Sir, - I was amused at a few catechism questions on papal infallibility, put together by James Murphy (December 30th), evidently with the intention of ridiculing the idea. And indeed his idea of what it means deserves ridicule. He seems to be under the impression that Pope John XXIII denied the doctrine, which would be very serious if it were true. Perhaps he is referring to the Pope joking about the limitations of papal infallibility, which are very strict indeed.
And then Patrick Guinness wrote (January 27th), referring to the previous letter, and regretting that although he was a direct descendant of two popes (and one saint), infallibility had not passed down in his DNA. It wouldn't take a very daring philosopher to hold that both Mr Murphy and Mr Guinness are infallible in making certain assertions, such as "something exists", "I am appeared to red" (or whatever), or even, more daringly, "if I am mistaken, I am". Not to mention the "I think, therefore I am" of Descartes - but that may be going too far!
The bad news is that one does not require the blue blood of the Farnese or anyone else to enjoy this infallibility. It is common to all the children of Eve. - Yours, etc.,
The Abbey,
Galway City.