official catholic church teaching is that noncatholics and unbaptized infants go to hell

If making a political statement given the times is a disqualifying factor for evidence, then my opponent is out of luck. The only reason the Catholic Church made such exclusive political statements regarding other denominations was the fracturing during the Reformation. For example, many of the strict requirement for Baptism statements were to challenge reformers like John Wycliffe who were denying the necessity of Baptism. Con has undeniably failed to disprove any of my evidence from Vatican II. Con states that Vatican II is a political statement, but provides no evidence. Additionally, Con doesn't dispute that Vatican II was authoritative church teaching. Even if it was a political statement (and it wasn't) that would not prove it is not authoritative. My opponent does not effectively dispute this evidence, and I will reiterate what my evidence says"The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also..."That is the debate in that line right there. My opponent says the Church teaches non-Catholics go to Hell. Vatican II says they can go to heaven. According to Vatican II, if a non-Catholic or non-Christian acts as God wills they will go to heaven. If my opponent was correct, Vatican II wouldn't say non-Catholics could be saved, it would say they were damned to Hell.What does my opponent say on my evidence?"even a rigorist wouldn't necessarily deny this at this level of abstraction. again bottom line is you have to read it in a political vein, and then consider the weight of everything said about the matter."I will focus on 2 things he says here, and I believe he has basically conceded the debate right here. If a rigorist Catholic would concede that non-Christians may be saved, what are we even talking about? You are taking a rigorist perspective, perhaps the most rigorist perspective possible, and you agree that a rigorist would say that non-Christians have the possibility of salvation? As for the weight of everything said about the matter, this is exactly my case. The Church said in 1441 that salvation is not possible outside of itself, but at Vatican II the Church changed that position. The weight of the statements at Vatican II are of the highest authority. As I pointed out in my explanation of magestirium, a statement made by the Pope speaking ex cathedra carries the same weight as statements made by a council convened by the Pope. The most recent Church teaching on who gets into heaven is that non-Catholics and non-Christians can get in. My opponent dismisses this as a political statement. Would the Catholic Church issue a findings of the highest magestirium, from a council that speaks infallibly on faith and morals as a mere political statement? No! And to say so with 0 evidence provided to back up that claim is frankly ridiculous. Unless my opponent can, somehow, prove that Vatican II was not authoritative, than he will have failed to fulfill his burden of proof and he should lose the debate. As of now, I would say that he has failed to do so. The other thing my opponent said was--"most of your quotes just says other Christians have got some good points to them, it doesn't say anything definitive."If the quote in large, bold font was not clear enough, I will provide a couple more that show that, as stated at Vatican II, non-Christians can attain salvation."The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation."Their actions are "capable of giving them access to the community of salvation". Non-Catholics can access the community of salvation through their actions even though they are not Catholics. If they can access the community of salvation (the Church), they can access the salvation. My point at this point should be pretty clear. The Church says, definitively, that non-Catholics can attain salvation. It is possible. The Church may say that non-Catholics and non-Christians achieve a Catholic salvation through the Catholic church, but they can receive salvation nonetheless. On infants and aborted babies going to hell-- the Church does not have an official position. I will concede that it can be inferred that, since they are unbaptized, they would be damned. However, as I have previously presented, the Vatican has no official position of damnation. The Church believe that the mercy of God would allow these infants to go to heaven. Additionally they may be viewed as martyrs, since their deaths are the result of rejection of Catholic faith. Either way, the lack of an official position is clear, and the fact that they aren't damned is clear in this newly discovered (really took some digging) official position, approved by John Paul II in 1992 and written by a council which he convened in 1985. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains the most recent, official and, most importantly, authoritative, position on the issue of pre-baptism infant death."As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."The Church does not take the position that unbaptized infants are saved, but it does not take the position that they are damned. Any concrete answer to this question is pure speculation, because the Church officially does not have a concrete answer. My opponent may speculate that, since they are not baptised, they will be damned. I may speculate, as the Church does, that since they are innocent and since God does not have to abide by the sacraments, they may be saved. Either way, the most important thing to take away from this passage is that officially they are not damned, so my opponent is wrong. http://catholiceducation.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... This ended up being far longer than I intended, but I never intended to find the CCC thing so I guess it all works out in the end. Conclusion for round 2: my opponent has failed to prove that Vatican II was not authoritative, therefore he has failed to prove that official Church teaching damns all non-Catholics. My opponent has not yet had the chance to respond to my latest finding on the official position on infant death, but the official position is that they are not damned, so we shall see. In any case, as my opponent has the BOP to show that both (infants and non-Catholics) are damned, I would say that, as of now, he has not fulfilled his burden.