Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are not compatible
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
Con = drafterman = Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are compatible
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.
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.
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.
27So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
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.
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.
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."
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.
- The Catholic Church and Progressivism contradict each other.
- Therefore, they are not compatible
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.
"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."
Con = drafterman = Modern-Day Progressivism and Roman Catholicism are compatible
The government is more than just the Constitution and the Catholic Church is more than just the Bible and the Cachetism [sic].
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.
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]
What it ultimately means is that a woman can get an abortion while remaining Catholic and still being considered Catholic.
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.
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.
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, 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."
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.
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.
Con seems to judge the Church on how they view things now, rather than how things are explained by the Bible.
- 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
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.
- The Bisop of Rome
- Chief Pastor of the whole Church
- Vicar of Christ
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.
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.
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.
sorry but to me you lost this, had to be honest in my vote.
Thanks to my opponent for understanding.