July 18th 1870 the Catholic Church established the dogma of Papal infallibility. This states that, by action of the Holy Spirit, the Pope is preserved from even the possibility of error when he solemnly declares or proclaims to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation (most of that was straight from Wikipedia).
Although this infallibility is limited to Church dogma you can’t help but wonder what type of ego trip this could give someone and how far a Pope might push it. Furthermore the whole idea of it seem ludicrous that a man voted into office by other men would automatically be bestowed with the Holy Spirit and be the last word on Church dogma. I understand the need for having a someone with the final say when establishing teachings that are the basic foundation of an institution the size and scope of the Catholic Church but justifying with the nod from the divine is a ridiculous in my opinion. Why not just say the Pope is the final word based on his character and knowledge of the Church. But in 1850 creating the doctrine of infallibility may have made sense even if it does not today. And just because it does exist it does not mean the Pope uses it but like most doctrines in the church they never disavow a dogma like this but rather let it languish. Because to revise dogma or negate it is to call attention to it which the church rarely likes to do.
Sorry to go off on this rather than give a straight history lesson about f infallibility in the Church but I just figured addressing my opinion about it would take less time to write.
Hope you got a laugh. Have a great week,