Instigator
Points: 6

Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are not compatible

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
drafterman
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 14
Description
Pro will argue that Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are not compatible. That is the side I shall be taking.
Con will argue that Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are compatible. That is the side drafterman shall be taking.
Round 1
Published:
Pro = the_bat_man = Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are not compatible
Con = drafterman = Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are compatible

Thanks to Con for accepting the debate. I hope people will understand that this debate is not about  proving one ideology is right or wrong, but about whether they are compatible or not.

ARGUMENT 1

Thesis (1.1)

The Roman Catholic Church and the idea of Progressivism are directly contradictory in how they view issues, such as abortion, gay marriage and capital punishment, and their ideas of progress and human nature.

Abortion (1.2)

As Psalm 127 3-5 NIV echoes:

3Children are a heritage from the LORD, offspring a reward from him. 4Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one's youth. 5Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them. They will not be put to shame when they contend with their opponents in court.

This outlines the reverence the Church has for children and how important they are to God. Another quote that outlines the reverence God has for people is from Genesis 1 26-31 NIV:

26Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. 28God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. 31God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.

On the other hand, progressivism encompasses a wide range of ideas like, as the blog Dissident Voice (https://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/what-is-progressivism/) puts it:

environmentalism, labor, agrarianism, anti-poverty, peace, anti-racism, civil rights, women’s rights, animal rights, social justice and political ideologies such as anarchism, communism, socialism, social democracy, and liberalism.

Women’s rights include abortion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights#Reproductive_rights), legalized by the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. These two views directly contradict each other, proving my thesis.

Gay Marriage (1.3)

The Church’s stance on gay marriage as outlined by the Bible can be shown by the same quote I used just a while ago, Genesis 1: 27 NIV:

27So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

This outlines that God created man and woman to be together, as gay marriage violates that concept. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares in paragraph 2357:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Progressivism believes in the idea of civil rights, again quoting the blog Dissident Voice. And civil rights include (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights)

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life, and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, age, political affiliation, ethnicity, religion, and disability;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy and the freedoms of thought, speech, religion, press, assembly, and movement.

Sexual orientation includes the right for gays to get married. Yet again, these two views contradict each other, again proving my thesis.

Capital Punishment (1.4)

The Church’s view on capital punishment has always been a bit iffy, but here it is well defined in the Catechism’s paragraphs 2266 and 2267:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Civil rights consist of human rights, and Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.

This contradicts the legality of the death penalty, which the Church upholds. This again proves my thesis.

Progress (1.5)

The Church over the past 2000 years has stayed mostly the same (with the exception of both Vaticans) and maintains the concept of Orthodoxy and tradition, such as communion, mass on Sundays, and concepts about priests. Progressivism (quite obviously) opposes this, as it always will move forward paving its own way.

Conclusion (1.6)

  1. The Catholic Church and Progressivism contradict each other.
  2. Therefore, they are not compatible
Please understand, yet again, this is not a debate about whether one side is right or wrong.

Published:
Introduction

The driving force of Progressivism is change: a push for a better future. In striving for a better future we necessarily must concede that the current status quo is insufficient. If it were sufficient, then there would be no incentive or need to change!

I will certainly concede, immediately, that the status quo of the Catholic Chuch is such that it is not in line with the goals of Progressivism. But, again, the thrust of Progressivism is about working forward to achieve those goals and I contend that the Catholic Church is consistent with that philosophy.

In doing so, we cannot simply look at a thousand year old document. No more so than we can rely only on the Constitution in order to ascertain the stance of the current administration. The government is more than just the Constitution and the Catholic Church is more than just the Bible and the Cachetism. 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. Only in this way can we decide whether or not it is compatible with Progressivism.

Abortion

It is true that the current stance within the Catholic church is one of anti-abortion. Indeed, Pope Francis likened abortion to Nazi eugenics. Pretty clear cut, right? Well no. Rather than look at the stance, let's look at the progress.

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:


What does this mean? While the Church still recognizes abortion as a very serious "sin" it is now more tolerant about forgiving it. A small step, but a step nonetheless. What it ultimately means is that a woman can get an abortion while remaining Catholic and still being considered Catholic.

Gay Marriage

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. Following suit, a number of bishops and cardinals have expressed - in at least an academic stance - an openness and willingness toward homosexuality and same sex marriage.


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.

Capital Punishment

This one is perhaps the most clear cut. Section 2267 of the Catechism has been updated (emphasis mine):

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. 

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “**the death penalty is inadmissible** because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Progress, right before our very eyes!

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."

Now, you might ask why I am placing so much emphasis on the words and beliefs of Pope Francis. Well, he's the Pope! He is the leader of the Catholic Church. The existence of his role, rooted in the Bible, is to spread the message of the Church, educate people. He sets Church policy and, in short, determines the overall direction the Church should be heading to. 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.

This leads me to:

The Essence of Progressivism

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."


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. There will always be a better future to strive to and a form of Progressivism will always exist because the essence lies in the idea of Progress, not in the specific goals to be achieved.

I will agree that the Church does move slowly. It does lag behind. But it does move! And I will agree that this pace is a challenge for Progressive Catholics. But human beings are mentally versatile. We can be patriots, yet agree that there are things we can improve about our country. We can love one another, yet also criticize our mistakes.

And a devout Catholic can nevertheless recognize the need for progress within his own church, a recognition that would be impossible of Catholicism and Progressivism were strictly incompatible.

Round 2
Published:
Pro = the_bat_man = Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are not compatible
Con = 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.

Exodus 21:12 NIV:

Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.

Leviticus 24:17 NIV:

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.

Published:
Surrebuttals

Introduction

Con seems to judge the Church on how they view things now, rather than how things are explained by the Bible.
Yes, that is correct. Pro objects and suggests that we can only use the Bible in judging the Catholic Church. While I agree that the Bible is the primary source for Catholic Dogma, it does not encompass all of Catholic Dogma or all of its positions on every subject. You cannot judge the Catholic Church without considering its views now and how they have changed over time, especially when comparing it against a position of Progressivism.

All Chrisitan denominations depend on the Bible as their primary source. The only thing that separates them is their interpretation of the Bible. Major separations from the Catholic Church (East-West Schism, Arianism, Protestant Reformation, etc.) occurred because (in part, at least) because of theological differences. The only way to distinguish the Catholic Church from other denominations is to view their specific views, not just those of the Bible.

After all this debate is:

"Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are not compatible"

NOT:

"Modern-Day Progressivism and all Christianity are not compatible"

NOR:

"Modern-Day Progressivism and the Bible are not compatible"

I agree that the Roman Catholic Church was built on the Bible and that the Bible serves as its foundation. But we do not judge houses just by their foundations, we judge them in their entirety. Con speaks of whether or not the Church needs populism or to become politicized. This is immaterial to the debate. We are not discussing what is the best path for the Catholic Church but the path the church has decided to take, regardless.

As for the analogy with the Constitution and Government, I stand by it. The Constitution Founded the government but it does not encompass all of it. You can have absolutely no sense of the modern government by looking only at the Constitution. Consider all of the Supreme Court cases that were later overturned. For example, in 1954, Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Nothing changed about our Constitution but our government changed drastically.

Abortion, Gay Marriage, Catechism, et. al.

Pro's rebuttals to my arguments are summarized as follows:

  • The Pope is not the Catholic Church
  • The Pope cannot change the Bible
  • The Progressive Stances on these issues are still at odds with the Bible

I will address these points in reverse order:

"The Progressive Stances on these issues are still at odds with the Bible"

I agree! And I think it's wonderful that the Church would step back from taking the Bible literally. I will immediately and wholeheartedly concede that these Progressive stances are at odds with the Bible. But I remind Pro (and the readers) that this debate is not "Modern-Day Progressivism and the Bible is not compatible"

"The Pope cannot change the Bible"

Again, I agree. The Bible is foundational dogma for the Catholic Church. It's basically a document frozen in time for the past millenia.

Now, to the key piece:

"The Pope is not the Catholic Church"

Well, let's see. Just what the hell is a Pope, anyway?

The title pope , once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V ), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.

Ok, the Pope is:

  • The Bisop of Rome
  • Chief Pastor of the whole Church
  • Vicar of Christ

What are each of those?

Bishop:

It is of Catholic faith that bishops are of Divine institution. In the hierarchy of order they possess powers superior to those of priests and deacons; in the hierarchy of jurisdiction, by Christ's will, the are appointed for the government of one portion of the faithful of the Church, under the direction and authority of the sovereign pontiff, who can determine and restrain their powers, but, not annihilate them.
This term denotes a priest who has the cure of souls ( cura animarum ), that is, who is bound in virtue of his office to promote the spiritual welfare of the faithful by preaching, administering the sacraments, and exercising certain powers of external government, e.g., the right of supervision, giving precepts, imposing light corrections -- powers rather paternal in their nature, and differing from those of a bishop, which are legislative, judicial, and coactive.
A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ.

Basically, the Pope is the legal and spiritual head of the church, with jurisdiction, authority, and supremacy over the entirety of the church. His "ecclesiastical jurisdiction" (conveyed to him by the roles above) gives him "the right to guide and rule the Church of God."

Essentially, even if the Pope isn't the Catholic Church, he rules over it and has the right and authority (subordinate to no other Earthly entity) to guide the Church in the direction he sees fit.

My arguments have been to analyze the direction the current Pope is guiding the church and I deem it to be in a Progressive direction. Pro asserts that this direction is contrary to strict and literal readings of the Bible. I concede this point and respond: So what? Then it would appear that the Pope is guiding the Catholic Church away from strict and literal interpretations of the Bible.

This does not mean he isn't Pope.

This does not render impotent his authority over the Catholic Church.

What it means is the official views of the Catholic Church (which the Pope has the authority to decide) are deviating from strict, literal interpretations of the Bible. Thus, if we to are evaluate the position of the Catholic Church, we must examine the actual views of the Church, not an ancient book that they are deviating from.

Pro criticizes the fact that I have only pulled quotes of the Pope in support of my case. I feel that only quotes from the Pope are necessary. Though Pro asserts that Catholics comprise only 16% of the population, that is still over a billion people. I will concede that I cannot adequately poll this population to get a majority opinion. (Not that it is necessary; Pro eschews a populist approach with respect to the Church). But we can consider the following:

Bishop Nunzio Galantino: “My wish for the Italian Church is that it is able to listen without any taboo to the arguments in favour of married priests, the Eucharist for the divorced, and homosexuality."

Cardinal Claudio Hummes: (with respect to gay marriage) "I think we have to get together, listen to the people, those who are involved in the issue. It is the Church that must indicate the paths, and there must be way for everyone.”

Cardinal Timothy Dolan Supported the inclusion of LGBT in a St. Patrick's Day Parade

Cardinal Joseph Tobin acknowledges that the church "is moving" with respect to the question of same-sex couples.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx lamented the Church's historical persecution of homosexuals

Again, I will note and concede that the Church is moving slowly with respect to these issues, but we cannot deny that the Church is moving.

The Essence of Progressivism

Pro admits the Progressive stance of the Pope on these issues. To be consistent, Pro must also admit the Progressive stance of the Cardinals (and other officials and members) who are aligned with the Pope on these issues. Pro might say that these individuals "aren't the Church" but they are. The church is its members, its leaders. A church is an organization, a gathering of people, united together in their worship of Christ. It is not merely a book. Nowhere in the Bible does it refer to itself as the Church, but rather as the groupings of people who have gathered together at a particular place.

I don't doubt that being a Progressive Catholic is a challenge. My wife is one and struggles with the slow pace the Church moves on these issues. Progressivism does not dictate the speed in which one must work toward these goals. So we cannot deny that the Church, however glacially, is still moving on these issues and in the Progressive Direction.
Round 3
Forfeited
Published:
Unfortunately, my opponent was not able to publish his final round. I believe my arguments stand on their merits, so would like to ask the voters: Do not factor in the forfeit in the voting process.

For all intents and purposes, please consider this a 2 Round debate and evaluate accordingly.
Added:
--> @the_bat_man
sorry but to me you lost this, had to be honest in my vote.
#2
Added:
--> @drafterman
Thanks to my opponent for understanding.
Instigator
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
I was initially undecided, as I felt one of you was minimizing the significance of the Pope and the other was minimizing the significance of the Bible. My thoughts on the various arguments were:
- I found the examples of progress Con supplied relatively minuscule, with the exception of the Church's turnaround on capital punishment. Con certainly showed that Catholicism is capable of progress by inches, but the inches in question did not stack up to overall compatibility with progressivism in my view.
- Con made a valid point that progressivism is not limited to abortion, gay rights, and capital punishment, and that it and Catholicism do have some overlapping values. Christianity has always concerned itself with humanitarian causes like the poor and ailing, making income equality and healthcare relevant issues.
- I found Pro's assertion that the Bible is the Catholic Church to be possibly his weakest argument. Documents and human-run institutions are not interchangeable. No human institution is static, even if its document is.
What ultimately swayed me was Con's argument that interpretive differences are the only way to distinguish one denomination from another, so interpretation must be treated with recognized legitimacy -- and imo Con showed that the *current* Pope's interpretation of Christianity is arguably compatible with progressivism.
I've given sourcing a tie, as I consider the Pope, the Bible, and Catechism to all be valid sources on the subject of Roman Catholicism. That is, when judging an institution, it is valid to look at its founding document, its leadership, and its doctrine/policy.
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Con wins because the debate was about Catholicism and not Christianity of the Protestant forms. In Catholicism you take the adapted interpretations of the Pope and Bishops (especially the Bishop of Rome in this case) and listen to them in how to adapt Christianity to present times.
On top of making it clear how Catholic figureheads have moved towards Progressivism in multiple ways over time, Con also wins sources because he doesn't use Wikipedia and copy pastes the links Wiki uses which almost all links to expansion on what the terms mean rather than any reference to back up what it is saying as well as avoiding linking a personal blog of someone who seems to have no qualifications on the matter (https://dissidentvoice.org/2013/01/what-is-progressivism/). I am not saying at all the personal blogs are wrong and as a conspiracy theorist myself know the issue with trusting more qualified writers in and of itself but Pro's entire case rested upon Bible verses which Pro never even linked to which source and/or interpretation of the Bible they were relying on and we needed to take his word for it whereas Con backed up all stated facts with reliable sources and this mattered enough for me to give the reference/reliability vote to Con.