Pro = the_bat_man = Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are not compatibleCon = drafterman = Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are compatible
REBUTTALS
Rebuttal: Introduction (1.1)
Con seems to judge the Church on how they view things now
, rather than how things are explained by the Bible. The one and only primary source that bases the Catholic Church is the Bible. Con says:
The government is more than just the Constitution and the Catholic Church is more than just the Bible and the Cachetism [sic].
The first assertion is simply incorrect. The Constitution is the government. The Constitution established the three branches of government (executive, legislative, and judicial), organized the separation of powers, and established the basic laws of the land. The second assertion is also incorrect. The Bible is the church. The Bible established Christian traditions and established the Pope’s office. The whole Roman Catholic church was built on the Bible; the Bible is the Cornerstone. Con says:
We must look at modern policies. We must look at the people that make up the Church and are leading the Church and see in what direction they are leading it.
Populism is not something we need in the Catholic Church. That is what makes the Catholic Church special. It’s not for everybody. Catholics only make up 16 percent of the world’s population. Non-Catholics are not coming to them for answers on political issues. They do not need to become a politicized body which has forgotten its values in search of populism.
Rebuttal: Abortion (1.2)
Con says:
Historically, the sin of abortion resulted in an automatic excommunication and could only be absolved by a bishop or select priests. In 2015, during the Jubilee of Mercy, Pope Francis extended this ability to all priests: [link]
Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church. Pope Francis is the Pope, as made quite clear by his title. The Pope does not have the ability to change what the Bible means and how people interpret it. He can not rearrange the letters like something out of Harry Potter. Just because Pope Francis made that ability available to all priests does not mean it adheres to Biblical standards and teachings. Con says:
What it ultimately means is that a woman can get an abortion while remaining Catholic and still being considered Catholic.
This degrades the original teaching of the Church that abortion is one of the gravest sins of all. The way Con puts it in a way that makes you think it is just like strolling down to the neighborhood Catholic Church during a reconciliation time, saying “I had an abortion, forgive me,” and the priest saying “OK, you are forgiven, have a good day.” This is not the teaching of the Bible just because Pope Francis said it was okay, as it is directly contradictory to multiple verses in the Bible and Catechism that I have reference in Round 1.
Rebuttal: Gay Marriage (1.3)
Con says:
Again, the current stance of the Catholic church is that homosexuals cannot get married. But - and again - what is the progress being made on this issue? Pope Francis has stated that not even he is one to judge homosexuals, and that the church could be open to same-sex civil unions.
Again, Pope Francis is not the Catholic Church. Pope Francis is the Pope. The Pope does not have the ability to change what the Bible means. Con says:
So while there has not been major changes to church stance, the approach towards homosexuality (and LGBT rights in general) is moving in the right direction.
Why is heterodoxy good? Why must there always be a place for change and progress? The Bible is at odds with the progressive view on this issue and the last one. Again, the Bible is the Catholic Church, which means that the Catholic Church is also at odds with the progressive view of this issue.
Rebuttal: Capital Punishment (1.4)
Con quotes the updated Paragraph 2267 from the Catechism that Pope Francis changed in August of 2018. Now, the Catechism is merely an interpretation of what the Bible’s morals, teachings, and stances are. And here are three verses (and there are undeniably more) where the Bible reinforces the use of capital punishment for grave crimes upon society.
Genesis 9:6 NIV:
Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death.
Now, is the Bible or the Catechism more important? I don’t know, that’s for another argument. But the above Bible verses hotly contest the revised version of the Catechism. Con says:
Now, Pro has hand-picked some Progressive issues that are at odds with the current stance of the Catholic Church. But these are hardly the end-all-be-all of Progressivism. Other issues include, income equality, healthcare reform, racial equality, and others. Pope Francis is well known for his stances on economic inequality (“Working for a just distribution of the fruits of the earth and human labor is not mere philanthropy. It is a moral obligation. For Christians, the responsibility is even greater: it is a commandment"), healthcare ("Health is not a consumer good but a universal right, so access to health services cannot be a privilege"), and racism ("We must overcome all forms of racism, of intolerance and of the instrumentalization of the human person"). All stances any reasonable person would consider "progressive."
Con says that income equality, healthcare reform and racial inequality all are issues that the Catholic Church and Progressives have the same stances on. To refute the first two, I would like to ask when the Catholic Church became the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs and how that pertains to the Bible. Solving racial inequality is a completely bipartisan issue. What is partisan about it is how to solve (i.e. through affirmative action or workplace racial quotas). Con says:
As I said, the Progressive nature of the Church cannot be determined by dusty old books, but by the direction the Church is heading based upon its members and leaders.
I find it quite ironic that you say that the Progressive nature of the church is based upon the views of its members (plural) and leaders (also plural) when the only person you have quoted and talked about his stances on issues is one person: the Pope. You have not quoted one Bishop, Cardinal, or run-of-the-mill Catholic who has a blog while referring to them as the “Progressive nature of the Church.”
Rebuttal: The Essence of Progressivism (1.5)
Con asserts:
The essence of Progressivism is, simply put: Progress. Pro asserts that the Church has changed little over the last 2,000 years, and supports that assessment with references to an ancient Bible and a handful of traditions that have lasted. But the Church necessarily has changed, as culture has changed. Once again, Pope Francis on the issue:
"Doctrine cannot be preserved without allowing it to develop, nor can it be tied to an interpretation that is rigid and immutable without demeaning the working of the Holy Spirit ... [T]he word of god cannot be moth-balled like some old blanket in an attempt to keep insects at bay! ... [It is] a dynamic and living reality that develops and grows."
Pope Francis is again at odds with the teaching of the Bible. The Bible outlines a way of life, a tradition, for all Catholics, which Pope Francis is degrading with the above quote. As I have said many times before, the Pope is not the Catholic Church. The Bible is the Catholic Church. But there is some reason, undeniably debted to progressivism, that there is this stigma around tradition and orthodoxy, which Pope Francis joins. Con says:
Indeed, is that not the essence of Progressivism? If the goals of abortion, gay marriage, and capital punishment were to be achieved, universally, would Pro then say that Progressivism no longer exists? No.
One may ask if they will ever be achieved and accepted by Progressives. Because most of them have been acheived. Abortion is legal, due to Roe v. Wade (1973). Gays are allowed to marry one another due to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Black people and other minority groups have the same exact rights as white people in the U.S. Most current issues progressives vouch for have already been absolved (no pun intended) and they are petitioning for rights they already have.
I thank Con for a good debate so far.
sorry but to me you lost this, had to be honest in my vote.
Thanks to my opponent for understanding.