Just because we make mistakes does not mean that we have to make mistakes in everything we do. Nor does it mean that we always make mistakes. It is certainly possible for a man to write an inerrant and infallible book. It is likely that some Math textbooks out there are infallible books written by fallible people. 2+2=4 and 10×10=100. Despite being a sinner, I am capable of writing something that does not contain mistakes. In the same way, the authors of the Bible could have written their respective works without error. This possibility becomes reality when we recognize that the authors of Scripture were “moved” by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21).
Well, that is what happens when a Bishop or a Pope is personally a sinner - but still intends to convey the Christian Faith as it was conveyed to himself by worthier men. That is why the Church can be Pillar and Foundation of Truth despite its truth passing through a transmission handled by men who are sometimes sinning mortally (like at times Alexander VI or Hemming Gadh, who was a courtier under him and a bishop elect of Lincoping before the much better Hans Brask took over).
I think this answers any charge levelled against Catholic, Orthodox and so forth Christendom of having lost the faith when it was handled by sinful bishops. I can agree that 100 € = 100 € even if I take interest on 100 € and charge 105 € because times has lapsed. I can also agree taking interest if a sin even if I commit the sin myself - and precisely so, I can agree that a man vowed to chastity and practising fornication is damning himself, even if I were such a man, and Pope Alexander VI was, at least at times.
What I dread is not sinning clergy, but clergy taking liberties with the doctrine.
Hans Georg Lundahl
UL of Nanterre
PS, if we take an example from Sweden again, Laurentius Petri was arguably a much more virtuous man than Hemming Gadh. He had exactly one fault : he did not remain Catholic in doctrine. Which of course ruins all the rest./HGL
PPS, Moses was not a murderer, unlike what Tim Chaffey said a bit earlier, he intended legitimate defense of the Israelite and not the death of the Egyptian. That unjust judges of Egypt would have called him a murderer does not mean he was one./HGL