Pope Election = Infallible

[toaslan]

At the very least, the Pope must consult.

It is not necessary for the Pope to consult his little toe, let alone any or all the bishops, before proclaiming infallibly. Really. To promote collegiality, and for practical help, he/they do these days tend to consult. However, he need not!

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

“Consent” is one thing. “Consult” is another. The Pope must consult, but it is not necessary that anyone else consent, or agree. For instance, the Pope Paul VI consulted with others before writing Humanae Vitae. That didn’t mean that the Pope’s advisors (or large portions of the American Church, for instance) agreed with, or consented, to the encyclical.

Ahisma,

Papal Infallibility is not conditioned on whether or not the Pope consults the Bishops. If a Pope defines a doctrine of faith or morals, from the Chair (ex Cathedra) with the intention of binding all Catholics, the pronouncement is protected from error. If he doesn’t consult any Bishops before doing so, it is still an infallible pronouncement.

Now, a Pope will almost certainly consult with his Cardinals before making such a pronouncement, but that is a matter of prudence and not one of the conditions for Papal Infallibility.

 

[Ahimsa]

Now, a Pope will almost certainly consult with his Cardinals before making such a pronouncement, but that is a matter of prudence and not one of the conditions for Papal Infallibility.

Ah, I see.

 

[PC_Master]

Ahisma,

Papal Infallibility is not conditioned on whether or not the Pope consults the Bishops. If a Pope defines a doctrine of faith or morals, from the Chair (ex Cathedra) with the intention of binding all Catholics, the pronouncement is protected from error. If he doesn’t consult any Bishops before doing so, it is still an infallible pronouncement.

Now, a Pope will almost certainly consult with his Cardinals before making such a pronouncement, but that is a matter of prudence and not one of the conditions for Papal Infallibility.

So…the Pope is infallible regardless of whether the Cardinals agree or not. The Cardinals are infallible…when in agreement with the pope. This sure seems silly to me. Why not simply say that the Pope is infallible on his own, and that the Cardinals are not?

Point of interest – if the Cardinals are fallible in any instance, how can they be infallible at all? Infallibility is being unable to fail. If they can fail when they disagree with the Pope, wouldn’t that be, instead, that the Cardinals are actually not infallible, but happen to agree with the Pope, and thus (supposedly) are right in those instances?

It just doesn’t make sense, unless the point is to say that the Cardinals and the Pope must be agreed in order to be infallible, but that neither by themselves would be. There’s simply no logic in the statement at all when you take it in context with other statements that specifically claim infallibility for the pope.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

So…the Pope is infallible regardless of whether the Cardinals agree or not. The Cardinals are infallible…when in agreement with the pope. This sure seems silly to me. Why not simply say that the Pope is infallible on his own, and that the Cardinals are not?

Cardinals are not infallible. Only the Pope is infallible, and only when he meets the conditions necessary for infallibility.

Point of interest – if the Cardinals are fallible in any instance, how can they be infallible at all? Infallibility is being unable to fail. If they can fail when they disagree with the Pope, wouldn’t that be, instead, that the Cardinals are actually not infallible, but happen to agree with the Pope, and thus (supposedly) are right in those instances?

Yes, you are exactly right. Did one of the posts in this thread make you think otherwise? If so, you must have misunderstood the post. Your understanding of Papal infallibility is exactly right.

It just doesn’t make sense, unless the point is to say that the Cardinals and the Pope must be agreed in order to be infallible, but that neither by themselves would be. There’s simply no logic in the statement at all when you take it in context with other statements that specifically claim infallibility for the pope.

Agatin, your understanding of papal infallibility is correct. You must have misunderstood one of the posts… The Cardinals are not infallible. That’s why it is called Papal Infallibility, not Cardinal Infallibility.

 

[PC_Master]

My confusion comes from this…

The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium

If the infallibility is only found when “Peter’s successor” is in agreement, then the infallibility isn’t actually present in “the body of bishops” at all. It’s rather a simple logical concept.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

My confusion comes from this…

“The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium”

If the infallibility is only found when “Peter’s successor” is in agreement, then the infallibility isn’t actually present in “the body of bishops” at all. It’s rather a simple logical concept.

Oh, I see. This is referring to what is knows as “ordinary infallibility”, which is something that pertains to all of the members of the magesterium.

Ordinary infallibility is different than Papal Infallibility, and, even though the word “infallible” is used, it is not nearly as certain.

Ordinary infallibility means that any Bishop who is teaching what the Church has infallibly defined at a council; or what a Pope has infallibly defined on his own authority; or even what the Church has taught unanimously from the beginning (even if the doctrine has not yet been defined), the Bishops who teach these truths are to be considered infallible.

The reason ordinary infallibility is not as certain as extraordinary infallibility is because there may be a question as to whether or not the teaching in questions has been taught unanimously from the beginning (which is a requirement).

One more point: The Pope does not possess ordinary infallibility because he is in union with the Bishops… that’s not what the quote your referenced means. Rather, it means that the Bishops who are in union with the Pope (the members of the real magisterium) possess ordinary infallibility when they teach what the Church has always taught.

This also brings up an interesting conclusion: If certain Bishops, or even the Pope himself, were to deviate from a defined teaching of the Church, or even from what the Church has always taught (even if it had never been defined), it would be evident that the Pope or Bishops in question would be in error. This rarely happens, but there are a few instances…

For example, Pope John XXII taught that the faithful departed would not possess the beatific vision until after the final judgment. This teaching was not contrary to an infallible dogma, but was contrary to what the Church had always taught. Therefore, based on that and that alone (that it was contrary to Tradition), his Cardinals made many efforts to correct him in his error. It was not until his deathbed that he finally renounced the error in writing.

The Pope that followed John XXII infallibly defined the doctrine that John XXII deviated from - a doctrine which had until then been part of the “ordinary infallible” teaching magisterium of the Church due to the fact that it had been taught from the beginning, and thus was part of Tradition.

From this we can see that even the Pope’s teachings can be judged to be in error if they are contrary to Tradition.

 

[toaslan]

From this we can see that even the Pope’s teachings can be judged to be in error if they are contrary to Tradition.

Yes! The only touch I want to add here is an obvious one: Such a teaching from a pope would not be the kind of Teaching to which infallibility is attached. So a pope’s infallible teaching will not be “corrected” by a later pope’s infallible teaching… The mistaken teaching of Pope John XXII was not infallibly proclaimed: he did not issue it ex cathedra, to the universal Church, to be believed by all. He believed it was true, and publicly advanced it; but did not define. His successor used that as a teachable moment–he did define, not what his predecessor had believed, but what the Church had always taught, so there would be no further doubt about it.

 

[PC_Master]

Ordinary infallibility is different than Papal Infallibility, and, even though the word “infallible” is used, it is not nearly as certain.

Either something is certainly infallible or it isn’t. To be infallible means that you are not able to err.

Ordinary infallibility means that any Bishop who is teaching what the Church has infallibly defined at a council; or what a Pope has infallibly defined on his own authority; or even what the Church has taught unanimously from the beginning (even if the doctrine has not yet been defined), the Bishops who teach these truths are to be considered infallible.

So, hypothetically assuming the Catholic church taught only the truth (a maxim to which I do not ascribe), the bishops of the church are only infallible when they’re teaching what is the truth…this seems like an oxymoron to me. Let’s insert a definition to clarify. When a bishop is teaching things in agreement with the church’s infallible teachings (i.e. anything which is “the truth”), that bishop is incapable of erring. However, when the bishop is not teaching things which are in agreement with the church’s infallible teachings, that bishop is not incapable of erring.

Hello? Did I fail basic comprehension, or does that just not make sense?

The reason ordinary infallibility is not as certain as extraordinary infallibility is because there may be a question as to whether or not the teaching in questions has been taught unanimously from the beginning (which is a requirement).

Wait one second – now there’s a difference between ordinary inability to err and extraordinary inability to err? Would you care to explain what makes one inability to err actually somehow able to err, and furthermore, how this inability can actually not be an inability? Clearly you perceive the term to mean something entirely different from both the etymological meaning and the dictionary meaning.

One more point: The Pope does not possess ordinary infallibility because he is in union with the Bishops… that’s not what the quote your referenced means. Rather, it means that the Bishops who are in union with the Pope (the members of the real magisterium) possess ordinary infallibility when they teach what the Church has always taught.

See, if “what the Church has always taught” is the truth, I would simply call agreeing with that being accurate, truthful, or right. If I am teaching “what the Church has always taught”, I suppose I’m not considered infallible…but in that case, please explain to me – how am I any different from the infallible bishop in this case? We are both capable of teaching something other than the truth, and yet both choose to teach the truth.

This all seems rather contrived and self-contradictory to me.

 

[toaslan]

Either something is certainly infallible or it isn’t. To be infallible means that you are not able to err.

Pax offered an explanation of how ordinary infallibility can be less certain. I thought he meant that the uncertainty lies in whether or not the Church has always taught something–factual historical unanimity on a doctrine. The uncertainty does not lie in the truth itself. To remove the factual uncertainty would be to trace the point all the way back through time, and see if that point is unanimously held. Since some Early Church Fathers disagreed with other ECFs, one would have to discern the “true” thread. Until the Pope infallibly defines, there is always some uncertainty in this sense.

Why is this not a reasonable sense?

So… the bishops of the church are only infallible when they’re teaching what is the truth…this seems like an oxymoron to me.

That may be because the phrase needs to be “when they are teaching what the Church has always taught.” (which will also be the truth, but that’s another hat).

Let’s insert a definition to clarify. When a bishop is teaching things in agreement with the church’s infallible teachings (i.e. anything which is “the truth”), that bishop is incapable of erring. However, when the bishop is not teaching things which are in agreement with the church’s infallible teachings, that bishop is not incapable of erring.

Hello? Did I fail basic comprehension, or does that just not make sense?

Your way converts the proposition into what I think it is known as a tautology.

Rather–if a bishop is teaching something which the Church has always taught (presume this), whether or not it is formally defined, that bishop’s statement is infallible. His statement is infallible, or if you wish, he is infallible with respect to that statement, because the teaching Church has always been and is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. When he speaks in the voice of the Church, he enjoys the shelter from error which She enjoys.

Does the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary magesterium help here?

This all seems rather contrived and self-contradictory to me.

The distinctions are real, and they hold.

 

[PC_Master]

Pax offered an explanation of how ordinary infallibility can be less certain.

Okay, perhaps you’re just not understanding what infallible means. Let’s get some help from a dictionary (I like Webster in this case, but if you like, we can always use another dictionary)…
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Main Entry: in·fal·li·ble
Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

If you check out the etymology, and the current definitions of the word, they definately mean that someone who is infallible is incapable of error. This means at all times, or at the least within a certain set of unchanging circumstances, the person will be free from error. This doesn’t mean they “may” be free of error, but that they “will” be free from it.

In other words, do you guys understand the difference between not erring and being incapable of erring?

For example, I could say that right now, I have a cup on my desk which contains sweet iced tea (which is quite yummy by the way). This is the truth. This by necessity doesn’t make that statement infallible – it makes the statement correct. To be infallible, it means there’s no possible way it could have been wrong. In other words, to be infallible, it would have to be impossible for me to have said something untrue regarding the cup on my desk.

 

[toaslan]

… If you check out the etymology, and the current definitions of the word, they definately mean that someone who is infallible is incapable of error. This means at all times, or at the least within a certain set of unchanging circumstances, the person will be free from error. This doesn’t mean they “may” be free of error, but that they “will” be free from it.

In other words, do you guys understand the difference between not erring and being incapable of erring?

Yes, speaking for myself, this guy gets that *not erring *is different from not being able to err. I think that’s why the example was posted of a pope erring–he advanced an errant belief, but he did not advance it ex cathedra, and that makes all the difference. When a pope advances something ex cathedra, he is advancing it infallibly–that is, he is unable to err in that statement. So such teaching is guaranteed error-free. Such teaching is error-free, or infallibly true, because the teacher is infallible in that set of circumstances.

I think the Catholic position is that infallibility is vested in the person of the pope under certain conditions. This meets your statement that, "at all times, or at the least within a certain set of unchanging circumstances, the person will be free from error. "

For Catholics, at all times, from St. Peter to Benedict XVI, the pope was/is/will be free from error within the certain set of unchanging circumstances, namely when teaching ex cathedra, to the Universal Church, on faith and morals.

So the Pope, when ex-cathedra, has infallibility absolutely speaking.

Do you accept the distinction between having something absolutely and having it by participation?

The Pope has infallibility absolutely when he speaks ex cathedra; the Church has infallibility by extension or participation in that infallibility; the bishops insofar as they participate in the Pope and the Church’s teaching have that infallibility by extension or participation.

BTW, I believe the pope has only twice issued an infallible statement (both on Mary) outside of the context of council. We see from this not that he depends upon the bishops for infallibility, but that the pope expects the Holy Spirit to speak to him in his prayerful interaction with the bishops, and that what he discerns with their help will be what the Spirit is saying.

For example… for the statement to be infallible, it would have to be impossible for me to have said something untrue regarding the cup on my desk.

Or, for you to be unconditionally infallible, it would have to be impossible for you, ever under any circumstances, to say something untrue regarding the cup on your desk or regarding anything at all. Agreed.

 

[PC_Master]

This particular contradiction doesn’t apply to the pope himself, as the Catholic teaching is that the pope is always infallible when speaking “from the chair”. Rather, the contradiction comes regarding the bishops. Either the bishops (and possibly priests) must always be infallible when teaching doctrine, or they never are (unless there’s some other set of objective circumstances).

Regarding the difference between having something absolutely and having something by participation – no I don’t accept the distinction, nor do I accept that the latter can be true in any circumstance. This is the point – if no individual member of the clergy is deemed to be infallible in a situation, then the whole can’t be infallible either. By saying that the whole cannot err, you’re saying that God will prevent a majority from erring. Thus, that majority (which must consist of specific persons) must be considered infallible by itself, without the rest of the whole. Likewise, each part of that infallible group must be infallible by itself, leading to the point where certain individuals in the group are infallible on their own.

Now, you made the statement that bishops have infallibility insomuch as they participate with the pope – presumably, you mean to say that they share the pope’s opinion on a matter which the pope is infallibly deciding. However, if you accept free will, and insist that each individual of the group in agreement with the pope, except for the pope himself, is fallible, then you’re saying that what’s really happened is, although these bishops could have chosen to err in this matter, they instead chose correctly. In this case, they did not fail. This, however, is not fallibility. Infallibility is the incapability of failing.

 

[toaslan]

This particular contradiction doesn’t apply to the pope himself

what particular contradiction?

Either the bishops (and possibly priests) must always be infallible when teaching doctrine, or they never are

everything I have attempted to say you seem to have ignored by this reassertion.

Regarding the difference between having something absolutely and having something by participation – no I don’t accept the distinction, nor do I accept that the latter can be true in any circumstance.

That you don’t accept this concept is perhaps why you seem to me blind to my point. I will attempt to illustrate the matter. I, Toaslan, have life by participation. Toaslan does not have life absolutely. If Toaslan had life absolutely, Toaslan could not be deprived of life, and this is manifestly untrue because (surprise) Toaslan is a mere mortal.

God has life absolutely; we living things have life by participation in His Life.

That’s what I mean by the distinction between having something absolutely and having it by participation.

This is the point – if no individual member of the clergy is deemed to be infallible in a situation

This is an un-Catholic phrase. We just don’t speak of an individual member of the clergy being deemed infallible (aside from the pope in set circumstances). I don’t know where you get this approach, but the phrasing alone suggests a disconnect with the nature of papal infallibility as understood by those who own it (Catholics).

then the whole can’t be infallible either

well, who wants the whole to be infallible? I’m not interested in the whole clergy being infallible, it’s just a non-starter. You are forcing the reasoning. It’s empty to insist on getting to that conclusion as if it were a Catholic journey, when no Catholic car will take you there.

By saying that the whole cannot err, you’re saying that God will prevent a majority from erring.

Do you mean
A. If the Church cannot err
B. Then Most of the Church cannot err
?

For people to agree to A would take agreement on the definition of the Church. For the purpose of this thread, my definition would be The Body which possesses and transmits without error the Deposit of Faith as passed on to Her by the Apostles from Christ.

Regarding B, you lost me. The Church is not a democracy. If there is unanimous belief in some doctrine from the beginning of the Church, then we do accept that belief, and ex-cathedra statements of that belief will be considered guaranteed error-free.

If there is not a historical unanimity on some belief, then if and when the Church decides to define on that belief, She will select the right opinion and pronounce it such; from then on, the faithful are to leave aside any contrary opinion, no matter by what former thinker it was held, and no matter what merit the discarded opinion may or may not have had.

Thus, that majority (which must consist of specific persons) must be considered infallible by itself…

It doesn’t matter if everybody else in the whole world, Catholics included, disagreed with the Pope on some belief–he overrules everybody. Because it has nothing to do with counting votes. It has nothing to do with minority/majority. It has to do with participating in the Pope’s infallibility or departing from it.

Likewise, each part of that infallible group must be infallible by itself, leading to the point where certain individuals in the group are infallible on their own.

No offence meant: yes, this crazy car will eventually, indeed, take you to Crazyland. But it’s your car, not mine.

Now, you made the statement that bishops have infallibility insomuch as they participate with the pope

The bishops, when they teach what Peter teaches, are as infallible as he and only because he is. Their infallibility is only by way of participation, just as I am alive because I participate in God’s life. I’m not any the less alive just because I am alive only by participation.

That’s the useul way to put it. That car would get you somewhere.

– presumably, you mean to say that they share the pope’s opinion on a matter which the pope is infallibly deciding.

Not quite. Bishop Joe need not privately share the pope’s opinion in order for Bishop Joe to teach to the faithful the pope’s ex-cathedra teaching. As long as Bishop Joe teaches what the Church teaches, he participates in Her guaranteed truth, whether or not he privately agrees with it.

However, if … each individual of the group in agreement with the pope is fallible

each individual bishop is fallible outside of one arena–when he is participating in the Church’s infallibility by teaching what She teaches.

continued…

 

[toaslan]

PCMaster:

then you’re saying that what’s really happened is, although these bishops could have chosen to err in this matter, they instead chose correctly

Rather, what I’m saying, is that though Bishop Joe may disagree with the majority about some belief undergoing definition: once it is defined, he is expected to turn his mind and heart towards that belief, to direct his energies to seeing how this new definition is true rather than otherwise, to actively discourage himself from holding to his former opinion, to embrace the new definition as the belief of the Church, to correct whatever in his mind and heart tended to prefer another understanding, and further, in the meantime and forever after, to wholeheartedly and without reservation teach that belief to the people. All of which is understandable given first, the presumption that any such formal proclamation is, by action of the Holy Spirit, error-free.

In this case, they did not fail.

This Bishop Joe does not fail to teach truly, yes.

This, however, is not fallibility. Infallibility is the incapability of failing.

This obedient Bishop Joe does not fail to teach truly because he does not fail to enter into the Church’s infallibility. He does not fail because he freely chooses to adhere to the Church’s “incapability of failing.” In this example, he neither fails nor falls into fallibility because he freely wills to enter into (participates in) the Church’s infallibility when teaching this belief.

 

[NonDenom]

Can the election of a new pope be considered an infallible act of the Church?

I know it is not a typical infallible statement, but what is it? We know the the Church leaders are being lead by the Holy Spirit.

If the church leaders were being led by the Holy Spirit in the election of a new pope, why is it not unanimous?
Why would the Holy Spirit lead some to one guy, but lead others to another?
I would think that a position that is supposed to be equal to Christ on earth would be too important for the Holy Spirit to lead people in different directions.

 

[Church_Militant]

If the church leaders were being led by the Holy Spirit in the election of a new pope, why is it not unanimous?
Why would the Holy Spirit lead some to one guy, but lead others to another?
I would think that a position that is supposed to be equal to Christ on earth would be too important for the Holy Spirit to lead people in different directions.

I would think that you’d know better from the New Testament itself.

Acts 1:15: In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
16: “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17: For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
18: (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
19: And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’
21: So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22: beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23: And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.
24: And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
25: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”
26: And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

By your reasoning, this could not have been by the Holy Spirit because there were two candidates.

 

[toaslan]

I would think that you’d know better from the New Testament itself: Acts1:…:20: `His office let another take.’
23: And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.
24: And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
25: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”
26: And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

By your reasoning, this could not have been by the Holy Spirit because there were two candidates

ChurchMilitant, good work!

 

[NonDenom]

I would think that you’d know better from the New Testament itself.

Acts 1:15: In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
16: “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
17: For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
18: (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
19: And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
20: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’
21: So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22: beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
23: And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.
24: And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
25: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”
26: And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

Hi CM
This Scripture proves nothing on your account. Verse 26 acually proves my point, 26: And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

It says that the lot fell on Matthi’as, not that some fell Justus, but more of them fell on Matthi’as.
The word “lots,” κλήρους klerous, is not used to express votes. Casting lots was common among the Jews on important and difficult occasions.
Look into what was involved when casting lots and this will help you. They used stones or pieces of wood and would then pray or even offer sacrifices before drawing the lots from an urn. There could be four or five people recieving votes when considering who will be the pope, that doesn’t sound like being led by the Holy Spirit to me. The Holy Spirit wouldn’t lead some in one direction and others in another direction.

 

[djrakowski]

The Holy Spirit wouldn’t lead some in one direction and others in another direction.

This is a rather interesting objection coming from a non-Catholic.

I’ve often asked how one could know which of the contradictory non-Catholic theological positions is correct. I mean, how could there possibly be more than one denomination (and one interpretation) if they’re all led by the same Holy Spirit?

You seem to be deliberately missing the point. As I understand it, the Catholic Church holds that the Holy Spirit ensures the proper outcome of the process, but not necessarily each and every individual vote cast in that process. It seems like a simple enough distinction to me, anyways.