I understand what you're saying, but you might want to make a distinction between folks who are just incompetent believers, and folks who may disagree about what it means to be Catholic.
Here's what I have in mind. One of my colleagues in the Philosophy Dept. here was a Sister of Mercy (she'd gotten a Master's in Philosophy from CUA years ago, taught for a while, and then decided she'd come back and get the Ph.D.). I'd have no hesitation calling her a Catholic, despite the fact that she though the Pope was wrong to condemn contraception, and that women should be allowed to be priests. It wasn't simply that she didn't agree with him on the morality of the issues, she thought that the bans violated the spirit of Catholicism in various ways - and could give you greatly detailed doctrinal arguments (which I can't, alas, reproduce off the top of my head) for her position. Whatever you think of the merit of her arguments, I think it would be contentious to simply dismiss her as 'not a Catholic.'
The point goes similarly for almost any label or faction - Antonin Scalia and I apparently have grave disagreements about what "democracy" involves, but (assuming both of us are sincere, for the moment), it would be exaggerating for me to say that Scalia wasn't 'really' committed to democracy (as he understands it).
All that said, having read this guy's comments, I think it's safe to put him in the camp of those who just don't know what the hell they're talking about, rather than those with a divergent understanding of Catholicism.
no subject
Here's what I have in mind. One of my colleagues in the Philosophy Dept. here was a Sister of Mercy (she'd gotten a Master's in Philosophy from CUA years ago, taught for a while, and then decided she'd come back and get the Ph.D.). I'd have no hesitation calling her a Catholic, despite the fact that she though the Pope was wrong to condemn contraception, and that women should be allowed to be priests. It wasn't simply that she didn't agree with him on the morality of the issues, she thought that the bans violated the spirit of Catholicism in various ways - and could give you greatly detailed doctrinal arguments (which I can't, alas, reproduce off the top of my head) for her position. Whatever you think of the merit of her arguments, I think it would be contentious to simply dismiss her as 'not a Catholic.'
The point goes similarly for almost any label or faction - Antonin Scalia and I apparently have grave disagreements about what "democracy" involves, but (assuming both of us are sincere, for the moment), it would be exaggerating for me to say that Scalia wasn't 'really' committed to democracy (as he understands it).
All that said, having read this guy's comments, I think it's safe to put him in the camp of those who just don't know what the hell they're talking about, rather than those with a divergent understanding of Catholicism.