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.

You didn't explain why a Pope would say something that isn't ex cathedra. Seems a pretty obvious question that any Catholic with a brain would ask.

Because he has a mouth.

So why should you assume that when the Pope claims to be speaking ex cathedra that he just doesn't assume he's speaking ex cathedra while he's actually just being a blowhard?

Slavery as a practice is condemned on at least two separate occasions in the New Testament. Just because you read a parable where slaves got beaten or something doesn't mean much.

My criticism of Muhammad isn't disingenuous, because unlike Jesus he's a terrible role model AND a pedophile...yet still serves as the focal point for the entire Islamic faith across all denominations. If adherence to Muhammad and acknowleding his "perfection" as a human being and as Allah's #1 prophet wasn't the crux of the entire freakin' belief system in the present day, maybe you would have a point. But that isn't the case, seeing as millions of people follow him as we speak.

He has to put on his Pointy Hat of Pronouncing, take his Quarterstaff of Heretic Smiting +6 in hand, sit in his Chair of St. Peter, and say that he's saying something ex cathedra for it be him saying something ex cathedra.