RubySoho
Winston
Matter of Which Religion is Correct Settled Forever: Catholics Win!
July 10th 2007 16:13
Pope Says Catholic Church is the Only True Church
Well, I'm sure this statement is going to go over like a lead balloon. The pontiff, Pope Benedict, is slowly pulling the Catholic Church back towards the pre-Vatican Council II days. He's reinstated the right for priests to conduct the Mass in Latin. He's reverted some of his wardrobe back to the bygone days of popes as princes. Not at all surprisingly, he has strongly reaffirmed the Church's positions against abortion, birth control, gay marriage, euthanasia, and allowing priests to marry.
Now he's fired off another salvo, a statement which asserts the fact that the Catholic church is the only legitimate game in town:
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense....”
I am not a Christian now, but I was raised a Catholic for my entire childhood. I attended Catholic school for 12 years (I never want to wear a blue shirt and tie again). While I have studied lots of other religions, at least a little, in an effort to understand them better, Catholicism is the one religion I'm qualified to speak about on a personal level. With that being said, let me say that the Catholic Church is a dinosaur. Other denominations have attracted such a large following because of their willingness to embrace at least a tiny bit of change. The presentation, if not the message itself, has been updated and loosened a bit to account for modern sensibilities. The Catholic Church's position, on the other hand, seems to be one of "if it was right back then, it's right now." One problem with that is the assumption that it was right back then. Another problem is the Church's failure to recognize the fact that no institution in history has ever remained static for so long. Institutions evolve as society does. If they fail to keep pace with changing social mores, educational advances, etc., then they will wither and die. To the Church's credit, they have at least embraced some semblance of respect for evolutionary theory, unlike some of the younger, more fundamentalist Christian movements. Still, in most respects that actually impact the everyday lives of Catholics, the Church has been unyielding. The result has been increasing numbers of Catholics opting to ignore the Church on some issues, or leaving it entirely. Now, with the marginal changes afforded by Vatican Council II slowly being eroded away, the pace at which Catholics defect may well increase.
The odds are that every denomination of Christianity is wrong, but they're all wrong equally. For the Pope to issue an edict saying that the Catholic Church alone is theologically sound is the height of self-righteous pride. Then again, I suppose that should not come as a shock from a religious leader who functions almost as a Head of State. The robes, the throne, the kneeling and the kissing of rings....none of this has ever struck me as what Jesus would have approved of (had he actually existed, which is a somewhat dubious claim. Never mind, that's for another day). Now, thanks to this proclamation, we can expect another round of finger-pointing and hand-wringing over who is and who is not a "true" Christian. Check out this quote from a Vatican official, Father Augustine Di Noia.
“The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment,” Di Noia told Vatican radio.
“But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.”
So.......you're not backing out of ecumenical commitment......but you ARE telling everyone else that they are not in possession of the proper "means to salvation". AND, you're happy to keep working together, just as long as you can all agree that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Sounds very ecumenical. I can't possibly see how this could be a problem.
Hold on to your hats everyone. Something tells me that some people might not swallow this....
Well, I'm sure this statement is going to go over like a lead balloon. The pontiff, Pope Benedict, is slowly pulling the Catholic Church back towards the pre-Vatican Council II days. He's reinstated the right for priests to conduct the Mass in Latin. He's reverted some of his wardrobe back to the bygone days of popes as princes. Not at all surprisingly, he has strongly reaffirmed the Church's positions against abortion, birth control, gay marriage, euthanasia, and allowing priests to marry.
Now he's fired off another salvo, a statement which asserts the fact that the Catholic church is the only legitimate game in town:
“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense....”
I am not a Christian now, but I was raised a Catholic for my entire childhood. I attended Catholic school for 12 years (I never want to wear a blue shirt and tie again). While I have studied lots of other religions, at least a little, in an effort to understand them better, Catholicism is the one religion I'm qualified to speak about on a personal level. With that being said, let me say that the Catholic Church is a dinosaur. Other denominations have attracted such a large following because of their willingness to embrace at least a tiny bit of change. The presentation, if not the message itself, has been updated and loosened a bit to account for modern sensibilities. The Catholic Church's position, on the other hand, seems to be one of "if it was right back then, it's right now." One problem with that is the assumption that it was right back then. Another problem is the Church's failure to recognize the fact that no institution in history has ever remained static for so long. Institutions evolve as society does. If they fail to keep pace with changing social mores, educational advances, etc., then they will wither and die. To the Church's credit, they have at least embraced some semblance of respect for evolutionary theory, unlike some of the younger, more fundamentalist Christian movements. Still, in most respects that actually impact the everyday lives of Catholics, the Church has been unyielding. The result has been increasing numbers of Catholics opting to ignore the Church on some issues, or leaving it entirely. Now, with the marginal changes afforded by Vatican Council II slowly being eroded away, the pace at which Catholics defect may well increase.
The odds are that every denomination of Christianity is wrong, but they're all wrong equally. For the Pope to issue an edict saying that the Catholic Church alone is theologically sound is the height of self-righteous pride. Then again, I suppose that should not come as a shock from a religious leader who functions almost as a Head of State. The robes, the throne, the kneeling and the kissing of rings....none of this has ever struck me as what Jesus would have approved of (had he actually existed, which is a somewhat dubious claim. Never mind, that's for another day). Now, thanks to this proclamation, we can expect another round of finger-pointing and hand-wringing over who is and who is not a "true" Christian. Check out this quote from a Vatican official, Father Augustine Di Noia.
“The Church is not backtracking on ecumenical commitment,” Di Noia told Vatican radio.
“But, as you know, it is fundamental to any kind of dialogue that the participants are clear about their own identity. That is, dialogue cannot be an occasion to accommodate or soften what you actually understand yourself to be.”
So.......you're not backing out of ecumenical commitment......but you ARE telling everyone else that they are not in possession of the proper "means to salvation". AND, you're happy to keep working together, just as long as you can all agree that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Sounds very ecumenical. I can't possibly see how this could be a problem.
Hold on to your hats everyone. Something tells me that some people might not swallow this....
| 135 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
To be fair, pretty much every adherent to a religion/denomination thinks that they are in the right one. If they didn't, they wouldn't affiliate themselves with it in the first place (Hindus and Buddhists being possible exceptions). But man, this takes it to another level. The Pope, the most widely recognized religious figure in the world, felt it necessary to make an unprovoked statement that can pretty much be summed up as "We're right, the rest of you are screwed. Have a nice day." There are plenty of religious people saying and thinking this all the time, but they don't have quite the same clout or audience exposure as the Pope. What in hell possessed him to make a statement like that now, when religious harmony is not exactly the flavor of the day as it is? I am completely baffled. Wasn't there a cardinal around or something who might have said, "Um, Holy Father, this might not exactly be the best time for this message. Let's just stick with refusing to let condoms be passed out in Africa. That's been working well."
I'm getting off track here, but as I said, this amazes me. What was to be gained here? Nothing that I can see, unless it was an attempt to provoke. There was some initial hope that Benedict might be a little more progressive, but that idea got quashed in a hurry. Instead, we have a Pope who years for the good old days of the 1600's. Lucky us.
Comment by David
Pope Benedict XVI has only reaffirmed the teachings (dogmas - articles of Faith) of the Catholic Church as expressed in the Nicene Creed: 'Credo in unum Deum ... Et unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam. and in the Catechism of the Council of Trent (and various other liturgical documents including papal enyclicals, etc).
These are Catholic dogmas which heretics in the Church deny due to the errors of Vatican II.
These are dogmas all Catholics are supposed to believe. So non-Catholics don't? That's hardly a revelation. So Catholics who don't agree with them, toss in their Faith, leave the Church, believe in something else, and spend their time attacking the Church. That's hardly a revelation either. That's been going on for centuries. Beyond Luther and Henry VIII and the Protestant Reformation. Even beyond Arius in the 4th C.
Catholics (in name only) should leave the Church if they don't believe in the dogmas (or don't even learn them properly) as you have obviously done.
The last three pontiffs were three of the worst popes the Catholic Church has ever had. That's why the world loves them so much. They were lovers of novelty and change, and the ways of the world, and the world loves its own.
I thought Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and now Pope Benedict XVI) was the best of a bad bunch as far as papal candidates went at the last election, but he's even surprised me. He's not quite the radical conservative I thought he was. He leans a bit more towards tradition than I thought.
Three cheers for the Pontiff.
More lead balloons please, Holy Father.
As Archbishop Marcel LeFebvre once said to a French journalist about these issues when told to get with the times and change: 'Young man, do you have children?' (journo nods). 'Did your parents do anything different to have you than what you did to have your children?' (journo shakes his head). 'See, some things, like human nature, don't change.'
David
PS: I enjoy exercising my brain with apologetics now and again (but not too often) so thanks for posting this.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Now, as you rightly pointed out, I have left the Church (and religious beliefs in general) so it makes little difference to me personally what the Pope wants to do. On a purely objective level I think that, like any struggling business, the Church needs to consider some modifications if it wishes to survive intact. To that end, this latest rather mulishly stubborn pronouncement by Pope Benedict seems counter-productive. But I believe that you're correct, the current Pope is not at all interested in change, only in reaffirming the dogmas of the early church. Then again, if one wants to open a different can of worms, the first four centuries of the Catholic Church were one, big, roiling, changing mess, so the Church is not exactly unaccustomed to change, at least not entirely.....but that's a discussion for another time, I think.
Regarding your last quote:
'See, some things, like human nature, don't change.'
I submit the idea that human nature has not changed, just as the good Archbishop states. Rather, religion has been an ancient, constant (and largely failed) attempt to change human nature.
I don't know if I addressed your comment adequately because other points kept popping into my head that I ignored, as I didn't want to write a novel in response. Perhaps I should have included them. Well, I'll err on the side of relative brevity for now. Thanks for reading and commenting. I always like to get a range of opinions on topics like this (and when it comes to religion, there are as many different opinions as there are people).
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
MS Paint Art
Catholic. I'm protestant but I was baptised Catholic, as well, by my step grandmother, an absolute bigot but a very lovely lady none the less.
Boy, did she love the Church and the Priests and the Nuns.
Needless to say I have some lovely Catholic friends. Funny how a lot of Catholics do practise forbidden birth control and some others don't but will then have an abortion, better to prevent than kill, in my eyes.
But, once a Catholic, always a Catholic and I do see a lot of that. But, I do like Catholics, so there's the rub.
Good, thought provoking article, I notice the idea of female priests did not even get a mention.
But the Pope, a Catholic, doesn't surprise me.
katyzzz
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I agree, if the Pope was going to say anything on the matter it would probably have been this. What I don't understand is why he felt the need to say it at all? It does nothing to enhance inter-religious relations. It only states the obvious in a needlessly dogmatic fashion, which is really the last thing we need at the moment. As came out in the discussion between David and myself above, though, this pope has a different agenda from the last couple we've had....
I would beg to differ with the "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" statement......
Thanks for stopping by
Comment by Lilla
From The Home Front
Enviro Warrior
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
This was an interesting read and I can add no more to your own brilliant comment :
I believe you have captured the essense of what I would have alluded to..yet uncharacteristically, within it's depths (religion) we find the true peace we so desperately need as individuals (and as a species?
We must agree to it being a paradox then?
Lilla
Comment by Onesnap
Just thinking...I would never practice the Catholic faith if I had to pick sides of the family I'd be a Jew...
But I have many people I love and care about that are Catholic or used to be Catholic before going to Catholic High School...I have nothing against it, but it is just not the faith I would pick if I had to pick something to be.
It took years for me to gain the respect etc. of Tyler's Mom because she was horrified of the fact that I was not baptized. I tried to explain that Jews don't baptize and she seemed to think I was going to Hell. Then to top it off we did not get married in a church. So, I'm the odd ball out by not being baptized, but 13 years later they still love me as one of their own.
Always interested to discuss religion as I was always brought up to learn as much as possible about it.
Comment by Damo
I'm not sure what you problem is.
Buddhist think they have the true religion.
Hindus too,
Protestants, Taoists, Various Pagans and even Athiests all think that they have one true way.
By implication of this post you are saying that you have have found the true way yourself.
Stating so should be expected and should not be seen as an impediment to ecumanism. Common grounds of agreement can always be found despite non negotiable differences. Fair enough I say, because even if you wish to reject something atleast you will know what you are rejecting rather than a bunch of fluffy affirmations. (And it it always a better position to tackle the ball and not the player.)
The minor criticism I do have is thinking that being and 'Ex' anything is a qualification. Ex-Catholic, ex-Buddhist, Ex-Boxer are not qualifications that state any greater knowledge than those that remain in those circles. At best it is 'Special Pleading' and not an acceptable form of objective evidence. (That is just basic clear thinking and has nothing to with religion)
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
As I stated above, I recognize that all religions believe they have found the "truth". I think you've missed my point. I don't care that the Pope thinks he's right (for Christ's sake, he's the Pope. I would imagine that he is fairly biased towards Catholicism). My problem is that he felt it necessary to make, for no reason that I can see, a needless and provocative statement about the superiority of Catholicism/inferiority of everything else at the present time. It strikes me as an odd choice on the part of the Pope, and I can't wrap my brain around why he found it necessary. Religion is divisive by its very nature. There is no way for it not to be. When such a powerful public figure as the Pope needlessly exacerbates that divisiveness, however, I think that's a problem. I would find the same fault with the Bishop of Canterbury or the Dali Lama had they made similar, off-the-cuff announcements proclaiming that their religions alone offered salvation. Sure, ecumenism is still possible in light of such a pronouncement, but that doesn't mean that there aren't more effective ways to approach it (namely, by avoiding the temptation to make announcements that are at best baldly obvious and at worst inflammatory). The rest of the Christian community could hardly be blamed for not wishing to be condescended to by the Pope.
Obviously this is just my opinion. Perhaps I am simply not in tune with the Pope's mode of thought, and there are actually very beneficial reasons why this edict was necessary that are clearly visible to everyone. It wouldn't be the first time I've missed something.
Thanks for the comments!
Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
Keep up the good work
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I would agree that some people find religion a useful vehicle for attaining inner peace. Unfortunately, religion can be (and often is) decidedly anti-peaceful. There are other means to finding peace that do not involve deities and salvation. Whether or not those means would prove less divisive and more effective than our current theistic models on a global scale remains to be seen.
It IS a paradox then, but I think one that could someday be avoided (although not in my lifetime, I'm sure)
Thanks!
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Glad that you and your mother-in-law get along so well, hellbound heathen that you are
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by Damo
Sorry I don't get it.
Why is it wrong for anyone to state their viewpoint?
If one viewpoint is as good as another why should some people be made quiet and others encouraged to speak. Doesn't that just go against the grain of free speech?
The Dalai Lama did not hesitate to condemn the Chinese invasion.
Mahatma Gandhi specifically went out of his way to say provocative things.
Buddhist Monks in Sri Lanka do not hesitate to say what they think is correct. Have you ever seen a monks protest?
One cult in Japan called it self the 'Sublime Truth'.
Love what they say or hate it, at least you know what they stand for.
If you don't believe it why should you care what people say? Or is it just certain people who are not permitted to speak because you don't like the message.
Nothing personal but I am just trying to get my head around where you are coming from.
Comment by JoshZ
So, the Pope said he was right and I'm wrong.
Okay.
Well, I do like some stuff about catholicism and they do have some very powerful arguements. In fact, one of their best known supporters had this to say about them: Once you go Vatican, you can't go back again! - Homer Simpson.
I think that with every religion, and every denomination of that religion there are of course people that believe themselves right and everyone else wrong. I used to think that catholicism was nothing but Idolatry and ceremony. Then a pastor at my own church (I attend a Pentecostal church, but I consider myself simply a christian) quoted from the Bible that there is a mandate for of the church, not simply of my denomination. It helped me to put alot in perspective.
Besides, I know I am human and fallible. I may be wrong, I may be right, but I am doing all that I can.
JZ
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
All I can say is that of course the Pope had the right to say it. But, unlike Ghandi or the Dalai Lama, I have no idea why he did. There was nothing to be gained from this. It struck me as a non sequitur. When men like the Pope start popping out non sequiturs like that, to me it seems like a kid poking an anthill with a stick. No one was upset before, but they might be now. And for what?
As I said, I think it's just a matter of perspective. It's not that I don't think the Pope should be allowed to say it, I just don't understand why he did. Does that make any more sense?
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
I don't criticize the Pope for speaking out on the war, on issues such as abortion, or for chastising followers of Catholicism to adhere to the mandates of the faith. I don't fault the Pope for speaking up about issues (even the ones I personally feel he should keep his nose out of). But this....the only function this statement serves is to provoke other religious groups. With all the other issues going on right now, another war of words is hardly necessary.
Just my own feelings though, I realized when I wrote this that opinions were probably going to vary widely. Thanks for the comment!
Comment by Always Eighteen
Always Eighteen
Leaders can never be loved by everyone.
The article you referenced later states one possible reason as to why the Pope reiterated such a statement at this time:
"Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation."
But then again, who the hell are these "analysts?" They could be anyone. They could be me! Is there any way to access the actual , bias free document?
Anyway, applause to this post, and many more claps to the comments.Your opening tag, Think. Think again. And then think some more, rings true to this entry, as I've spent about an hour reading and re reading some comments and deleting and re-typing a response. In the end, I couldn't find a way to write what I've wanted to write in a brief and compact manner due to the numerous layers involved with this topic. Like you said, I might end up writing a novel. I've learnt much from this post - particularly the comments - and look forward to reading more of your entries.
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
This issue is particularly hazy. Just look at the various opinions expressed (particularly between myself and Damo). There really is no right viewpoint on this issue; it's about as subjective as it gets. Sometimes discussions of this type are the most frustrating, but they can also be the most instructive.
Looking forward to hearing from you more
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
An atheist will say atheism is the only way.
A Christian will say christianity is the only way
A Muslim will say Islam is the only way.
This extends to people caliming their religion or beliefs being the only way to world peace, atheists who always say they don't follow religion and that atheism isn't religion are pretty vocal on the matter (mostly anyway) that atheism is the only way to peace.
I can't comment on other religions but Islam does subscribe to a 'live and let die' policy on other peoples beliefs, it isn't always practiced by 'Muslims' but it's their in the Quran, Hadeeth and Sunnah. in fact the only way peace can be achieved from a Muslims perspective (from a proper Muslims perspective, one who isn't an extremist nutcase) is to let people follow their own religions and beliefs but not force these beliefs onto anyone else. It goes as far as tos ay that Muslims shouldn't even try to convert other people, of course answering questions is another matter entirely.
Comment by Onesnap
My friend from Australia says that about the both of us: 'hellbound heathens' She married one of my best friends (also Catholic) and has to deal with his Nana and Mom breathing down her neck about not being baptized and not having their daughter Quinn baptized either. Oh well, there's worse things than hell...
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
As an aside to the second half of your comment, I believe that you are sincere when you state that the Quran is not provocative of other religions. However, what about passages like these?
-[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
-[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
-[3.28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming.
-[8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
You're right, there's not much here about conversion. I don't know if I'd call it "live and let die" though....
My purpose, Ahmed, is not to start a theological fight with you. It's only to show that, much like with the Bible, verses can be cherry picked out of the Quran to support multiple points of view. Extremists seem to favor the parts above, while ignoring the sections that advocate peace or tolerance. More moderate Muslims tend to focus on the "softer" parts of the Quran, and negate passages like those above. Christians are guilty of exactly the same thing (they have this neat trick where they completely ignore the Old Testament parts where God kills a few thousand people here and there or orders the Israelites to rape and pillage, but zoom in on the parts about hating gays and such. It's amazingly selective.) You can make these "holy books" say whatever you want them to say. You'll say the extremists aren't "true" Muslims, and the extremists will you're not a "true" Muslim, and it will go on forever. The Pope is picking a similar fight -- "You're not real Christians, only we are." This goes nowhere.
I'm in danger of veering off topic, so I won't spend any more time on this point. My main point, as I said before, is that the Pope's needlessly provocative statement (reported around the world) benefits no one. This does not negate his right to say it. I don't think that the Pope should be censored, but I do think he should exercise some better judgment.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
-[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)
I'll give you one example so you understand what I'm getting at:
-[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
9.5 is well and good, but if you don't read 9.4 you don't really understand 9.5:
"Except those of the Mushrikin with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfil their treaty to them for the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al-Mattaqûn (the pious)"
A treaty, a treaty as in what? As in if there is no case for war, why go to war? I live in Australia under Australian laws, in effect theres this treaty going on: I uphold the laws of this country and no one tries to attack me or anything in that regard. It goes back to the following (treaty):
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
All it's saying is that 'if there is peace between you and non-Muslims then that peace must be preserved, however if there is vilence or showing that those that there is a treaty with are backing off then war is an acceptable possibility'.
It is live and let die, as Muhammed said about non-muslims to leave them be, if they want to convert then they may, if they don't you cannot hold it against them. Simple as that.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
If someone picks one verse, like you have, lets say 9.5 they can say Muslims are violent and extremists can use it to further there own ends, I don't take 9.5 on its own, I take the whole Quran, and it just happens that 9.4 elaborates on 9.5. Of course if someones looking for an argument they won't accept 9.4.
The Quran is explicit on homosexuality as being a sin, however the Hadeeth is also extremely explicit about letting non-Muslims live as they please, so long as it doesn't adversely affect people around them. So if somones gay they can bloody well be gay, none of my business, and this is by religious law.
In many ways western laws are a lot lighter than Islamic laws, in Islam the punishment for breaking up peace between any group of people is death, in the west it's like 10 years prison and people say thats extreme. Those morons who set cars on fire hoping they explode so it kills lots of people, Islamically they'd be executed, western laws put them in prison for 25 years.
The pope has a right to say what he wants, I don't hold it against him, if he says 'catholicism is the only way', he has every right to do so. Do I think it's irresponsible? Not really, he probably has his reasons for speaking the way he is, be provocative, stir up discussion.