pumpkinstrokemarrow

Followed up by finding a use for paprika, following yesterday's post. Something I do not make a lot of use of. Finely chop and fry a couple of cloves of garlic in butter. Add a bit of pounded black pepper. Add finely chopped onion (3 medium) and simmer for a bit. Add a few pinches of paprika and simmer for a bit more. Slice up 544g of 'taste the basics' Scottish rump steak from Sainsbury's (for rather less than £5), add that and simmer for 10 minutes. Add finely chopped tomato (2 small and 3 large (8 large on the vine for £1 from the market this morning)) and simmer for 20 minutes. Add finely chopped mushroom stalk and coarsely sliced mushroom caps and simmer for 5 minutes. Serve with boiled crinkly cabbage and boiled white rice. Very nice too. FIL even went for seconds. Maybe a bit more paprika next time.

And while all this was going on, I have been wondering about the infallibility of the pope, prompted by reading about the doings of Bismark in 1870 (of which more on another occasion). It seems that Pope Pius IX put the first Vatican Council up to asserting that a properly consecrated pope could not err when making a formal pronouncement at a formal occasion on a matter of doctrine. An assertion which ran right up against the anti-clerical, liberal tide which at that time was in flood, not least in the pope's native Italy. All kinds of people seriously grumpy about the assertion. Tactless if not provocative.

Given that senior civil servants at the Vatican are clever and well educated chaps, one supposes that they thought about what they were doing. They thought about the vagaries of language and the difficulty of saying almost anything with complete precision. Difficulties which were, by this time, being thought about. Not least by all those German scholars puzzling over the literal truth of the old Testament.

For example, suppose that the pope was to decree that all the cats in the wood were white. One could argue the toss about most of the words in this apparently innocuous statement. Does cats include wild cats? Does it include big cats? Are we talking about entire adults only? Where does the wood begin and end? Are we clear about the boundary? What about a cat stuck, straddled across the barbed wire marking the boundary? What about visiting cats? Dead cats? And who is to say whether any particular cat is white? How many shades of off-white are we going to include? What about bits of some other colour on the paws or the tip of the tail? A good Jesuit could have lots of fun with it all. Never mind a more tricky doctrine like that of the immaculate conception. (I note in passing that the product of an immaculate conception would have to be a woman, as the male ingredient had been omitted. Perhaps appropriate now that so many of our C of E priests are in fact priestesses. Except that I am not sure whether they are signed up for immaculate conceptions).

All of which means that the statement of doctrine, beautifully drafted though it might be, needs to be backed up by a team of clerical lawyers who can adjudicate on the issues which will inevitably arise at the margins. All of which rather muddies the once clear waters.

I learned at Tooting that such statements are made quite rarely, popes not liking to give too many hostages to fortune. Which reminds me that New York Jews are apt to make a bit of a game of it all, going in for arcane & enthusiastic disputes about whether this or that article or process is truly kosher.

For technical details see http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp.

PS: shady goings on down Wheelers Lane this morning. Municipal dustcart pulled up under the trees. Private builders pick-up backed up to to the back of it. Various clunking noises coming from the innards of the dustcart. Empty pick-up pulls away as I approach. Clearly a deal concocted by two bunches of fly boys in the nearby Coopers' Arms. Was it a one-off or is it a regular arrangement?