Lest I be seen as being “run off” from what should be an honest discussion about things that are subject to interpretation, I will respond in accordance with the rules of this forum and not respond-in-kind by referring to you or your statements using words or phrases such as “nonsense” or “what does he know?” when referring to either me, a Holy Father, or a Doctor of the Church along the lines of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.
- I view Liberation Theology as expressed in the book A Theology of Liberation by Gustavio Gutierrez. If you have not read it, I encourage you to do so. In it, Gutierrez borrows heavily from Karl Marx and Marxist ideology, and commits the heresy of promoting the doctrine of “universal salvation” as the way to eternal life, and NOT the Catholic Church. Gutierrez’s views were seen as so unorthodox that he was barred from attending two Latin American conferences whose goals were to discuss the nature of and future of Liberation Theology, the very “idea” he wrote about. The Catholic Church is the sole way to salvation, as infallibly proclaimed in the papal bull Unam Sanctam.
- “Many Christians have a more open and gracious relationship to the natural world than you do.” That you could be so presumptuous in purporting to know how “open and gracious” I may or may not be, based on my analysis that animals do not go to heaven, is pretty disparaging. You don’t know me and have never met me.
- You said the following statement I made was “nonsense”: “Christ’s SOLE function in becoming incarnate was to redeem mankind.” If you care to read it, I suggest consulting Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, a seminal treatise on most of the dogmas of the Catholic Church. Ott states “The Fathers are unanimous in teaching that the Incarnation of the Son of God was SOLELY TO REDEEM MANKIND”. Citing St. Augustine: “If mankind had not fallen, the Son of Man would not have come . . . Why did He come into the world? To save sinners. THERE WAS NO OTHER REASON FOR HIS COMING INTO THE WORLD.” Sermo: 174, 2, 2, 7, 8.
If you want to put your “intellect” against those of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, be my guest. Let me know when you are named a Doctor of the Church.
- You said: “I never spoke of “immortal animal souls.””
Of course you did. The entire thesis of claiming that animals, when they die, go to heaven, by definition requires that their souls be immortal. If a soul dies with the body, it is mortal. If it survives the body’s death, it is immortal. There is no “in between”. As you believe that animals go to heaven, you must, by definition, believe their souls are immortal - unless you believe they don’t die at all and are assumed bodily into heaven. So far, I am not aware of the dogma of the Bodily Assumption into Heaven of the Blessed Mother being applied to a goat.
- “That depends on their stage of evolutionary neural development. Certainly it may be that evolving non-human rational life elsewhere in the universe is capable of sinning.”
On what, pray tell, did you base this? “Stage of evolutionary neural development”? “non-human rational life elsewhere in the universe”? The Bible, and in particular, Jesus Christ, discussed redemption and salvation of ONLY mankind. I am unaware of Christ’s redemptive work affecting ET.
If you want to side with the atheist Carl Sagan’s thesis that it would be a huge waste of space for humans as being the only intelligent beings in the universe, be my guest. But be careful, as he would most certainly have ridiculed you for being “open and gracious”, something you said I was deficient in.
“If some good evidence for life after death were announced, I’d be eager to examine it; but it would have to be real scientific data, not mere anecdote… Better the hard truth, I say, than the comforting fantasy.” Quote taken from page 204 of The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. In other words, Mr. Sagan described you as a “comfort-seeking fantasist”.
“Neural development” refers to the formation of an animal’s nervous system from embryo to death. I fail to see how a study of this science has anything to do with the redemption of man and the entry of animals into heaven. If you are suggesting that the neural development of an animal determines the capacity to sin, you are wrong. People born with Down’s Syndrome or some other form of mental retardation have, by definition, a “defective neural development”. If you haven’t already, please watch the movie “Sling Blade” and tell me if the central character sinned when he lopped the head off of the Dwight Yoakam character with a lawnmower blade.
- You said that Benedict XII’s proclamation about heaven was “one man’s opinion” and questioned if Benedict even knew what he was talking about when you said: “What does he know about heaven?” Benedict XII’s pronouncement was NOT an opinion, and he DID know what he was talking about. I know this based on the Catholic Church’s dogma of papal infallibility that prevents the Holy Father from teaching anything contrary to faith and morals when spoken ex cathedra. To publically dissent from a teaching held by the Catholic Church as dogma is heresy. I believe it would be against forum rules to call you a heretic. But if you choose to disagree with Benedict XII’s dogmatic proclamation about heaven . . . well . . .
In the future, if you REALLY would like to have a reasonable discussion about things open to debate, at least refer to something substantive supporting your arguments instead of one-word or one-line “comebacks” such as: “nonsense”, or “one man’s opinion” or “no it doesn’t”. These remind me of Al Franken’s feeble attempts at humor by saying “prove it” or “liar” after every thing someone says.
Somehow I get the impression that
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis caused you much grief.
That was funny (for those of us that caught the joke).
