Majerus is now the lead story on stltoday.com

[bonwich]

Burke does not deserve to be accused of picking on kids with cancer. Call him a granstander, a fool, or a jerk. Do not accuse him of something he hasn't done. It hurts your argument.

The Archbishop disrupted a fundraiser for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital based on the social views of one of the performers. I believe Glennon treats kids with cancer and uses that fundraiser as a major offset for non-paying patients.

God help them if Bobby Costas ever remarries.

[Billiken Rich]

You're damn right. I don't know if the world would be a better place without them, but I know Catholics (and the Jesuits in particular) had a hell of a time killing, raping and generally destroying native populations. But I guess that's ok since now the Catholic missions return the scene of the crime to spread their charity. But that happened a long time ago, it doesn't count.

Your priest down the street does deserve whatever vitriolic comments fly his way (can't be a her...right?). Where was that priest when the Catholic Church was (and probably still is) having its way with all the little boys. For those acts alone, the Church deserves whatever nasty rhetoric flows its way. But I guess that doesn't really matter now because i'm sure those fellas have confessed and said a couple of hail marys and all is forgotten.

Let's not even start with the corruption of the Catholic Church that has continued through to the present time.

I guess the means justify the ends though.

LOL. Come on Nash, "morals in this country have pretty much ceased to exist"? Seriously. This is your argument?

Go back far enough and we're all a-holes. I'm sure Moy will be liquidating his assets post haste to fund reparations for Native Americans and Africans in America.

[moytoy12]

Go back far enough and we're all a-holes. I'm sure Moy will be liquidating his assets post haste to fund reparations for Native Americans and Africans in America.

I'm not going to digress too much further as i'm sure that steve and the mods wouldn't appreciate it. But I do serve (for free) a native non-profit that assists native communities with energy and economic development. Also, I do support reparations for slavery (not in terms of paychecks to individuals, but something entirely different), however, i have no faith in the government's ability to implement any type of reparation system.

[brianstl]

The Archbishop disrupted a fundraiser for Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital based on the social views of one of the performers. I believe Glennon treats kids with cancer and uses that fundraiser as a major offset for non-paying patients.

God help them if Bobby Costas ever remarries.

He made an ass out of himself, but he was not picking on kids with cancer. Lay in to him all you want for what he did, but if you want to have weight to your argument get the facts straight. If you want to have an emotional free for all, then by all means make the jump and say he was picking on kids with cancer.

If your not a fan of the church, leave it. The church isn't a democracy and it shouldn't be. The church shouldn't decide doctrine based on the specific beliefs of its members at any given time.

[moytoy12]

He made an ass out of himself, but he was not picking on kids with cancer. Lay in to him all you want for what he did, but if you want to have weight to your argument get the facts straight. If you want to have an emotional free for all, then by all means make the jump and say he was picking on kids with cancer.

If your not a fan of the church, leave it. The church isn't a democracy and it shouldn't be. The church shouldn't decide doctrine based on the specific beliefs of its members at any given time.

The church also shouldn't say its morals are the right ones and try to impose the same on everyone.

The church should not be left alone, it should be continually questioned given the enormous influence it has.

[Billiken Rich]

I'm not going to digress too much further as i'm sure that steve and the mods wouldn't appreciate it. But I do serve (for free) a native non-profit that assists native communities with energy and economic development. Also, I do support reparations for slavery (not in terms of paychecks to individuals, but something entirely different), however, i have no faith in the government's ability to implement any type of reparation system.

I'm sure there's a joke there about the sins of the fathers not being the sins of the parishners or the sons but I'll forgo it as well.

In modern times the church has done more good than harm despite believing that molesting was a disease that could be cured. The government, that you are right to doubt, can't really boast the same.......

[NashvilleBilliken]

You're damn right. I don't know if the world would be a better place without them, but I know Catholics (and the Jesuits in particular) had a hell of a time killing, raping and generally destroying native populations. But I guess that's ok since now the Catholic missions return the scene of the crime to spread their charity. But that happened a long time ago, it doesn't count.

Your priest down the street does deserve whatever vitriolic comments fly his way (can't be a her...right?). Where was that priest when the Catholic Church was (and probably still is) having its way with all the little boys. For those acts alone, the Church deserves whatever nasty rhetoric flows its way. But I guess that doesn't really matter now because i'm sure those fellas have confessed and said a couple of hail marys and all is forgotten.

Let's not even start with the corruption of the Catholic Church that has continued through to the present time.

I guess the means justify the ends though.

LOL. Come on Nash, "morals in this country have pretty much ceased to exist"? Seriously. This is your argument?

So you're saying the Catholic Church was having it's way with little boys? Not just a number of very bad people? You're native American, right? Are you going to come scalp me now? (I don't mean that to be hateful, Moy...just that every group of people have done bad things and to lump them together as one is prejudice regardless of race, religion or ethnicity).

My arguemtent is just because you (no YOU but a general you) believe that abortion is not killing a person doesn't necessarily make it right and the Church archaic. I fear that without the Catholic Church such questions like these would not exist. Hey, I'm only 27. Yet, what I see 12 year olds wearing and doing and saying scares me. When they watch the OC and think that's what real life is like, that scares me. When the east and west coast have completely forgotten that there is a whole lot of other people in the counrty that have different values and opinions, that scares me. I think the Church does as good a job as anybody of being the voice that says "hey, is this the right thing to do?".

[moytoy12]

In modern times the church has done more good than harm despite believing that molesting was a disease that could be cured. The government, that you are right to doubt, can't really boast the same.......

I'm far from an advocate of the government.

The church doing more good than harm is certainly a matter of opinion and not one I hold.

[NashvilleBilliken]

You really do need to add the whole sentence. The Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Even Holy Mother Church recognizes that he's perfectly capable of using the wrong fork at dinner -- or leaving the seat up if nature calls and he happens to be visiting a convent.

But you really miss the whole crux, so to speak, of the biscuit. Disagreeing with Burke -- in specific matters such as Majerus on abortion or my fine Polish brethren on St. Stan's -- is disagreeing with the Church -- Period. If you're a Catholic, that's all there is. If you disagree, you're not a Catholic, by explicit Catholic teaching and law. Ironically, those people out here who have been saying that, for these reasons, they're no longer Catholic, are probably truer to Catholic doctrine than those arguing the other way.

I think YOU'RE missing the crux here, Bonwich. I fully understand that there is no discussion when it comes to the laws of the church. You're either in or out, but thanks for the attempt.

I have admitedly turned this into a bit of a religious debate. BUT, as I said above, my response was based on what people are saying about Burke the person. I have taken much of the responses to be this Burke is an a-hole, I don't want to be associated with a guy like that, I'm no longer Catholic...to simplify it for you. For another example, people say that they don't want to be associated with Catholics because the priests are a bunch of child molestors. We all know the Church doesn't endorse that, but people use that as a mechanism of denying faith.

[moytoy12]

So you're saying the Catholic Church was having it's way with little boys? Not just a number of very bad people? You're native American, right? Are you going to come scalp me now? (I don't mean that to be hateful, Moy...just that every group of people have done bad things and to lump them together as one is prejudice regardless of race, religion or ethnicity).

My arguemtent is just because you (no YOU but a general you) believe that abortion is not killing a person doesn't necessarily make it right and the Church archaic. I fear that without the Catholic Church such questions like these would not exist. Hey, I'm only 27. Yet, what I see 12 year olds wearing and doing and saying scares me. When they watch the OC and think that's what real life is like, that scares me. When the east and west coast have completely forgotten that there is a whole lot of other people in the counrty that have different values and opinions, that scares me. I think the Church does as good a job as anybody of being the voice that says "hey, is this the right thing to do?".

First, yes, the Catholic Church was having its way with little boys. i cannot believe they didn't know about it and as far as i know (which isn't saying a lot) the church didn't take the appropriate steps. Second, the church had a fairly extensive network of "saving" the natives, so i'm certain the church knew about it. Third, from bonwich's statements above (and he seems to be a heckuva lot more knowledgeable than i on the subject), even if both of these examples were isolated incidents, there is no difference between the church and the man. They are one in the same. The church's dogma (as i understand from bonwich's statements) lumps everything together...not me.

You really think that without the church, the "moral" questions of our time wouldn't exist? I put moral in quotes because i believe it is a relative term and stating that something isn't moral because its different than how we do or did things is inherently flawed.

[NashvilleBilliken]

First, yes, the Catholic Church was having its way with little boys. i cannot believe they didn't know about it and as far as i know (which isn't saying a lot) the church didn't take the appropriate steps. Second, the church had a fairly extensive network of "saving" the natives, so i'm certain the church knew about it. Third, from bonwich's statements above (and he seems to be a heckuva lot more knowledgeable than i on the subject), even if both of these examples were isolated incidents, there is no difference between the church and the man. They are one in the same. The church's dogma (as i understand from bonwich's statements) lumps everything together...not me.

You really think the Church knew priests were molesting little boys and chose to allow it to happen? You really believe that the organization who doesn't want to kill an unborn fetus is completely ok with violating little boys? Give me a break. How many incidents have come about? 100? 1000? That's 1000 out of several BILLION.

You really think that without the church, the "moral" questions of our time wouldn't exist? I put moral in quotes because i believe it is a relative term and stating that something isn't moral because its different than how we do or did things is inherently flawed.

I honestly believe the 10 commandments is a very good way to live life and a good barometer for morals. While many religions accept the 10 commandments into it's doctrine, I don't think it's very debatable that the Catholic Church has influenced mankind more than any other entity over the last 2000 years. So, do I think the moral questions wouldn't exist? I don't know. But I do know that life as we know it wouldn't exist. Better? Worse? Who knows, but my belief is it would be worse.

[thetorch]

Interesting thing in the article

Majerus is making $650,000 this year, a hefty sum by SLU standards.

Have we ever seen this figure before?

I haven't. Wasn't Soderberg making over half a million when he was fired? I thought we had a million dollar coach?

[moytoy12]

You really think the Church knew priests were molesting little boys and chose to allow it to happen? You really believe that the organization who doesn't want to kill an unborn fetus is completely ok with ass ramming little boys? Give me a break. How many incidents have come about? 100? 1000? That's 1000 out of several BILLION.

Yes, i think the church knew at some point and did relatively little to stop it because they didn't want to shine a light on it.

I honestly believe the 10 commandments is a very good way to live life and a good barometer for morals. While many religions accept the 10 commandments into it's doctrine, I don't think it's very debatable that the Catholic Church has influenced mankind more than any other entity over the last 2000 years. So, do I think the moral questions wouldn't exist? I don't know. But I do know that life as we know it wouldn't exist. Better? Worse? Who knows, but my belief is it would be worse.

I agree with you about the 10 commandments, but i believe they would have been around otherwise in some form.

Without really thinking about it, you're probably right about the Catholic Church's influence, all the more reason to question them.

Fair enough about your belief that life would be worse.

[CallAsSee]

I can’t believe the major point of the Majerus Era is being missed. 1st, the NCAA breaking game, 2nd, the Sports Illustrated article, and now being duped by a TV reporter trying to make a story. The Rick Majerus Era should be titled the Era of the Million Dollar Moron.

[Sheltiedave]

There still remains a great deal of theological debate over papal infallibility, and when it may appropriately be applied. Here are a few Clif Notes...

"The Middle Ages

In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance the doctrine of papal infallibility first developed.

The first theologian to systematically discuss the infallibility of ecumenical councils was Theodore Abu Qurra in the 9th century.

Several medieval theologians discussed the infallibility of the pope when defining matters of faith and morals, including Thomas Aquinas and John Peter Olivi. In 1330, the Carmelite bishop Guido Terreni described the pope’s use of the charism of infallibility in terms very similar to those that would be used at Vatican I.

[edit] Dogmatic definition of 1870

In the conclusion of the fourth chapter of its Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Pastor Aeternus, solemnly promulgated by Pope Pius IX, the First Vatican Council in 1870 declared the following:

“ We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. (see Denziger §1839).

”

— Vatican Council, Sess. IV , Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, Chapter iv

According to Catholic theology, this is an infallible dogmatic definition by an ecumenical council. The infallibility of the pope was thus formally defined in 1870, although the tradition behind this view goes back much further, as described above.

The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which was also a document on the Church itself, explicitly reaffirmed the definition of papal infallibility, so as to avoid any doubts, expressing this in the following words:

“ This Sacred Council, following closely in the footsteps of the First Vatican Council, with that Council teaches and declares that Jesus Christ, the eternal Shepherd, established His holy Church, having sent forth the apostles as He Himself had been sent by the Father;(136) and He willed that their successors, namely the bishops, should be shepherds in His Church even to the consummation of the world. And in order that the episcopate itself might be one and undivided, He placed Blessed Peter over the other apostles, and instituted in him a permanent and visible source and foundation of unity of faith and communion. And all this teaching about the institution, the perpetuity, the meaning and reason for the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and of his infallible magisterium, this Sacred Council again proposes to be firmly believed by all the faithful. ”

Because the 1870 definition is not seen by Catholics as a creation of the Church, but as the dogmatic revelation of a Truth about the Papal Magisterium, Papal teachings made prior to the 1870 proclamation can, if they meet the criteria set out in the dogmatic definition, be considered infallible. Ineffabilis Deus is an example of this.

A detailed analysis of the First Vatican Council, and how the passage of the infallibility dogma was orchestrated, is contained in the book by the Catholic priest August Bernhard Hasler: How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion, Doubleday (1981) [translation of Wie Der Papst Unfehlbar Wurde: Macht und Ohnmacht eines Dogmas, R. Piper & Co. Verlag (1979)]. Roger O'Toole identifies the distinctive contributions of Hasler as follows:[3] "(1) It weakens or demolishes the claim that Papal Infallibility was already a universally accepted truth, and that its formal definition merely made de jure what had long been acknowledged de facto. (2) It emphasizes the extent of resistance to the definition, particularly in France and Germany. (3) It clarifies the 'inopportunist' position as largely a polite fiction and notes how it was used by Infallibilists to trivialize the nature of the opposition to papal claims. (4) It indicates the extent to which 'spontaneous popular demand' for the definition was, in fact, carefully orchestrated. (5) It underlines the personal involvement of the Pope who, despite his coy disclaimers, appears as the prime mover and driving force behind the Infallibilist campaign. (6) It details the lengths to which the papacy was prepared to go in wringing formal 'submissions' from the minority even after their defeat in the Council. (7) It offers insight into the ideological basis of the dogma in European political conservatism, monarchism and counter-revolution. (8) It establishes the doctrine as a key contributing element in the present 'crisis' of the Roman Catholic Church."

[edit] Instances of papal infallibility

Many non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, wrongly believe that the doctrine teaches that the Pope is infallible in everything he says. In fact, the use of papal infallibility is rare.

Catholic theologians agree that both Pope Pius IX's 1854 definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and Pope Pius XII's 1950 definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary are instances of papal infallibility, a fact which has been confirmed by the Church's magisterium [1]. However, theologians disagree about what other documents qualify.

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

"Tome to Flavian", Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;

Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;

Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment;

###### occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;

Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;

Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the immaculate conception; and

Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the assumption of Mary.

For modern-day Church documents, there is no need for speculation as to which are officially ex cathedra, because the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can be consulted directly on this question. For example, after Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone) was released in 1994, a few commentators speculated that this might be an exercise of papal infallibility (for an example, see [2]). In response to this confusion, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has unambiguously stated, on at least three separate occasions [3] [4] [5], that Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an ex cathedra teaching, saying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The Vatican itself has given no complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem, written by Cardinals Ratzinger (the later pope Benedict XVI) and Bertone, the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated that this was not meant to be a complete list.

The number of infallible pronouncements by ecumenical councils is significantly greater than the number of infallible pronouncements by popes.

[edit] Disagreement with this doctrine

[edit] Dissent within, and schisms that break away from the Catholic Church

Following the first Vatican Council, 1870, dissent, mostly among German, Austrian, and Swiss Catholics, arose over the definition of Papal Infallibility. The dissenters, holding the General Councils of the Church infallible, were unwilling to accept the dogma of Papal Infallibility, and thus a schism arose between them and the Church. Many of these Catholics formed independent communities in schism with Rome, which became known as the Old Catholic Churches.

A few present-day Catholics, including priests and bishops, refuse to accept papal infallibility as a matter of faith, such as the theologian Hans Küng, author of Infallible? An Inquiry, and historian Garry Wills, author of Papal Sin. Other Roman Catholics are apparently unfamiliar with the significance or meaning of the dogma. A recent (1989–1992) survey of Catholics from multiple countries (the USA, Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland), aged 15 to 25 who may not yet fully understand the theology of infallibility, showed that 36.9% accepted the teaching on papal infallibility, 36.9% denied it, and 26.2% said they didn't know of it. (Source: Report on surveys of the International Marian Research Institute, by Johann G. Roten, S.M.)

Historical objections to the teachings on infallibility often appeal to the important work of Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350 (Leiden, 1972). Tierney comes to the conclusion, "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it".[4] See also Ockham and Infallibility. The Rome-based Jesuit Wittgenstein scholar Garth Hallett argued that the dogma of infallibility was neither true nor false but meaningless; see his Darkness and Light: The Analysis of Doctrinal Statements (Paulist Press, 1975). In practice, he claims, the dogma seems to have no practical use and to have succumbed to the sense that it is irrelevant.

[edit] Orthodox churches

The dogma of Papal Infallibility is rejected by Eastern Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians hold that the Holy Spirit will not allow the whole Body of Orthodox Christians to fall into error[5] but leave open the question of how this will be ensured in any specific case. Eastern Orthodoxy considers that the first seven ecumenical councils were infallible as accurate witnesses to the truth of the gospel, not so much on account of their institutional structure as on account of their reception by the Christian faithful. Furthermore, Orthodox Christians do not believe that any individual bishop (including that of Rome) is infallible or that the idea of Papal Infallibility was taught during the first centuries of Christianity. Orthodox historians often point to the condemnation of Pope Honorius as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical council as a significant indication. However, it is debated whether Honorius' letter to Sergius met (in retrospect) the criteria set forth at Vatican I. Other Orthodox scholars[6] argue that past Papal statements that appear to meet the conditions set forth at Vatican I for infallible status presented teachings in faith and morals are now acknowledged as problematic (e.g. Exsurge Domine).

[edit] Anglican churches

The Church of England and its sister churches in the Anglican Communion, having seceded from the Roman Church centuries ago, reject papal infallibility, a rejection given expression in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion (1571):

XIX. Of the Church. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils. General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.

[edit] Methodism

John Wesley amended the Anglican Articles of Religion for use by Methodists, particularly those in America. The Methodist Articles omit the express provisions in the Anglican articles concerning the errors of the Church of Rome and the authority of councils, but retain Article V which implicitly pertains to the Roman Catholic idea of papal authority as capable of defining articles of faith:

V. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation...

[edit] Reformed churches

Presbyterian and Reformed churches also reject papal infallibility. The Westminster Confession of Faith [6] which was intended in 1646 to replace the Thirty-Nine Articles, contains the following:

(Chapter one) IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

(Chapter one) X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

(Chapter Twenty-Five) VI. There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ. Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God."

[edit] See also

First Vatican Council

Infallibility of the Church

Papal supremacy

Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

Sola scriptura and free interpretation of Sacred Scripture

Three-Chapter Controversy

[edit] Footnotes

^ "infallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption from the possibility of error," P. J. Toner, Infallibility, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910

^ p. 47.

^ Roger O'Toole, Review of "How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion" by August Bernhard Hasler; Peter Heinegg, Sociological Analysis, Vol. 43, No. 1. (Spring, 1982), pp. 86-88, at p. 87.

^ p. 281, as cited in John E. Lynch's review of the work, in Church History, Vol. 42, No. 2. (Jun., 1973), pp. 279-280, at p. 279.

^ Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848

^ Cleenewerck, Laurent. His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. pp. 301-30

[edit] References

Bermejo, Luis (1990). Infallibility on Trial: Church, Conciliarity and Communion, imprimi potest by Julian Fernandes, Provincial of India. ISBN 0-87061-190-9.

Chirico, Peter. Infallibility: The Crossroads of Doctrine. ISBN 0-89453-296-0.

Gaillardetz, Richard. By What Authority?: A Primer on Scripture, the Magisterium, and the Sense of the Faithful. ISBN 0-8146-2872-9.

Hasler, Bernhard (1981). HOW THE POPE BECAME INFALLIBLE: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuation. Translation of Hasler, Bernhard (1979). WIE DER PAPST UNFEHLBAR WURDE: Macht und Ohnmacht eines Dogmas, (in German). R. Piper & Co. Verlag.

Küng, Hans. Infallible?: An inquiry. ISBN 0-385-18483-2.

Lio, Ermenegildo. Humanae vitae e infallibilità: Paolo VI, il Concilio e Giovanni Paolo II (Teologia e filosofia) (in Italian). ISBN 88-209-1528-6.

McClory, Robert. Power and the Papacy: The People and Politics Behind the Doctrine of Infallibility. ISBN 0-7648-0141-4.

O'Connor, James. The Gift of Infallibility: The Official Relatio on Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I. ISBN 0-8198-3042-9 (cloth), ISBN 0-8198-3041-0 (paper).

Sullivan, Francis. Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium. ISBN 1-59244-208-0.

Sullivan, Francis. The Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church. ISBN 1-59244-060-6.

Tierney, Brian. Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages. ISBN 90-04-08884-9.

Moytoy, the chip on your shoulder is truly immense. History among the Native Americans does not begin with the onset of the Black Robes in the Americas. Migration, open warfare, and armed conficts were commonplace among a plurality of NA tribes and confederations long before the 1600s. While genocide, diaspora, and catastrophic smallpox epidemics followed the massive incursion of European settlers, there was not an idyllac Eden that existed prior to colonization.

[Billiken Rich]

I can’t believe the major point of the Majerus Era is being missed. 1st, the NCAA breaking game, 2nd, the Sports Illustrated article, and now being duped by a TV reporter trying to make a story. The Rick Majerus Era should be titled the Era of the Million Dollar Moron.

Hey callassee, what exactly is "the NCAA breaking game?"

[brianstl]

I haven't. Wasn't Soderberg making over half a million when he was fired? I thought we had a million dollar coach?

This could be the amount he receives directly from the university for coaching the team. His salary still be over a million when all of the income he takes in for coaching SLU is combined (camps, shoe money, etc.). If you look at the salaries that many coaches receive, the money they directly receive for coaching is often much smaller than the total value of the contract.

It could also be that he has a back loaded contract. It could be a lower salary this year with the higher salary kicking in with the move to the new building.

From everything I have heard, he is averaging over a million dollars a year.

[moytoy12]

Moytoy, the chip on your shoulder is truly immense. History among the Native Americans does not begin with the onset of the Black Robes in the Americas. Migration, open warfare, and armed conficts were commonplace among a plurality of NA tribes and confederations long before the 1600s. While genocide, diaspora, and catastrophic smallpox epidemics followed the massive incursion of European settlers, there was not an idyllac Eden that existed prior to colonization.

Thanks Dave, although i'm having trouble finding where i said NA life pre-1492 was utopia. However, you make a fair point. You're probably right that i have a large chip on my shoulder. While it wasn't exactly an "idyllac Eden", they managed to live among themselves for thousands of years. Whereas, the Catholics (and other Europeans) were very efficient in knocking out large populations in a very short amount of time (many times in very grotesque fashions).

Catholics also unilaterally decided that many of the NA religious customs were silly and tried to replace them wholesale. I don't say this facetiously, as i'm sure you're aware, these religious customs formed the foundation on which some tribes based their existence. Replacing these customs was no small disruption. This Catholic arrogance continues to this day.

[Sheltiedave]

I would wager the $650K is the university wage, with the additional bump of $500K "off the books" due to it being a direct donation.

[bonwich]

I would wager the $650K is the university wage, with the additional bump of $500K "off the books" due to it being a direct donation.

Scratch golfer, religious scholar and sports economist all in the same package. This man was truly Jesuit-trained.

[Majerus Magic]

I haven't. Wasn't Soderberg making over half a million when he was fired? I thought we had a million dollar coach?

That figure was removed from the article and I think its a wrong figure at that.

[billiken_roy]

This could be the amount he receives directly from the university for coaching the team. His salary still be over a million when all of the income he takes in for coaching SLU is combined (camps, shoe money, etc.). If you look at the salaries that many coaches receive, the money they directly receive for coaching is often much smaller than the total value of the contract.

It could also be that he has a back loaded contract. It could be a lower salary this year with the higher salary kicking in with the move to the new building.

From everything I have heard, he is averaging over a million dollars a year.

or it could be that slu pays the $650k and booster(s) pay the difference directly? i was thinking i read somewhere that ben howland is paid such as the state of california wouldnt allow him to be paid directly through the school past a certain amount. maybe it is something similar to that setup?

[moytoy12]

or it could be that slu pays the $650k and booster(s) pay the difference directly? i was thinking i read somewhere that ben howland is paid such as the state of california wouldnt allow him to be paid directly through the school past a certain amount. maybe it is something similar to that setup?

That'd be my guess or his salary escalates in such a way that it averages 1 million per year. I don't recall ever seeing an exact amount for this year, but do recall hearing that it would average 1 million per year.

[CallAsSee]

Hey callassee, what exactly is "the NCAA breaking game?"

Sorry for the typo "record breaking game"

Thanks for you understanding.

[bonwich]

Any of you tax experts out there know when 990s have to be filed and whether they're yet viewable online?