The Catholic Church is and has been a force for good in the world

""" """ Pull Down to Refresh Drafts Re: force 3 Shannon Glasford to you 6:28PMShow Details Sent from AOL Mobile Mail * My opponent's comments will be in quotes, while my comments will be preceded by the # sign My opponent said "To begin with, I made some sloppy and inadvertent mistakes concerning my source list that I apologize for. Here are the references concerning the inquisition and about he fact that the Catholic Church made a concerted effort to prevent its followers from reading the Bible thoroughly enough and the fact that sermons in the church were held Latin, which the common man of the day couldn't understand. http://reformationhistory.org...... , http://en.wikipedia.org...; # It is ridiculous to claim the Church forbade anyone from reading the Bible. There were certain poor translations of the Bible that were banned, but that was done in order that believers wouldn't receive unbiblical teachings [19]. It is also unfair to say that the common man couldn't understand Latin. This is because, during the Middle Ages, most "common" men were illiterate. They couldn't read or right ANY language [20]. Latin was the one language that educated, literate people could read. It was the language of universities, science, and law.[21] #But, while we're on the subject of dropped points, here are some other arguments of mine that my opponent never responded to. Standard debate rules require them to be presumed true for the remainder of the debate: 1. The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and medical services in the world. 2. The Catholic Church gave the world the university system. 3. The Catholic Church was a major force for the outlawing of slavery. 4. The Catholic Church with leadership of Pope John Paul II helped end totalitarian communism. # These claims were never challenged by my opponent. With this in mind, they have been "dropped" and presumed to be true for the remainder of the debate. [ 16] # In round one, I said: " Originally in round one, my opponent defined "good" as "good" (look for yourself). # My opponent said: "Obviously, that statement is wrong if you actually look at what I wrote: " I would define the word "good" as something done by a person or entity that promotes the advancement of the well-being of the people living in the society in terms of the peoples' overall health, happiness, and educational attainment." # Let me quote my opponent from round one, ", I will define try to define the term "good" done by a person or an entity as, on balance, someone who contributes with more good than harm to the society at large." As I said, My opponent defined good as "good". Now we can put this issue to bed once and for all. # My opponent went on to say: "In regards to the issue of homosexuality, we know by now that it is not only a choice - multiple evidence now confirms the existence of a certain genome sequence that leads to homosexuality " # Whether or not same sex attraction is a choice is not a matter of settled science. Some studies say yes, and some say no. But even if it is not a choice, that is irrelevant to whether or not practicing homosexual behavior is moral or not. Some people are born with an inclination to become alcoholics, but that doesn't mean that one should practice such behavior. -" but is pervasive throughout the animal kingdom, including our own. " # The fact that it exists in the animal kingdom is also irrelevant. Female black widow spiders eat their mates, but no one would say this fact makes it ok for humans to do the same. " The Catholic Church condemns homosexuality as gravely immoral, that it is a mortal sin and that it is against the human nature based on the teachings of the Bible. Even though they are to be respected, the church holds that all sexual acts between persons of the same gender are intrinsically evil and always objective mortal sins, they teach that perfectly decent homosexuals who love each other are condemned to hell for eternity. But as I have demonstrated, the Catholic Church doesn't have any justifications to be opposed to homosexuality save for the Bible since it is absolutely normal in nature." # I would say two things regarding this comment. First, as I have illustrated, just because something takes place in the animal kingdom doesn't mean that it's something humans should engage in. For example, adult lions have been known to kill baby lions. Would my opponent claim that it's ok for adult humans to kill infant humans? [[ 17] Second, Catholics have more than the Bible to support their beliefs on this subject. They also have the natural law. [18 ] "We know that those who defend The Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, do so overwhelmingly because of religious reasons # My opponent offers no evidence of this. It should be rejected as warrantless. [26] "so we know there are many Catholics among them, especially because of the church's adamant position on gay marriage. DOMA section 8 had barred the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus excluding gay couples from receiving welfare benefits and tax reliefs on a state level. Same sex couples are, for instance, heavily restricted when it comes to transferring assets between each other tax-free as can married couples who can use a marital deduction from federal estate and gift tax. As such, If a spouse in a same-sex couple dies, the surviving spouse has to pay an estate tax that heterosexually married couples are exempted from and that is what happened in the famous Windsor case who was forced to pay $363,053 in federal taxes because she was in a same-sex marriage. In total, there have been up to 1,138 state benefits and rights that same-sex couples have not been eligible for (4). Although a few changes has been made recently there still exists a huge discrepancy between the rights of same-sex and heterosexual couples. These teachings are nothing but immoral and downright evil and unjustifiable." #Since my opponent gives no reasons why this is evil, his claims should be rejected as warrantless. [26] In reality, there are plenty of secular reasons why the state should only recognize marriage as between one man and one woman. [22] "Concerning the condom issue, it is true that condoms doesn't render a 100% protection against STDs and AIDS, and especially when used improperly. When used properly and consistently condoms offer up to 98-99% protection against HIV transmission. One study showed that out of the 123 different couples who used condoms consistently during sex, none was infected with HIV. However, among the 122 who used condoms inconsistently, 12 of them got infected. (5) So we know that when used consistently and properly condoms do render an almost complete protection against AIDS and HIV. So condoms is by no means the only tool to solve the AIDS-epidemic." # My opponent has just conceded that the Pope was right to say that condoms themselves won't solve the AIDS crisis. "Sex education programs are by far more important than the issuing of condoms itself. Abstinence is more effective than condoms without the right knowledge how to effectively use them. In fact, research demonstrably shows that comprehensive sex education is more effective than abstinence programs (6). It also shows that abstinence ails to decrease the risk of transmission of HIV in the developed world when compared to comprehensive sex education efforts (7). " # Again, the Pope was right. "By telling people - as the Catholic Church has done - that condoms do not protect against AIDS because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass, which of course is patently false since the scientific community agrees that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus (8)." "Even though the church's medical institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa emphasizes fidelity, the work in trying to promote sex awareness is ultimately thwarted by Church officials statements that condoms are sinful and high-appointed Catholic officials unscientific announcements that incites distrust against condoms by citing misleading studies to communities that . In 1990, Pope John Paul II toured the Africa, and in his addresses to communities that condoms were sinful in all situations (9). So far we know that comprehensive sex education combined with condoms work since the science proves this. However, without the church's concerted effort to promote correct knowledge about the disease and how to curtail it, we wont be able to solve the crisis. The Catholic Church's anti-condom policy is so far responsible for approximately 30 million deaths. (10)" # First, blaming the Catholic Church for 30 million AIDS deaths is nonsense. According to the World Health Organization, only 36 million victims have died from the AIDS virus since it's introduction. Certainly my opponent is not claiming that 85% of all AIDS victims were Catholic. [24] Second, emerging science illustrates the Church is correct to say that the AIDS virus can find its way through the holes in condoms. [ 23]. Thirdly, Pope Benedict said in that using a condom to prevent the spread of AIDS is less immoral than intentionally exposing a partner to AIDS by not using a condom.[ 25] "Again, you have not demonstrated which church teachings that these acts violated. Scripture, of course, can inspire in different ways. In fact, it was Pope Gregory IX that instituted the inquisition, so it was not accidentally related to the church (11). As I have shown in my sources, the crusades were holy wars so they were called on by different popes at the time - all religiously inspired called upon by the Vatican." # And I have shown in my rebuttals how the intention of the.inquisition was ethical, and how the Crusades were initially an attempt to reclaim stolen land, and therefore justified. "Since antisemitism can be found in the Bible" # My opponent offers no evidence to support his claim, and therefore should be disregarded as warrantless. [ 26] " and has been used in history to persecute Jews - The very doctrine itself was the absence of any teaching that admonished antisemitism, it was and had been an official doctrine." # My opponent makes the ridiculous claim that a doctrine is the ABSENCE of a teaching! "That is why Pope Pius XII hid "The Lost Encyclical". You didn't refute the fact I demonstrated, that the church had CONDEMNED antisemitism in 1964 and the teachings in scripture that incited antisemitism, so I guess that since you did not try to refute that point, that point has now been "dropped"." # I don't deny that Pope Pius XII taught that antisemitism was wrong, but that fact supports MY claims concerning the Catholic Church, not my opponent's. I'd like to thank my opponent for making my case for me. But having said that, shouldn't my opponent's comments be considered a CONCESSION on his part? Hasn't he just admitted that the Catholic Church is a force for good?! Sources: 17.http://m.youtube.com... 18.http://plato.stanford.edu... 19.http://christianity.stackexchange.com... dence-for-the-claim-that-the-catholic-church-suppressed-translat 20.http://www.quora.com... s-in-medieval-Europe 21.http://www.dmlbs.ox.ac.uk... -middle-ages 22.http://tech.mit.edu... 23.http://www.dianedew.com... 24.http://www.who.int... 25.http://content.time.com... 26.http://debate-central.ncpa.org... te/