Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is the Death Penalty Morally Equal to Abortion? Bishops Preach Politics Rather than Gospel Truth
CCI NEWS SERVICE ^ | 12/16/2003 | Dr. Brian Kopp

Posted on 12/18/2003 10:38:18 AM PST by ckca

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last
To: ckca
The article errs in referring to the Bishop as "Jesuit."

S.S.J. refers to the Society of St. Joseph. The Bishop is a Josephite Father.
101 posted on 12/19/2003 8:43:47 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Chaput's take on Scalia's remarks is erroneous.

As later discussed (First Things, et al) Scalia's analysis was correct: JPII's teaching is migrating the discussion toward applying the "just war" theory to death-penalty situations.

This migration is a novelty, and Scalia was correct to analyze it as such.

BTW, I, too, was quite surprised at Scalia's outburst and rather unhappy with him, too--until I saw the whole story.
102 posted on 12/19/2003 8:47:34 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Bookmark #31 this string.
103 posted on 12/19/2003 8:49:55 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Javelina
But of course, as Fr. Rutler points out above your riposte, the teaching of Jesus was directed to a PERSON--not to a State.

The State's obligation is to defend its citizens; that's where the death penalty logic originates.

Let's use personal defense as a homely comparison. If you are accosted by a robber, you may choose to allow that robber to succeed; such would seem to be the counsel of Jesus as you cited. All well and good. You lost $50.00; the robber gets a few meals or cocktails, whatever. You are allowed to make that choice because the offense was directed at you, personally and exclusively.

Now let's have a slightly different situation: you are a father, walking with your children. A perp approaches and attempts to harm one of your children.

In this situation, you cannot ELECT to allow the attack; it is your responsibility and obligation as a father to defend your children (some would say to the death....but that's another issue.) The attack is NOT directed solely and personally at you; it's directed at another, for whom you have a responsibility.

This second instance is the case in which the State finds itself: the State is OBLIGATED to defend its citizens; this is not an option in a rightly-ordered State.
104 posted on 12/19/2003 8:58:15 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Fr. George Rutler is a convert from Episcopalianism; he appears now and then on EWTN.

Arguably one of the top intellectuals in the RCC in the States, he has written a number of books available from Ignatius Press and Christendom Press.

There's one out there which is no longer in print; a dazzling listing of the philosophies which are NOT Catholic and the reasons therefore.

The Pope may earnestly WISH that the West does not apply the penalty (and I agree with his WISH.) But the Pope cannot change the teaching of the Church regarding the liceity of such penalties (making all the usual assumptions about trial, gravity of the offense, etc., etc.)
105 posted on 12/19/2003 9:04:40 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
"ALL FAITHFUL CATHOLICS TODAY OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY"

Crap, mad professor, and more crap. Your statement is a calumny of sitetest and me--to name two.

Retract it, please.
106 posted on 12/19/2003 9:09:31 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
Your entire post displays a poorly formed "knowledge" of the Church. Are you RC or just a wanna-be?
107 posted on 12/19/2003 9:11:08 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Yours is a bland analogy.

We are talking about inidivuals who are in incarerated, and a society which has been protected from these same criminals by prison walls.

How does the killing of an already incarcerated-for-life individual further protect society from this very same person?
108 posted on 12/19/2003 9:12:39 AM PST by Prolifeconservative (If there is another terrorist attack, the womb is a very unsafe place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Obviously this Father Rutler holds more weight with FReepers (in this thread, at least) than do the Holy Father and the bishops speaking in concert. That's because this priest is telling you what you want to hear, and they are telling you what you don't wish to hear. Jesus had the same problem, but casuists down through the ages managed to turn his message of nonviolence into the meaningless mush it is made to seem on a thread like this one (all that "turn the other cheek" business applies only to one's PRIVATE doings . . . as do mercy, forgiveness, etc.). And you guys criticize the liberals for trying to lighten the burden of Christian moral teaching! What a joke!
109 posted on 12/19/2003 9:12:50 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile
Max and I disagree a whole lot--but not on this one. You may cite/ and proof-cite/ all you like--but the Pope cannot REVERSE established infallible Magisterial pronouncements.

Please take your Papolatry elsewhere--but not to my children's classroom. I will smite you if I find you there with it.
110 posted on 12/19/2003 9:13:17 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Retract it, please.

Just as soon as the revision of the Catechism comes out with Father Rutler's opinions in it instead of the pope's.

111 posted on 12/19/2003 9:14:51 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Prolifeconservative
Your argument is incoherent.
In the OT it is clear that God allows the State to utilize the death penalty--and it is JUST as clear in the NT.

You illogically conclude that ALLOWING the penalty is the same as MANDATING such. Where do you get off with this?

FURTHER, your 15th/16th question is silly. The convicted man has at least 3 years to reach out TO GOD--Who has given him 3 years to think about doing so. You would place the time-limit on God--an arrogant position, no?
112 posted on 12/19/2003 9:18:42 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

Comment #113 Removed by Moderator

To: Prolifeconservative
Personally, I agree with JPII's position (prudential judgment) that we ought NOT to execute, at least here in the States.

But that prudential judgment cannot abrogate the established infallible teaching that the State HAS SUCH A RIGHT--

You don't like my analogy, but you don't seem to understand how language works--nor logic.
114 posted on 12/19/2003 9:23:38 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Sorry, facts is facts.

JPII did NOT change the teaching in the Catechism to state that 'the State does NOT have this right,' did he?

Ever occur to you that there's a REASON JPII did not make that change? Like prior infallible teaching?

Duhhhh, Prof: BTW, where do you teach? Another place to avoid, obviously.
115 posted on 12/19/2003 9:25:21 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Your calumny is not contingent on someone else's actions.

You clearly stated that "believing Catholics" do not think (I underline THINK as a mnemonic to you--try it sometime) that the death penalty is morally licit.

I am a believing Catholic who agrees with the Pope: it IS morally licit (as he did not change this in the Catechism;) and I also agree that it should be much less frequently used, except on college profs who cannot distinguish concepts clearly.

For those idiots, there's Torquemada, soon to be revived at a college near you.
116 posted on 12/19/2003 9:28:32 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
BE: rev up the Torquemada equipment. We got another college teacher who misinforms children. See madprof98.
117 posted on 12/19/2003 9:30:22 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; madprof98
More I think about it, the more I suspect that MadProf98 is really Cardinal Martino.

RIGHT HERE ON FR!!!
118 posted on 12/19/2003 9:39:13 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Prolifeconservative
God said: Whoever sheds man’s blood,By man his blood shall be shed;For in the image of God He made man. Gen. 9:6
119 posted on 12/19/2003 9:56:20 AM PST by Lucas McCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Good catch.
120 posted on 12/19/2003 9:57:50 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Never nice piece of work

Hmmmm...interesting choice of words ;-) Some others on this thread might agree with it as written.

121 posted on 12/19/2003 9:59:32 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
BE: rev up the Torquemada equipment.

See how they love one another!

122 posted on 12/19/2003 10:00:00 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
I suspect that MadProf98 is really Cardinal Martino.

Hey, better him than Father Rutler!

123 posted on 12/19/2003 10:01:21 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Whether you consider it odd or not, the distinction is a biblical one. Jesus forbade personal revenge. The apostle Paul explained that vengeance is the duty of the state (Romans 13:1-4).
124 posted on 12/19/2003 10:06:37 AM PST by Lucas McCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; sinkspur; madprof98; narses; Polycarp
Personally, I agree with JPII's position (prudential judgment) that we ought NOT to execute, at least here in the States.

But that prudential judgment cannot abrogate the established infallible teaching that the State HAS SUCH A RIGHT--

Dittos to your fine comments on this thread.

This is probably the one and only instance where a Catholic can honestly say, I am personally opposed to (insert morally debatable act here) but I cannot impose my prudential judgement upon the State" and not be in dissent from any Catholic al teaching.

125 posted on 12/19/2003 10:07:02 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Oops

...from any Catholic magisterial teaching...

126 posted on 12/19/2003 10:08:00 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: madprof98; ninenot; BlackElk
See how they love one another!

Amen. They are truly performing acts of Mercy in your case:

Mercy as it is here contemplated is said to be a virtue influencing one's will to have compassion for, and, if possible, to alleviate another's misfortune. It is the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas that although mercy is as it were the spontaneous product of charity, yet it is to be reckoned a special virtue adequately distinguishable from this latter.

The spiritual works of mercy are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

127 posted on 12/19/2003 10:18:00 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Lucas McCain
Jesus forbade personal revenge.

If the kind of revenge Jesus forbade were purely "personal," it is odd that the early Christians were opposed to state vengeance as well--to the point that they would not even testify in capital cases. While it is true that they changed their tune once state power fell into Christian hands, that came much later. You would think the first witnesses would have had a pretty clear idea of what the Lord expected of them, yet they believed, as Tertullian (c.155 - c.225 AD) said, that for Christians "greater permission is given to be killed than to kill." And it was as martyrs, not soldiers or policemen, that they won over their pagan neighbors.

128 posted on 12/19/2003 10:18:07 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
If that comment was serious, it is very telling indeed.
129 posted on 12/19/2003 10:19:35 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Lucas McCain; madprof98
Lucas: facts will not deter the MadProf from his course. That's why I inquired about the locus of his educational activities--to protect my children from inadvertently landing on the campus from which his spewing emanates.
130 posted on 12/19/2003 10:21:44 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ckca
It is telling to me that you (really, you guys, since you evidently have a team here) prefer an obscure right-wing preacher who tells you what you want to hear over the bishops of your country speaking in communion with the Holy Father and in accordance with the clear teachings of Jesus Christ. Archbishop Chaput was right on target when he lumped Scalia (and, by your prideful choice, your team) with Frances Kissling.
131 posted on 12/19/2003 10:23:02 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Abortion is by its very nature, i.e., intrinsically, evil. No circumstances, no application of "situational ethics," can change its intrinsically evil nature.

On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not exclude the possibility that a state could justifiably use capital punishment in cases "of extreme gravity," but adds: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means..." [#2266, 2267]

There is no moral equivalence. Aborted babies are innocent. Murderers are not. Period. End of story. Sadly, my priest is a "seamless garment" guy. There's a lot of them out there.

132 posted on 12/19/2003 10:23:08 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
So you do not believe in development of doctrine? (In its rightful, proper sense per Cardinal Newman, not in its misapplied sense you and other liberals use here in attempting to claim capital punishment is intrinsically evil.)

By the way, what subject do you teach, "prof"?

133 posted on 12/19/2003 10:23:39 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Early Christians also expected the Second Coming to occur around 100 AD.

Of course, if you wish to follow the early Christians, you can get into the sackcloth and kneel outside the church for several weeks for your sins...

Oh! You don't DO that? Early Christians DID, you know...
134 posted on 12/19/2003 10:24:55 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ckca
By the way, what subject do you teach, "prof"?

Among others, logic.

135 posted on 12/19/2003 10:25:29 AM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
It is telling to me that you (really, you guys, since you evidently have a team here)

Yeah, its a grand conspiracy, "prof."

Every Catholic on this thread except you, unrelated, with no prior plan, be they liberal, moderate, or conservative, understands and agrees with the author of this thread. You disagree with the author of this thread, the Catechism, and JPII's obvious understanding of this issue.

Yet you are right and all the diverse unrelated Catholics here as well as JPII are wrong.

There is medicine for paranoid schizophrenia, "madprof."

136 posted on 12/19/2003 10:29:03 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Now you have demonstrated a clear lack of historical knowledge (added to your ignorance of the Magisterium, language, and logic.)

The USCC is not a teaching authority. Only a BISHOP can teach. Perhaps you're not aware of it, but many Bishops and Cardinals in the USA (beginning before Testem Benevolentiae) have not actually taught in consonance with the teachings of Peter, nor the Magisterium.

One of the most egregious recent examples was Bernardin--but Mahony (socialist, not Catholic) is another fine example, as is Rembert (marry the priests) Weakland.

We could go on.

The Pope's WISHES are rather nice, and I agree with him. His TEACHING, however, comports exactly with the Magisterium.

But you don't get that, do you?

Repeat question: WHERE do you TEACH?? Or are you lying about your "professorship?"
137 posted on 12/19/2003 10:30:08 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Of course, if you wish to follow the early Christians

"Be not an archeologizer." Josephinum seminary liturgy prof, circa 1950.

138 posted on 12/19/2003 10:30:36 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Heaven help us.
139 posted on 12/19/2003 10:31:06 AM PST by ckca
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ckca
The worship of archaeology was also decried, strongly, by Pius XII.

He heard the footsteps of the "Liturgy Renewal" crowd--unlike Paul VI.

Now we are paying for it. "Logicians" like MadProf are loose in the nation, attacking the minds of our children, spreading maleficence, calumny, and ignorance throughout the Land..

O! Jerusalem!! By the waters of Babylon we sat, and wept...
140 posted on 12/19/2003 10:33:59 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
The Bible says man kind is born into sin. Aborted infants are not yet born into sin, therefore without sin, or sin free. The criminals are not only born into sin, but chose through their own free will to commit the worst of sin.

How come we lay-people understand this instinctively, but church officials have to debate and discuss the issue as though each side is morally- and logically-equivalent?

141 posted on 12/19/2003 10:49:51 AM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII; concerned about politics
Technically....

ALL children are "born into sin," which is Original Sin. This is not removed until Baptism.

What you are referring to is "Actual Sin," ---a conscious act which is sinful (with knowledge aforethought, etc.)

Hope that helps.
142 posted on 12/19/2003 10:54:43 AM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Every Catholic on this thread except you, unrelated, with no prior plan, be they liberal, moderate, or conservative, understands and agrees with the author of this thread.

Oh, yeah, all the LIBERALS here at Free Republic are just falling over themselves to get on the execution bandwagon! Get real! The thread is really a response to a piece written to explain away a Church teaching that political conservatives generally find distasteful. Not surprisingly, most of the responses found the original piece refreshing--because it is so different from what the Church actually does teach. To see what that is, try the Priests for Life website.

As for all the liberal, moderate and conservative supporters of execution here, the words of Archbishop Chaput are very clearly directed at you:

Second, if we say we're Catholic, we need to act like it. When Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia publicly disputes Church teaching on the death penalty, the message he sends is not so very different from Frances Kissling (of "Catholics for a Free Choice" fame) disputing what the Church teaches about abortion. I don't mean that abortion and the death penalty are equivalent issues. They're not. They clearly do not have equal moral gravity. But the impulse to pick and choose what we accept in Church teaching is exactly the same kind of "cafeteria Catholicism" in both cases.
BTW, I retired from teaching in order to care for our adopted daughter, who is just five. But I regularly make presentations to Catholic church groups, and I'm scheduled to do one in a few weeks on Cafeteria Catholics, Left and Right. I'll be sure to cite the arguments I heard here as examples.
143 posted on 12/19/2003 12:02:29 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: ckca
Hmmmm...interesting choice of words...

Acutally, that can happen when you are talking on the phone while typing in a message.

What I meant to say was the article was a good piece of work.

144 posted on 12/19/2003 1:14:31 PM PST by FormerLib (We'll fight the good fight until the very end!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

Comment #145 Removed by Moderator

To: MEGoody; NWU Army ROTC; ninenot
NWU, thank you for responding cogently and fairly. I am certainly not saying that there was any proclamation of infallibility about JPII's death penalty comments.

I merely disagree that the Pope's authority or that of the bishops acting in mass is limited by the past--Vatican II revised YEARS of church teaching and it didn't matter that Latin was spoken in Mass and Catholics couldn't eat meat on Fridays for years, and it was all gone. GONE. You may or may not be happy about that, but for the Roman Catholic church, it was DONE. No lay protest could have changed it. Only the Pope or bishops acting in concert could change it back, and if they disagreed, there'd be schism.

If the Pope or Magisterium wanted to declare ANYTHING was now church policy (yes, Meg, even if it was something that could be debatably in contradiction of Jesus' words), certainly, there would be schism or a substantial decline in church membership if it was too radical, but I have no doubt that he or they could do so, and not one of you have said a darn thing to show otherwise. You all seem to think precedent binds one who rules absolutely. It certainly plays a role in people's acceptance of those rules, but if he wants it, he can have it.

I'm sorry, not one of you has had a comment on what I posted, other than to call names or just deny it can happen. Whether you disagree or not, you should be able to point to where church doctrine STATES the Pope or bishops are so bound. I'm not saying I want it to be the truth, I'm not saying it's a bad thing it is the truth, I'm not saying the Catholic Church is awful or great because it's the truth. It just IS the truth.

And I'm not discussing my religion, all the 'you don't know jack about the RC church' and 'you're no RC' baiting notwithstanding. I'm not here to bash Catholics or pat Catholics on the backs. I actually have a pretty good record on here smacking down anti-Catholic comments simply because it's wrong to unfairly bash any religion.

I'm sad some of you automatically assume that anything that is said about the Catholic faith must be against it. I'm stating what is the truth--if you don't like it, show me false. Don't childishly call me a "Papolator," whatever that is. Show me I'm wrong about what Catholicism is and means by telling me exactly where the Church says other than what I've said here.

I know what I've said here is exactly what the Church says, and if you don't believe in the Pope's ultimate authority, you are no Catholic. You think you get to decide on what the church is and means instead of its leader, the vicar of Christ, and you should join some other church now which better fits your viewpoint.
146 posted on 12/20/2003 6:29:59 AM PST by LibertarianInExile (When laws are regularly flouted, respect of the law and law enforcement diminishes correspondingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Prolifeconservative
"We are talking about inidivuals who are in incarerated, and a society which has been protected from these same criminals by prison walls. How does the killing of an already incarcerated-for-life individual further protect society from this very same person?"

Are you talking about punishment, or considering incarceration to be sufficient punishment?

In the economy of salvation, there is a "due" punishment for sin. When my child deliberately breaks a serious law of my household, he knows that the punishment for that infraction is a spanking. I can defer that spanking, but that deferral does not negate its "due-ness," just as the consequences of sin are the punishments of Purgatory or Hell. Even being forgiven does not abrogate the "dueness" of that punishment, which means that even the "good" people will pass through Purgatory on their way to Heaven. Incarceration is not punishment. It is a removal from society, granted, but it is in no way a punishment. The death penalty is just that, a PENALTY for a terrible crime. It is the punishment that is due for serious, murderous crimes.

Time and again, the Bible speaks of the prescribed death of those who deliberately defy the Laws of God. The state has been given the right (by God and the will of the people) to punish crimes as well as to protect against threats. An incarcerated individual is not being punished unless he is being PUNISHED. Parents don't pretend to spank their children any more than the state can pretend to punish unregenerate murderers. (asbestos underwear in place)

147 posted on 12/20/2003 9:21:17 AM PST by redhead (Les Franšais sont des singes de capitulation qui mangent du fromage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ckca
"This is probably the one and only instance where a Catholic can honestly say, I am personally opposed to (insert morally debatable act here) but I cannot impose my prudential judgement upon the State" and not be in dissent from any Catholic al teaching."

Interesting observation...

148 posted on 12/20/2003 9:24:53 AM PST by redhead (Les Franšais sont des singes de capitulation qui mangent du fromage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianInExile; madprof98
Old Madprof98, the logician who is a bit daft, will be happy to explain to you that 'some things are proven only by the absence of their contrary.'

When you say that the Pope can declare, infallibly, that (e.g.,) the Assumption did NOT occur, and claim that the Pope has such power, you are running up against the rule above.

No Pope has EVER declared, infallibly, that which is NOT true. And it's never gonna happen, per the 1st Vatican Council. Until you find and furnish evidence to the contrary, (trust me, I won't hold my breath) you cannot hold the opposite.
149 posted on 12/20/2003 12:22:29 PM PST by ninenot (So many cats, so few recipes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
"No Pope has EVER declared, infallibly, that which is NOT true."

>I don't think we're debating that. If he were declaring it infallibly it would then be true according to Catholic doctrine.

>No, what we're debating is whether he has the power to do so. I say he does, and point to Catholic doctrine as I've cited. You say he doesn't, and point to your rectum, where you pulled that idea from.

"And it's never gonna happen, per the 1st Vatican Council. Until you find and furnish evidence to the contrary, (trust me, I won't hold my breath) you cannot hold the opposite."

>Oh, PLEASE, hold your breath. It's so cute when you stomp your foot and act like a child. Especially when you claim that 'some things are only proven by the absence of their contrary.' Those statements of opinion are then THEORIES, not facts. They are unproven, so not facts, though they're not necessarily WRONG. For instance, if I tell you a big purple bunny invisible to all but me shadows me around, you can't provide any contrary proof. That doesn't mean I have a big purple bunny after me.

Worse, you attempt to shift the burden of proof after I showed you that the Church says the Pope is infallible when proclaiming articles of faith, and his proclamations are then the word of the Church. You can't claim 'logic' is behind you. Just saying 'no, you're wrong!' is not even an argument. That you don't even understand that your argument is and has been 'no, you're wrong, prove me wrong!' and dismissing of any and all evidence thereof, shows you wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you on that handy opinion-filled rectum of yours.

I could tell you there is no God and dismiss any evidence there, but that would be an argument about FAITH. I don't care if you're Catholic or Jewish or whatever, faith is irrelevant to this. This, is an argument about FACT. About what is or isn't Catholic DOCTRINE. Not your belief about it. The facts are as I've shown, as stated by the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, NOT ME. You have petulantly claimed other than the facts, and can't show any reason other than your opinion it is so. I haven't just SAID anything, the Church said it, and for you to dismiss it as if I'm just tossing out my opinion of the weather, is evidence of how truly clueless you are about the Roman Catholic Church.
150 posted on 12/20/2003 6:50:31 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (When laws are regularly flouted, respect of the law and law enforcement diminishes correspondingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-154 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson