It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Can. 1364 ß1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 ß1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 ß1, nn. 1, 2 and 3. (Source)
Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. (Dei Filius 4: DS 3017)
A curious thing that one notes in the study of war is that every conflict has one thing in common, the presence of human beings.
But that the Christians in the East had founded hospitals before Julian the Apostate came to the throne (361) is evident from the letter which that emperor sent to Arsacius, high-priest of Galatia, directing him to establish a xenodochium in each city to be supported out of the public revenues. As he plainly declares, his motive was to rival the philanthropic work of the Christians who cared for the pagans as well as for their own. (Source)
With apologies for my delay in responding, I believe that my first order of business needs to be to point out that my opponent has gone a bit off the rails with his last argument. The subject of this debate is "The Catholic Church has had a positive influence on the world", which he largely concedes it has done, but then goes on to claim that it doesn't matter, because he has a case, if the debate was about something else.
[...]providing western civilization with a moral framework, the establishment of higher education, the foundations of modern science, art patronage and all the rest of the good that the church has done? Can we imagine an "alternative history", where all those things came into being without the church?
I have read the debate and come to a conclusion. It was a hard decision, as both sides had to concede very important points to the other over the course of the debate, but I thank you for the chance to contribute in whatever small way I can.
The winner is adjensen.
Although adjensen's opening post only made the case of how the Catholic Church positively impacted the church itself, subsequent posts effectively argue that the church was instrumental in the retention of knowledge throughout it's existence and played an important role in educating and molding the culture of the people. It is also important that he/she pointed out that it is not religion, per se, that drives Man to commit atrocity. It is the fallibility of Man itself that is to blame.
While RedBird brings up some very good points, his assertion that any good done by the church could have been done by secular entities only deflects from the fact the church DID create those positive effects, not government or other non-religious entities.
Good debate with some Hitchen’s style arguments.
Neither side proposed overall introduction criteria for what is positive nor negative, resulting in comparison of arguments for the most part.
A number of arguments go unanswered, not directly addressed, or only partially addressed on both sides including that Rome fell due to not following Christian notions, the slavery/genocide point, the position that most wars are not religious, the eternal punishment argument, points regarding the reform ... etc
The debate is therefore judged on a comparison of argument and evidence quality, coupled with the quality of unanswered arguments.
The pro position managed to sneak in a key undisputed point that the Church has no responsibility to promote science which went unanswered by the con.
Whilst the con position answered a point that religion does not cause wars, it responded to the wording of the argument rather than the statistical conclusion. Essentially part of the argument remained in play (regardless of my own thoughts on this argument’s merits) and the ‘people do good’ as well point was not necessarily followed through.
The genocide argument is left largely unaddressed as is the after life argument. The points regarding Aquinas and the reform are potentially strong to those who understand them, and again left mostly unhandled.
The opponents clash on charity with valid arguments both side. The pro position provides evidence regarding faith based charity, and the con doesn’t follow through an argument stating that secular charities are doing more for the poor but does bring up some valid points.
The con position seems to concede points unnecessarily in some areas, removing weight from otherwise strong arguments. Sometimes valid points such as secular charity and the forceful imposition of the Church are left without evidence or in favour of promoting the benefits of secularism. These points let down otherwise strong analysis. (Philosophers argument was especially strong.)
The pro position leaves some elephants in the room (genocide/after life) but keeps up with consistent evidence and proofs to back up fair arguments, and continued rebuttals such as the Roman debate which the con position let go.
This has been difficult to judge with a number of dropped arguments scoring frequently, but goes to the pro position for consistency, direction, and evidence. Would have really loved to see how a few Socratic queries might have redirected the debate.
Congrats to both!