Well, it's also condemned clearly by one of the popes, I think, in the book "Popes Against Modern Errors," which lists a lot of condemned errors. Can anyone confirm this? I don't happen to have a copy nearby.
Actually, if people would just read the old papal docuмents, it would knock a lot of modern silliness and stupidity out of everyone's heads right from the start. As I said in another thread, I firmly believe that the two things that are the foundation of every error, are pride and/or ignorance. A "pretty good idea" of the Catholic faith isn't the same as knowing exactly what has been condemned by the Church and why. You can know the ten commandments forward and backwards, but you still may not know the Church's teachings on liberalism, for instance.
If people informed themselves first, they wouldn't fall so easily into a myriad of errors long since condemned by the Church. But you have to go out and look for those answers, and not in so-and-so's "really good book about -fill in the blank-" but rather in the encyclicals and in the catechisms and in the Summa and the like, which have the clout of Church teaching and Church authority behind them.
But sadly, people in simple human pride and ignorance, much prefer to be gurus of the stuff of "so-and-so's really good book" than to go out and find the hard, unmovable Catholic truth, and submit to it, however hard or painful it is, or however much they don't understand or like it. (education and humility)
In this case, it's the man who doesn't like the corrupt president, claiming that because he's corrupt, he ISN'T the president. Well... he may be corrupt. He may be crooked... but for better or worse, I'm sorry... he is, unfortunately the president... And the Church of all time says, (as I recall) I'm sorry if the pope is corrupt. I'm sorry if he's a "bad man." I'm sorry if, heaven forbid, he's a flaming liberal heretic... but he is, nevertheless, the pope.
Actually, if someone would be so kind, I wish they would supply this from a book of dogma or an encyclical. I've heard the position, but don't recall where it is exactly.
In any case (excusing the source for those who hate the SSPX), this is a very interesting page which does quote from many official sources, as noted in the footnotes at the bottom of it, which addresses some of the chief problems of this error.
If you bother to read this page (page 3 of a very long article), you may also find page 4 equally enlightening. I realize some of this is "so-and-so's really good website" ... but the quotes from the sources are not at all just "so-and-so's really good books."
I think it would help things greatly all around, if more people quoted official sources (like this article did). The Catholic purpose of a Catholic discussion, is to arrive at the truth, which in any Catholic discussion on faith and morals, is best served by getting to the Church's official definition of the truth, rather than simply guessing at it and arguing about it.