Don't remember the book.

I'm fat and have plenty of ass.

I do not denounce my faith, and yet I denounce the raping of children.

St. Catherine of Sienna begs to differ.

No, he's not. Only his ex cathedra pronouncements are.

Care to expound?

Ex cathedra is a pronouncement of doctrinal import made by the Pope only under a specific set of circumstances. This power of infallibility is rarely invoked (the last time being 1950 with the doctrine of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary--a belief held informally by the Church for centuries and only made dogma by the ex cathedra pronouncement). Infallible pronouncements such as this are a special grace from God and do not proceed from the character of the man.

Random crap the Pope says to reporters on his airplane, for example, are not to be taken as infallible pronouncements. The Pope as a man is as fallible as anyone else, and we've had some horrible men as Popes throughout the centuries. As alluded to earlier, St. Catherine of Sienna (who is a saint and therefore considered a woman of supreme virtue and worthy of emulation in the Church) straight up beat the Pope with her purse and told him what an asshole he was being and that he should amend his ways.

Does that not sound like a post hoc way to explain Popes who clearly were pieces of ****? I mean if a Pope can potentially speak "ex cathedra" then why does he say anything that isn't? Isn't it irresponsible for a Pope to make any pronouncement that isn't ex cathedra? If a Pope can speak ex cathedra then shouldn't they logically only operate like the oracle of Delphi saying only things that are explicitly divinely inspired?

I guess.

Well okay then, so are you going to become a Scientologist or something or are you going to continue to rationalize why you should still be a Catholic and listen to some communist who enables pedophiles? And having said that I realize I just gave you a boner.

Nah. I just don't bang my head against a brick wall. I explained ex cathedra. You either understand it or you don't.