Gingrich on ABC: 'GET OVER IT' Mourdock’s Rape Comments Are What ‘Virtually Every Catholic’ Believes

[trailmonkee]

STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, you heard Stephanie Cutter bring up the issue of Richard Mourdock, the Republican Senate candidate in indiana, saying that it’s wrong for romney to stand up for him. and say that his comments were wrong. your response?

GINGRICH: My response is, if you listen to what Mourdock actually said, he said what virtually every catholic and every fundamentalist in the country believes, life begins at conception.…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Mourdock said exactly was that this life after rape, as horrible as it may be, is something that god intended to happen. Do you agree with that?

GINGRICH: And he also immediately issued a clarification saying that he was referring to the act of conception and he condemned rape. Romney has condemned rape. One part of this is nonsense. Every candidate I know, every decent american i know condemns rape. Okay so, why can’t people like Stephanie Cutter get over it? We all condemn rape…

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/28/1101761/gingrich-mourdocks-comments-every-catholic-believes/

[treestar]

1. He is horrible

Typical. No the issue is not the rape, but the fetus and carrying it to term as a gift from God. How can they then condemn the rape, even? They don't.

[pnwmom]

2. Predestination is not a Catholic belief. Free will is.

Gingrich apparently brought some of his old fundamentalist beliefs with him to his new religion.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Calvinist, I believe....? nt

[pnwmom]

8. Yes! nt

[coalition_unwilling]

23. Scratch the surface of Martin Luther's theology and you'll also find a strong

current of predestination as well. (Man is saved by grace, not by works, and it is already pre-determined whom God has graced.)

Don't have specific citations for Luther ready at hand, but can find them if it is deemed worthwhile.

[msanthrope]

13. It is a Catholic belief. You believe everyone is born with Original Sin, right?

And those who die with it on their souls go to Hell.

Every single human born on this planet is born with a predetermined spiritual state, according to your religion.

[obamanut2012]

20. Catholics don't believe in Predestination

And, the whole concept of Original Sin and Hell and Purgatory within Catholicism is complicated, as Catholics do not get "born again." It is very different from Protestant belief in Orinall Sin, especially Calvinists.

The Catholic Church teaches that every human person born on this earth is made in the image of God.[48][49] Within man "is both the powerful surge toward the good because we are made in the image of God, and the darker impulses toward evil because of the effects of Original Sin."[50] Furthermore, it explicitly denies that we inherit guilt from anyone, maintaining that instead we inherit our fallen nature. In this it differs from the Calvinism/Protestant position that each person actually inherits Adam's guilt, and teaches instead that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants ... but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man".[51] "In other words, human beings do not bear any 'original guilt' from Adam and Eve's particular sin."[52]

Also:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all humans. Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin". As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence&quot .[47]

I am no longer a believer, but Catholics do NOT believe someone is born with a predetermined spiritual state or path, just that humans have a weakness, a darkness, in our nature that wants us to take the "easy way" out and sin, instead of living a moral and ethical life.


Predestination is, basically:

Predestination, in theology, is the doctrine that all events have been willed by God. John Calvin interpreted biblical predestination to mean that God willed eternal damnation for some people and salvation for others.[1] Explanations of predestination often seek to address the so-called "paradox of free will," whereby God's omniscience seems incompatible with human free will.

[msanthrope]

26. Is Original Sin predestined on everyone? Then guess what? Predestination is a tenet of Roman

Catholicism!!! When you die with Original Sin on your soul, what happens? Hell.


I don't really care what complicated explanation the CC has made up to justify their beliefs.

[pnwmom]

32. Wrong. Not since the death of Christ. According to Catholic belief,

Christ atoned for Original Sin. No one goes to hell as a result of Original Sin or predestination. That's a belief of some Christians, but not of Catholics.

[msanthrope]

35. "Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin." Your church doesn't agree with you.

For all of Benedict's current futzing on Limbo, the catechism of the Catholic Church remains:

The Baptism of infants

1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

Does your religion require the sacrament of Baptism to remove the "taint" of original sin? Yes--it does, the myth of Christ and his death aside.

Does your religion believe that all children are predestined to be born with a fallen human nature???? Right there, in your catechism.

Does your religion believe that all children are born, predestined, tainted? YES.

Do children who die without baptism go to "Hell?" YES. Although Benedict now theorizes that there is "hope" for salvation, he hasn't bothered make it an infallible proposition.

[pnwmom]

36. The Church does not teach that children born without Baptism go to hell. That is absolutely wrong.

Back in the days of the Baltimore catechism, there was a concept of Limbo for unbaptised children -- a place of infinite happiness that wasn't heaven -- but not since Vatican 2.

And the Catholic Church, unlike the Calvinists, has always taught the concept of free will -- that people are capable of doing evil, but God never wills it.

The concept of Original Sin is really a way of stating the obvious. All human beings are flawed -- physically, mentally, none of us are perfect. And we will all die. In other words, human beings aren't Gods.

[msanthrope]

37. Yes, it does. Since the Council of Carthage XVI in 418. St. Augustine wrote the Canon.

Augustine rejected the Pelagian heresy of Limbo, and wrote specifically on this---I have found an English translation/synopsis of the Council of Carthage, since I am assuming you do not read Latin or Greek.

3a. It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions” [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].

http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/augustine-approvals.htm

This was adopted by Zosimus as a rule of faith---and Innocent did before him. That means it is Catholic dogma. It is infallible, according to the rules of your church, and was reiterated at Lyon, Florence, and Trent. Vatican I and II didn't touch it. THAT is why baptism is still de fide. Limbo was always considered a heresy, (no ullus alicubi locus) from the time of Pelagius.

Now, I get that Ratzinger has tried to fuddle with this--since it's pretty horrific. But he's going to have to do more than issue a letter saying there's always "hope." In order to change the rule of your faith, he's going to have to admit that one of the fathers of your church--the single greatest theologian your church ever produced--was wrong.

On edit--please note that I've cited actual sources. I would expect that further debate from you would include reference to those sources.

[pnwmom]

38. St. Augustine didn't speak for the whole Church. He was one priest.

His declarations are not infallible, and neither are those of any Pope -- unless the Pope is speaking "exCathedra" which has happened only two or three times in all of Church history. (For example, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception -- which teaches that Mary was born without Original Sin -- was taught ex-Cathedra.)

I repeat: there is very little in Catholic dogma that is taught infallibly -- a common misconception among outsiders like you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

According to the teaching of the First Vatican Council and Catholic tradition, the conditions required for ex cathedra papal teaching are as follows:
"the Roman Pontiff"
"speaks ex cathedra" ("that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority"....)
"he defines"
"that a doctrine concerning faith or morals"
"must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)[16]
For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must be a decision of the supreme teaching authority of the Church (pope or College of Bishops); it must concern a doctrine of faith or morals; it must bind the universal Church; and it must be proposed as something to be held firmly and immutably. The terminology of a definitive decree will usually make clear that this last condition is fulfilled, as through a formula such as "By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful", or through an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church.[17]
For example, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.
In July 2005 Pope Benedict XVI stated during an impromptu address to priests in Aosta that: "The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know".[18] His predecessor Pope John XXIII once remarked: "I am only infallible if I speak infallibly but I shall never do that, so I am not infallible".[19] A doctrine proposed by a pope as his own opinion, not solemnly proclaimed as a doctrine of the Church, may be rejected as false, even if it is on a matter of faith and morals, and even more any view he expresses on other matters. A well-known example of a personal opinion on a matter of faith and morals that was taught by a pope but rejected by the Church is the view that Pope John XXII expressed on when the dead can reach the beatific vision.[20] The limitation on the pope's infallibility "on other matters" is frequently illustrated by Cardinal James Gibbons's recounting how the pope mistakenly called him Jibbons.

[JH19059]

39. Agreed..

Last edited Sun Oct 28, 2012, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

I was raised Catholic ( haven't practiced due to my changing beliefs concerning religion in general) and predestination is NOT taught but free will is. 'Original Sin" was lifted through the sacrifice and death of Jesus. Catholics for the most part do not believe that pregnancy/conception is an act of God but rather an act free will. The church teaches God only gives us the "gift"or means to produce life. Inherently it is our decision to make life not Gods. Now there may be some parishes/schools that teach complete opposite doctrines in regards to pregnancy/conception but all of the schools/parishes/churches I've attended throughout my lifetime have taught the above doctrine. As far as babies, "limbo", and baptism the church actually never taught this, the church convened on this in 2005 and in 2007 they ruled it was basically wrong teaching. Most of the priest/nuns and theologians who taught me always stated that even those unbaptized go to heaven and that baptism is only a means of indoctrination or initiation into the church. I was forced fed this stuff for 18 years of my life lol.

[pnwmom]

42. Thanks -- yes, you and I learned the same things

in the years of our Catholic educations.

It's always funny to be lectured by non-Catholics and anti-Catholics on this subject.

Welcome to DU!

[msanthrope]

45. If you learned these things, then why don't you cite them?

I mean, if you are claiming what you say is actual Catholic dogma, then how come you haven't been able to cite any primary sources that refute mine?

Anecdote is neither fact, nor data.

[msanthrope]

49. Anecdote aside, could you point to the church document that backs up your

claim that the Catholic church now believes that "original sin" was lifted, and baptism isn't necessary anymore?

I mean, I think your catechism is pretty clear, so I quoted that above.

[pnwmom]

53. I never said that baptism isn't important for Christians. But that isn't because babies

or people of other religions) will go to hell. It's because the Sacraments are all a way of receiving God's grace in our lives. But there are also other ways.

From the Jesuit magazine, AmericanCatholic:

http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/sep2007/Wiseman.asp

In section four of the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, the bishops at Vatican II taught, “Together with the prophets and that same apostle [Paul], the Church awaits the day, known to God alone, when all peoples will call on God with one voice and ‘serve him shoulder to shoulder’ (Zephaniah 3-9; see also Isaiah 66:23; Psalms 65:4 and Romans 11:11-32).”

The sacrament of Baptism remains very important, but having received it does not guarantee that someone will necessarily be saved. Likewise, not having received it does not mean that a person cannot be saved. That is up to God alone.

[msanthrope]

55. Baptism remains de fide to Catholics. And an magazine article doesn't override

Catholic canons--in fact, you've shown no primary source that indicates the Canon of St. Augustine still isn't accepted.

Heck--Ratzinger couldn't override it in 2007. His letter then was, in my opinion, a sell-out, as opposed to real reform.

[pnwmom]

57. The Jesuit magazine article was written clearly and simply enough

that I hoped even you could understand it.

Oh well.

I know that's the strategy of the fundie atheists: take the side of the fundie Catholics and claim that they represent the true Church. Sorry, but the majority of actual Catholics in the pews disagree.

[msanthrope]

58. A magazine article doesn't override revolting infallible dogma on Baptism. Maybe Benedict will

have the courage to call Vatican III, but I doubt it. Too many skeletons rattling about in the closet.

As for the true church, it will always be the Magisterium, not the laity.

[pnwmom]

61. YOU don't define the "true church" -- the members of the Church do.

And that includes the laity, acting in accord with their individual consciences.

[msanthrope]

62. Let me ask you something about the 'true church.'

Who pays settlements in the 'true church?' The laity?

Who owns the buildings? The laity?

Who makes the rules? The laity?

Who tries to influence the outcome of this election? The laity?

Who transubstantiates? The laity?

The fact is--the laity can do none of the core functions of the church, nor the most sacred rites.

The Magisterium is the true church, and always has been, from the moment Simeon was told that he was chosen Peter. (Matt. 16:18)

Now, in 1517 a man thought as you do. I'd find a hammer and nails.

[pnwmom]

70. This is where you go wrong.

The true Church isn't about buildings, bank accounts, or rules. It's about a community of people, bound together by a common belief in God's love.

Instead of reading all those rule-books you've been citing, why don't you try reading the words of Jesus in the Bible?

[msanthrope]

71. Words of Jesus? Like the part where he founded his church on a pope?

Not the laity, but instead a pope?

Matthaeus 16:18, right?

Try this---Marcus 11 11:23
et introivit Hierosolyma in templum et circumspectis omnibus cum iam vespera esset hora exivit in Bethania cum duodecim
et alia die cum exirent a Bethania esuriit
cumque vidisset a longe ficum habentem folia venit si quid forte inveniret in ea et cum venisset ad eam nihil invenit praeter folia non enim erat tempus ficorum
et respondens dixit ei iam non amplius in aeternum quisquam fructum ex te manducet et audiebant discipuli eius
et veniunt Hierosolymam et cum introisset templum coepit eicere vendentes et ementes in templo et mensas nummulariorum et cathedras vendentium columbas evertit
et non sinebat ut quisquam vas transferret per templum
et docebat dicens eis non scriptum est quia domus mea domus orationis vocabitur omnibus gentibus vos autem fecistis eam speluncam latronum
quo audito principes sacerdotum et scribae quaerebant quomodo eum perderent timebant enim eum quoniam universa turba admirabatur super doctrina eius
et cum vespera facta esset egrediebatur de civitate
et cum mane transirent viderunt ficum aridam factam a radicibus
et recordatus Petrus dicit ei rabbi ecce ficus cui maledixisti aruit
et respondens Iesus ait illis habete fidem Dei
amen dico vobis quicumque dixerit huic monti tollere et mittere in mare et non haesitaverit in corde suo sed crediderit quia quodcumque dixerit fiat fiet ei


Not really sure what sin the fig tree committed that your god decided he needed to blast it, but I like reading sci-fi.

[pnwmom]

72. Jesus never used the word "Pope" in any language. And designating Peter as the "rock" of his Church

didn't mean what you and other fundies think it meant.

[msanthrope]

73. Dude--you are the one who brought up papal primacy.

Are you now denying papal primacy after pushing it so vigorously previously? Pastor aeternus, which you attempted to rely on in your other posts, asserts papal primacy. So which is it?

You can call me a 'fundy,' but it seems that the good Jesuits taught me something valuable---don't believe the salesman, always read the fine print.

You still haven't told me what the fig tree did that merited destruction.

[pnwmom]

74. Where did I do that? You did, in post #71. n/t

[msanthrope]

76. You are the one who cited Pastor Aeternus.

You know, the document that reaffiirms papal primacy since Peter.


Perhaps you should have read what you were citing???

[pnwmom]

77. I'm guessing that was one of a bunch of citations on a Wikipedia article.

Because I never cited that document. It's irrelevant to anything I've been saying.

[msanthrope]

78. Post 38--you quote "Pastor Aeternus" extensively. It even says "Pastor Aeternus."

This conversation reminds me of ones I've had with anti-vaxxers. They cite crap from google extensively, but when presented with actual fact, they disavow their sources and start over.

But I get it--refusing to acknowledge scientific fact keeps some anti-vaxxers from feeling that they have done wrong by their children and have been taken advantage of.

[pnwmom]

80. That post was about how LIMITED the Pope's power is -- which is the opposite of

what you've been saying.

It was about how the Church has agreed that a Pope's pronouncements are NOT infallible except under very rare, exceptional circumstances.

That is not in conflict with my point that Jesus's teachings are the essence of the faith -- not buildings, not rules and regulations set down by flawed human beings.

[msanthrope]

81. Um no---Pastor Aeternus grants the pope the same power as the councils, expanding the Magisterium.

You might try reading the document you cited--as it's a pretty good road map of the infallible dogma of the church, as created through 20-odd councils. It also details how the pope should be able to declare what the councils can--infallible dogma.

For example, the Marian dogma is infallible. The dogma of the sacraments is infallible. The dogma of the resurrection--infallible. But not declared so by a pope--declared through the Magisterium of the bishops.

You aren't claiming that the only infallible dogma in the church are the ex-cathedra pronouncements of the assumption and the immaculate conception, are you? Because if you are, you are in error.

I've raised this before, and you just don't seem to be getting it: THE POPE IS NOT THE ONLY SOURCE OF INFALLIBILITY IN YOUR CHURCH. Really.

[msanthrope]

43. Using the 'no true Scotsman' on Augustine? The guy who defined "Original Sin" for Christianity?

Last edited Sun Oct 28, 2012, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)

The concept of Original Sin as defined by Augustine, which includes Canon 3a, cited above, is considered infallible. The infallibility of that canon (XVI Council of Carthage in 418,) was reaffirmed at the Council of Lyons II in 1274, the Council of Florence in 1438-1445 and at the Council of Trent in 1545-1555. You are required to accept the teachings on Original Sin obsequium religiosum.


You have conflated 'infallibility' with 'ex cathedra.' They are NOT the same thing. Infallible dogma can come from the pope "ex cathedra," but that is NOT the only source. There are 21 ecumenical councils you seem to want to forget.

Who can issue infallible dogma and what is infallible dogma is clarified for you in JPII's Ad tuendam fidem (and Lumen Gentium 25). You have THREE sources of infallibility within the Magisterium:

The Extrodinary Papal Magisterium (this would be 'ex cathedra' example)
The Extrodinary Episcopal Magisterium. (Councils and the like.)
The Ordinary Episcopal Magisterium speaking universally.


What is infallible dogma is a very long list, per Ratzinger*** himself:

To the truths of the first paragraph belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas21 and Marian dogmas;22 the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace;23 the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist24 and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration;25 the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ;26 the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff;27 the doctrine on the existence of original sin;28 the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death;29 the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts;30 the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.31
http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm

The term "ex cathedra" refers to The Magisterium when the pope is acting alone. That's only happened two times--1854 (Immaculate Conception), and 1950(Assumption). MOST articles of infallible dogma, such as those listed above, come from The Magisterium through the form of Bishop's Councils. There's been 21 of 'em--that's where you get most of your dogma, and that dogma is INFALLIBLE.


Now, pnwmom, calling me an "outsider" is true---I am an atheist. But Jesuit-taught theology and Latin don't leave you. So anytime you want to play apologetics with me, I'll be happy to quote you chapter and verse of your own church's dogma to you.


***Note that Ratzinger was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, and published commentary included in the JPII letter. I really think all Catholics would do well to read papal letters. It might surprise them.


On edit--are you really using Wikipedia to talk about Catholic dogma??? Pastor Aeternus doesn't dispute the infallibility of doctrine coming from ecumenical councils, so I'm not even sure why you are mentioning it. Why are you mentioning it????

On edit again---I just realized something from your posts. Did you know that your pope isn't the only source of infallible dogma???? I think you are conflating your pope and the Magisterium. They are not the same thing. I also think you were not taught that your Ecumenical councils are the main source of your infallible dogma.

[pnwmom]

48. To be an infallible doctrine,

the doctrine as stated "must be held by the whole Church" (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)."

That is why a doctrine such as Humanae Vitae has never been an infallible doctrine -- it has never been accepted by the whole Church.

You clearly take the side of the fundie Catholics, as many fundie atheists do; but the vast majority of the world's Catholics don't. And the bottom line, in terms of the Church's teaching, is the supremacy of the individual conscience.

[msanthrope]

50. What? You read the action of that verb incorrectly, m'dear. You might wanna read the whole

paragraph, and see what's wrong with your reading comprehension:

. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/v1.htm

In other words, it isn't consent of the whole Church that makes something infallible. It's the say-so of the pope, and the whole Church has to accept it.

But that misses the point--- we aren't arguing papal primacy.

Are you aware of the fact that the dogma of the 21 Ecumenical Councils is infallible? The Canon of Augustine concerning Original Sin is infallible---and you might wanna read the document you cite more carefully, because here's your pope reaffirming it:

I embrace and accept the whole and every part of what was defined and declared by the holy Council of Trent concerning original sin and justification.

[pnwmom]

52. You're the one misinterpreting that sentence.

But that's no surprise.

If you want to get back to the original discussion, that is whether God ever wills that humans do evil. For example, whether it would ever be God's will that a rape occurred, as Murdoch implied. And there is no question, in Catholic theology -- that He does not. Because human beings have free will, they are capable of acting against God's will; and specific acts of evil are not pre-ordained.

Since you mentioned your supposed Jesuit education, here is a link to an article in AmericanCatholic, the Jesuit magazine, which should be able to clear up your misunderstandings about the rarity of infallible teachings in Catholic dogma.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0388.asp

Infallibility guarantees the truth of the meaning of a statement, not the particular formulation of the meaning. Every formulation is limited to particular words, concepts, theological viewpoints. As times and cultures change, these particulars may need different formulations to express the central meaning. Given these severely limiting conditions for an infallible pronouncement, such pronouncements are very rare. Indeed, since Vatican I, there has been only one: the definition of Mary's Assumption (1950).

What, then, is to be said about other official statements, such as the documents of Vatican II and the papal encyclicals? Not too creatively, these documents are called noninfallible but authoritative teachings. They are not infallible declarations, yet they carry the weight of the magisterium. A proper understanding of noninfallible, authoritative teachings is absolutely essential for clarifying the confusion surrounding infallibility.

Noninfallible teachings

Noninfallible, authoritative teachings of the Church are presumed to be true. This presumption is based on the faith conviction that the Spirit is present in the magisterium, guiding it so that its teaching will be accurate. When an official teaching is given, the theoretically expected response of the Roman Catholic is: This is a true teaching.

Still, noninfallible teachings do not require blind acceptance. For you or me to respond properly to such a teaching with religious submission of will and of mind, certainly study, discussion, reflection and prayer are presupposed on our part. Such a response takes seriously the distinction between infallible and noninfallible teachings. Such a response also steers between two extremes: 1) an absolute, blind submission to authority (this approach seems to say that the reasons for the teaching really do not matter), or 2) the rejection of any unique teaching prerogative on the part of the magisterium (this approach judges the argument to be only as good as the reasons given). The proper response, then, finds the delicate blend both of individual reflection and of acceptance of the authoritative role of the magisterium.

SNIP

[msanthrope]

54. A magazine article does not override Canon Law. SHow us where the canon

of St. Augustine--an infallible dogma--was even discussed in your article? And yes--I did read the verb correctly. When the pope says something is infallible, that's it. Anything else is heresy. But the pope is not the only source of infallibility in your church, and that is what you seem to be stuck on.

Where are your primary sources???? There's plenty out there, but you use a magazine article?

Do you not get that PLENTY of stuff was declared infallible in the past 1500 years??? I gave you a pretty exhaustive list from your own pope---you do realize that the Marian pronouncements are NOT the only infallible doctrines of your church, right?

Your dogma regarding Sacraments is infallible. Your dogma regarding transubstantiation is infallible.....you do realize there was infallibility before 1870, right?

[ladjf]

3. Another monumental lie by Gingrich. nt

[gademocrat7]

4. How disgusting.

Newt crawl back under your rock.

[Brickbat]

5. Actually, depending on the survey, less than a quarter agree with the church's position and about

half believe it should be legal in most or all cases. I think this is U.S.-only.

Surveys that focus on practicing Catholics instead of self-identified Catholics find that more agree with the church's position. Numbers vary in other countries as well.

In any case, Gingrich can eat a bag of dicks.

[pnwmom]

9. And it is not even the hierarchy's position that God meant the pregnancy to happen

because the Church teaches the concept of free will, not predestination.

[obamanut2012]

21. Exactly

God doesn't cause war or rape or your child getting hit by a car. Free will does, or, in the cause of a hurricane or something, it is what it is: Nature.

[msanthrope]

47. Then your god is a bystander?

Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

Can you answer David Hume?

[SingleSeatBiggerMeat]

7. The Fat Gut From McLean....

has never been known to be either thoughtful or aware but, if he were either, he would know that a majority of Catholics are pro-choice and even more so if it were rape, incest, or life of the mother.

Such a complete asshole.

[rug]

10. He spent more time scouting out his next wife at RCIA class than paying attention.

[tblue]

11. Coming from a guy who treats his wives like used Kleenex

No surprise. Why does this evil creep get to speak at us on tv anyway? Who wants to hear what he has today? Seriously.

"Romney has condemned rape." Yaay! Give the man a star!

[John2]

12. Gingrich

I don't know why everyone can't see right through Newt Gingrich. He has a pretty good command of the English language which he uses cleverly to manipulate into an argument that hides his true views. His views is racist in my opinion. This is a guy that uses coded phrases such as the welfare queen and the apparent laziness of President Obama. He is also the same guy that went to Missouri to help out Todd Akins after what he said about rape. He essentially played that off as nothing also just to get Akins elected. He also cleverly takes credit for co-operating with Clinton when Gingrich was one if president Clinton's staunchest critics. Gingrich had no choice to oppose Clinton at the time because he had lost a lot of favor in his own Party at the time because he was exposed as a hypocrite in his own personal relationship with his marital affairs at the time. Now he has come back from the grave all of a sudden.

[Angry Dragon]

14. Classic republican reasoning ..... the end justifies the means

So if you have to rape and pillage to get what you want it is okay in gods' eyes

[DonRedwood]

15. why is anyone listening to him at this point!!?

[GoCubsGo]

16. Wow. He is so full of shit.

I find it absolutely hilarious that a guy who only became a Catholic a few years ago, in order to make his THIRD wife happy, has suddenly become an expert on Catholicism and what other Catholics believe. What an asshole. But, y'all knew that already.

[cthulu2016]

17. Oh, C'mon. Not almost every catholic, EVERY Christian of any stripe

And every Muslim and every Mormon and anyone anywhere in the world who believes in an omnipotent god.

There is no such thing as a Christian who believes God is not omnipotent. EVERYTHING is God's will.

Of course God could prevent any rape from ever resulting in conception and opts not to do so.

That's basic doctrine.

[WinkyDink]

19. You skipped the "Free Will" lesson.

[cthulu2016]

63. Actually, you skipped the free will lesson

The rapist's actions arise from his free will, thus he is morally culpable for them.

His actions are, however, God's will. God knows about them in advance and could prevent them. God knew before the man was born what direction his free will would take. God created the man already knowing that the man would rape you and that a pregnancy would result.

It is God's will. All day long.

Free will is free only from from the limited perspective of the actor. As you would know if you spent more time in church and less time practicing being snarky.

Also, it is quite difficult to divine what you could possibly be thinking about free will as it relates to conception. Are you suggesting that the rapist brings the conception about unilaterally? Conception does not always follow from intercourse, so to which which person's free will o you attribute that conception?

Of course the conception is God's will, even in the least sophisticated theology.

[obamanut2012]

22. Not true for anyone who believes in Free Will

Which the huge majority of Christians do.

[cthulu2016]

64. Sorry. Wrong.

No Christian believes that the conception arises from the free will of the rapist.

If you don't think it is God's will that a given rape results in conception then you are not a Christan, or even in the ballpark of being a Christian.

As an atheist, I don't much care what heresies anyone subscribes to. What you describe is no more or less valid than Christianity, but it is not Christianity.

[dawg]

69. Wish I could have a few drinks with you and talk religion.

It wasn't always like this. Something really terrible has happened to the churches over the last forty years or so. Guys like me were pretty much the mainstream back then. Even more than that, we were running the churches - serving as teachers and deacons and pastors.

There were only a few people who matched today's "conservative Christians", and they were typically considered to be troublemakers and were ignored. Somehow, years later, they ended up running almost all the churches. Perhaps they managed to accomplish this by being so abrasive that they gradually ran off everyone else. I've seen this happen more than once. It's hard to have fellowship with someone who gossips behind your back and tells people you aren't fit to serve because you listen to Led Zeppelin, or smoke, or have an occasional drink. Or whatever other shit they might pick up on. It's always something with them.

The mission of a Christian church is to reach out to people and tell them that God loves them and that we love them too. We should be all about making people feel welcomed and loved. We've really fucked that up, haven't we? I have no idea they think they are trying to accomplish now.

[dawg]

41. No, we don't all think that way.

He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.

[cthulu2016]

65. The existence of heresy does not define Christianity

I am sure one can find a church to say just about anything, but that doesn't make it Christianity.

You have the right to believe whatever you want. And you have the right to call yourself a Christian.

You do not, however, have the ability to define Christianity as something it is not. That would be like me having a personal definition of the United States that includes Ontario as a state. It's my right to think what I want, but that doesn't make Ontario a state.

[dawg]

67. Predestination isn't a key doctrine of Christianity.

Many, probably most, Christians believe that we have free will and that we and others bear the consequences of the choices we make. The universe runs according to natural laws that scientists can learn about and understand. God doesn't micro-manage the universe or personally control everything that happens to us.

Whether or not a person is a Christian is contingent upon his or her belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ and whether or not he died for our sins and was resurrected from the dead. Yes, for some that is a stretch to believe, but that is the measuring stick of who is a Christian. It doesn't matter what we believe about the age of the world, or where Cain got his wife, or how many velociraptors were on the Ark. None of that stuff matters all that much.

[dawg]

68. By the way, I think there were seven ...

velociraptors on the ark. They wouldn't be unclean beasts I don't think. They'd be more like poultry. Tasty, tasty poultry.

[Thinkingabout]

18. The great Newt, always honest except when he speaks, believe him, his first two wives would say no.

They get caught in their crazy beliefs and there is no GOP member who has the guts to stand up to the crazies and tell them they are wrong. They have bought the crazy CONSerative side in order to win elections and the citizens of the US are going to be the losers. Newt used to talk about sharia law and now sharia laws are being introduced in different states, where is Newt on telling those states we do not need sharia laws. By the way, this was Newt's thoughts when the "muslim" in the White House was going to put sharia law in place, guess what, it has been the GOP's.

[obamanut2012]

24. Catholics believe in Free Will

God doesn't cause bad things to happen.

[argiel1234]

46. So why does "god" get credit

when something good happens? Utter horse shit hypocrisy

[cthulu2016]

66. You have repeated that a bunch of times, and it isn't getting any truer

It is an insult to Catholics.

Please stop misstating Catholic doctrine as what you wish it was.

[imanamerican63]

25. I am Catholic and always have been!

I was raised Catholic, but someone who says rape is by God's intention makes me sick! I have to believe Gingrich is playing to the media when he says "get over it". Gingrich may say he Catholic, but he converted and if want to say what he has done in the past, does not follow the Catholic ways, but we don't judge him. And to finish, not all Catholic hold the beliefs of what Mourdock says or believes.

[timlot]

27. I get it. "God's intention only shows up after the man has ummm. Finishes."

This is how God works it their eyes.

Man decides to rape woman: No intervention from God

Man rapes woman: No intervention from God

Woman doesn't sucret Akin's pregnancy prevention fluid: No intervention from God

Man "Finishes" evil rape act: Now God finally show up to enact his intention.

[Rex]

28. Thank GOD for Newt!

Without his horrible lifeforce, the GOP might be in a better position to win imo.

So THANK YOU, Newt Shitstain...your horrible mouth and corroded brain help the Democratic Party out in ways no one else ever could!

KEEP TALKING ASSHOLE...IT WORKED SO WELL FOR RUSH!!

[spanone]

29. riddle me this...why the fuck is newt gingrich on tv talking about anything?

[TwilightGardener]

30. I'm Catholic, I don't believe rape is God's will, or "just another method

of conception" like Paul Ryan does.

[pnwmom]

33. That's because you are a Catholic and Gingrich only thinks he is.

His belief in predestination is a leftover from his Protestant upbringing.

[Initech]

31. Which is exactly why I want these "pro life" Neanderthals nowhere near our government.

[LadyHawkAZ]

34. Hey, Newt? What do most Catholics believe about marriage/divorce?

Hmmm?

[LiberalElite]

40. crickets

[Ikonoklast]

79. Pay enough money to the RCC, and all is forgiven.

They wanted $1000.00 to annul my marraige after my divorce so I could re-marry within the Church, I told them they should fuck off and took my money with me.


I am glad that I had a Jesuit education, they taught me how to spot a scam.

[liberalhistorian]

44. That very well may be so, it may be what Catholics believe or want to believe.

They have the right to their own beliefs. What they absolutely, positively, unequivocally. most certainly DO NOT HAVE is the right to encode that in secular law and force their beliefs on everyone else. Period, amen, the end. And I'm sick of them trying to do so. Don't they have a ton of child molestors to protect and shuffle around and records to destroy or something?

[hunter]

51. I hate this BULLSHIT. Rape has nothing to do with abortion.

Every sane person believes rape is bad.

Sane people can go either way on the abortion issue. Which way people go often depends upon their religious beliefs.

Since there is a wall between church and state written into our Constitution the state has no business interfering with the availability of safe abortions for any woman. The woman decides. It's her body. No further argument, done. Even if a woman believes in an anti-abortion deity then it's between her and her deity, not the state.

Most people in my religiously insane family are anti-abortion. But they are not the sort to picket Planned Parenthood with offensive signs. Some of them have worked at Planned Parenthood and similar institutions; they just don't have anything to do with abortions. There is a fundamental understanding that others do not share their religious beliefs.

When I was a young man and my mom was driving around with "Choose Life" license plate frames she always impressed upon me and my large litter of siblings that any babies we brought home would be welcomed into the family no matter what the circumstances of their conception. But the mere thought of adding another kid to my mom's hoard of children was too much to contemplate. Not me, nor any of my siblings had kids until we were good and ready to support them ourselves.

My mom also told us about birth control. She'd already faced that religious crisis in her own life. The doctor said, "No more babies. Somebody might die." So she and my dad got practical. Me and my siblings were very practical.

Looking around in my own church most couples are practical and use birth control. I don't see many large liters of kids like the one I grew up in. For these couples it's between them and God and church or state don't have any say in the matter.

[mmonk]

56. Surveys after surveys of Catholics point to this not being the case. Nothing but pot stirring.

[SparkyOR]

59. not too schooled up on religion,but if the product of rape is "God's Will"

according to a few idiots, wouldn't that make the rapist, one who is fulfilling the Will of God? Oh, sorry, I arrived at the end of the lesson. Why would God want to sit around and twiddle his thumbs while some creep does awful things to a a member of the fairer sex? Perhaps he's still holding a grudge against Eve, for doing what he would have known she was going to do. And speaking of Eve and her offspring events, how cum incest was okay for Bible literalists, in order to create the remainder of humanity? Or did the remaining product of Adams seed truck on over the hill to a nearby town, and discover that mom and dad weren't the only hairless bipeds in the area? It's all so confusing, how people can seriously buy this stuff at anything other than symbolic messaging, appropriate for an earlier time to keep those with brains that functioned that way, in line.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

60. Original sin is a lie based on a fairy tale.

Christianity is utterly illogical and creates impossible standards to follow.

ALL of Christianity, because original sin (an imaginary problem) requires an unnecessary solution (substitutionary atonement) and those two concepts are the foundational premise of Christianity.

[wishlist]

75. But religious beliefs shouldn't be made law

As a woman raised Catholic I understand what Mourdock and Gingrich are saying about reverence for life but I also understand that it is wrong to impose strict anti-choice laws based on those religious beliefs on all women regardless of their age, emotional and medical situations and their own spiritual beliefs. (As Joe Biden said in the VP debate)