Interesting article in that it creates a number of arguments that are in opposition to much of the Catholic teachings. Foundational to this article is the concept that a Catholic could hold a theological opinion that differs from the Pope. In addition, that the Catholic would be motivated by their moral code to then resist or oppose the Pope. This would be a direct opposition to the belief that the Church has primary authority and would presuppose that the individual has the moral obligation to judge the morality of the current ecclesiastical teachings.
I would ask a challenge question in response. If one is to oppose the Pope, then where would they go to seek guidance of their moral code? I therefore postulate that the scriptures would be the primary means of guidance, in that anything taught by the Pope would have to align with scripture in order to be accepted as “right”. IOW, prima scriptura (scripture is the first and foremost authority)
Interesting article in that it creates a number of arguments that are in opposition to much of the Catholic teachings. Foundational to this article is the concept that a Catholic could hold a theological opinion that differs from the Pope.
Sorry, but it is most certainly not "in opposition to ... Catholic teaching" that a Catholic could hold a theologial opinion which differs from a pope. Only in cases where the Pope's opinion is, in fact, Catholic will this above hold true. But, if one should teach something less than orthodox, like say suggesting that atheism saves and that Catholics should encourage atheists to be more devoted in their atheism, then any real Catholic will certainly hold theological opinions which differ from his.
At its most extreme the Church has only ever held that a pope is infallible, i.e. totally free from any theological error, in very, very specific cases. Only twice since Vatican I has this ever undeniably happened, and yet how many "theological opinions" have all the popes since then had? Were they all perfectly orthodox throughout those times? We certainly have no authority to require us to believe that they were never wrong about theological ideas during those years, and it goes beyond good sense to suggest as much. To argue for that, as many seem to in defending every utterance of every pope, is to go far beyond what the Church teaches, and that means to leave orthodoxy. Popes can be wrong, and when they are we should disagree with them. If we don't then we are wrong too, and that is never a virtue.
The concept is Biblical: "But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Catholics are under no obligation to kiss Korans, put beachballs on altars or attend prayer gatherings with the Great Thumb, despite the fact that Popes have done these things. Only God is infallible; Popes are human and make mistakes.
---------------------------
"The scope of papal infallibility is the same as any other organ of infallibility of the Church (such as an ecumenical council): it is limited to doctrinal definitions or final definitive statements concerning faith or morals. Theologians distinguish between primary and secondary objects of infallibility. The primary object consists of the truths that have been formally revealed by God, being contained within the two sources of revelation, namely, Scripture and Tradition, and extends to both positive and negative decisions of a definitive nature. Positive decisions include such things as dogmatic decrees of a council, ex cathedra statements from a pope, and official creeds of the Church. Negative decisions consist of “the determination and rejection of such errors as are opposed to the teaching of Revelation”. (3) The secondary object of infallibility includes those matters which, although not formally revealed, are connected with and intimately related to the revealed deposit, such as theological conclusions (inferences deduced from two premises, one of which is revealed and the other verified by reason) and dogmatic facts (contingent historical facts). These are so closely related to revealed truths that they are said to be virtually contained within the revealed deposit. With varying degrees of certitude, theologians also list universal disciplines and the canonizations of saints within this category. Secondary objects “come within the purview of infallibility, not by their very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation”."
http://thecatholicfaith.blogspot.com/2012/11/papal-infallibility-and-its-limitations.html
This concept is not in opposition to Catholic teaching. A pope may hold theological opinions which are debatable or even erroneous. What matters is not whether he "holds" these opinions, but (1)whether they are heretical (not just questionable) and (2) whether he intends to impose them on the Church with the full authority of his office.
Francis is our 266th pope. It is unreasonable to suppose that ALL the theological "opinions" of ALL the previous popes were or are considered normative for the whole Church. That's simply impossible.
“This would be a direct opposition to the belief that the Church has primary authority”
What century are we talking about, here? I have always been taught that God has primary authority, and that the Bible is His word.
“and would presuppose that the individual has the moral obligation to judge the morality of the current ecclesiastical teachings.”
Well, yeah. The Church holds that God gave us reason so that we could use it.
“I would ask a challenge question in response.”
Asked and answered.
Prima scriptura (scripture is the first and foremost authority).
Based on whose interpretation of the scriptures?
That's the whole point isn't it?