We're told that Catholic popes are infallible and, as yet, we don't know at what point they becomes infallible (we discussed this earlier) so if the new pope can't make an error, we assume that the cardinals who choose him are also infallible and so how do they explain the inexplicable?

Attaturk found the following:

In a speech delivered in Parma, Italy, March 15, 1990, even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger endorsed the opinion of philosopher P. Feyerabend against Galileo. Ratzinger stated:

“At the time of Galileo the Church remained much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself. The process against Galileo was reasonable and just”.

Although I'm confident that the majority of readers know about Galileo, here's a tip for the wingnuts who stop by. Galileo's scientific observations [reality-based discoveries] conflicted with the beliefs [faith-based views] of the church. He was tried in 1633 by the Inquisition and was sentenced to house arrest. This is what happens when you mix church and state and it demonstrates the importance of our independent judiciary (the one the Repugs are trying to intimidate and replace).

Oh, and by the way, in 1992 the then pope concluded that the church had wronged Galileo after all. Does this mean that one of the popes made an error? How can the pope of 1633 be correct if he was overruled by the pope of 1992. I believe I detect a chink in the armor of infallibility.

Just like the Bible, the church is full of contradictions. It's like when someone lies so often they can't keep track of the stories they told and they end up contradicting themselves.