "infallible" Pope may very well change the doctrine of the last "infallible" Pope and say that you were just doing what people thought was right for the times, but this is ultimately very shaky ground that exposes all religion (the Catholic Church is hardly unique) for what is truly is: a political exercise.

Do I really have to get out my "dumbass" stamp?  Do you know what is meant by "infallibility" do you have any clue how that works... the question is just a formality, because obviously you don't.

Read my comments from pages 1 and 2.

Thanks for ignoring my point entirely and resorting to an ad hominem attack. Very Christ-like of you. I'll concede that I misconstrued the arcane way the Church defines infallibility. Nonetheless, the various Popes' positions do seem to change over time, and some older ones are contradictory to proven scientific fact. This seems to me to destroy completely the credibility of the Church on today's issues because it will most likely just change its mind somewhere down the line. The Church v. Galileo is a good example for this. Why should it matter what academics think if you claim to speak for God?