How bad are Canadian Catholics really?

[snowflakeinlove]

How can you be Catholic and strongly for abortion or gay marriage? There is something oxymoronic about that. What affects Catholics btw is what about when the state imposes a requirement for Catholic priest to conduct a gay marriage. Or which is probably the case in Canada prevent a priest from advising a parishoner against having an abortion? Then the issue becomes more relevant. No?

Well, by Catholic, I’m referring to people who were baptized in the Catholic Church, nominal Catholics, cafeteria Catholics…

Yes, those laws would certainly affect Catholics and hopefully they won’t ever pass. And I certainly hope that one day, abortion will end and laws against it will be legislated.
Thankfully none of that (laws forcing priests to perform gay marriages, forbidding them to teach against abortion) is in place, currently. I hear a lot of Catholics, including priests and teachers speaking out against gay marriage and abortion. Most practicing Catholics I know are very pro life. A while ago the education minister of Ontario said that speaking out against abortion in school was bullying, which is very disturbing. Thankfully I don’t think it did much other than get the negative attention of Catholics- my siblings are still being taught that abortion is wrong in their publicly funded Catholic schools. But hopefully things like motion 312 (although defeated) and 408 are steps in the right direction. For those Canadian Catholics out there reading this post, I encourage you to support Motion 408.

What I meant by these laws affecting Catholics though, and maybe I didn’t word it properly was I don’t think it necessarily means that Canadian Catholics are more likely to be worse Catholics, or ok with abortion or gay marriage or disagree with a lot of Church teaching. There are faithful Catholics, and there are Catholics who don’t know about their beliefs, and Catholics in between, as in any country. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean most of the Catholics agree with it.

 

[Linux]

So is disallowing pedophilia a violation of the spirit of democracy as well?

Evidently not. This his been explained already; I am not going over it again.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Evidently not. This his been explained already; I am not going over it again.

I don’t believe it has.

If you can arbitrarly change the gender definition of marriage then you can change the age of consent requirement just as arbitrarly.

If it’s undemocratic to oppose gay marriage then it’s very difficult to justify opposing polygamy, incest, and pedophilia in a democary as well.

Needless to say, I disagree with your statement that it’s undemocratic to opposse gay marriage.

 

[Linux]

I don’t believe it has.

If you can arbitrarly change the gender definition of marriage then you can change the age of consent requirement just as arbitrarly.

.

Rubbish. Thankfully religious faith is not the only reason people think it should be illegal to have sex with children.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

What is evident is that those 40+ demographic are not acting in the spirit of democracy. Change is a slow thing, but it’s inevitable.

I would like you to please cite where in the Catechism or in Authoritative or Infallible encyclicals or Church documents it states that Catholics are not required to oppose intrinsic evil laws. You have been proclaiming quite a bit of secular humanist/ progressive ideology in opposition to my views, but I have yet to see you substantiate them as Catholic dogma beyond your own creation.

I would also like your claim that disregarding God’s law by allowing evil for a greater ‘good’ is is accepted Catholic doctrine.

And how is democracy required to accept gay marriage or abortion in order to be a legitimate democracy? Where is the line drawn? How much must be permitted for the sake of a secular democracy? Who defines this? Do you see what I’m getting at?

 

[Linux]

I would like you to please cite where in the Catechism or in Authoritative or Infallible encyclicals or Church documents it states that Catholics are not required to oppose intrinsic evil laws.

I would like you to cite an infallible document that specifically says that civil partnerships between gay people should not be legal under any circumstance. Remember I am not asking you to point to where it says that homosexuality and gay marriage is intrinsically evil. I am asking you to show me where it is infallibly stated that gay civil partnerships or marriage should not be legal even if it means preventing the greater good of democracy and accepting fascism.

In the U.S You’re granted freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

“In its last statement on abortion, the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, the Vatican acknowledged that it does not know when the fetus becomes a person: “There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” This disagreement has a long history as well; neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas, two of the most important theologians in the Catholic tradition, considered the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy to be a person.”

Can somebody explain this to me.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I would like you to cite an infallible document that specifically says that civil partnerships between gay people should not be legal under any circumstance. Remember I am not asking you to point to where it says that homosexuality and gay marriage is intrinsically evil. I am asking you to show me where it is infallibly stated that gay civil partnerships or marriage should not be legal even if it means preventing the greater good of democracy and accepting fascism.

In the U.S You’re granted freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

“In its last statement on abortion, the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, the Vatican acknowledged that it does not know when the fetus becomes a person: “There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” This disagreement has a long history as well; neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas, two of the most important theologians in the Catholic tradition, considered the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy to be a person.”

Can somebody explain this to me.

I’m not sure if you’re serious with this. I literally just posted two authoritative encyclicals that declare a government cannot allow intrinsic evil, and it must be opposed by citizens if it does. You said yourself (and it is true that) the Catholic Church considers homosexual union to be an intrinsic evil. I’m sure your powers of reasoning are in tact. Tell me what you think the answer is.

If you cannot reason it, then here is a quote from paragraph 2357 of the CCC:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

As for your interesting quote, I wonder where it is from. I have a different source that tells me exactly when a person becomes a person:

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

Please see Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2270-2274 for more on abortion and respect for human life.

Are there any other obstacles you wish me to set up for the performance of your mental gymnastics? Do you still really believe that you can be Catholic and allow, without opposition, evil laws such as gay marriage and abortion? If the words of the Mother Church aren’t good enough for you, then neither shall mine be. I can’t say definitively that you’re in rebellion against the Church because I don’t know your heart or your mind. I only pray that you’ll read more (starting with the encyclicals and the Catechism) on why the Church teaches as it does, and that this faith of ours, if it truly is our faith, cannot be separated from any aspect of life, including politics and government.

And I know you ignored my ‘early Catholics’ argument of Catholics under Rome, but could you at least simply consider it: They were to pay taxes and obey just laws (as Catholics have always been obliged to), yet were discouraged from observing gladiatorial matches and participating in state-sanctioned worship of false gods. Were they traitors? Were they ‘unpatriotic’? It certainly seems they were, as they were put to death in large numbers. How is their opposition of something like gladiatorial matches (see St. Telemachus), or burning of incense to false gods, or even the wars of the time (see St. Martin of Tours) different from the opposition of Catholics to laws opposed to our dogma today (abortion, gay marriage, contraception)? Simply because of the form of government? Or what? Catholics have always opposed intrinsic evils, and have not merely tolerated them for some perceived ‘greater good,’ regardless of the form of government in place.

God > government. All the time. Every time.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I have explained Catholic belief regarding opposition to intrinsic evils in the form of laws. If the universal call of the Church by the Vatican to all its members to oppose abortion and gay marriage through private evangelization AND legislation is not enough, then I don’t know if any spoken word will be. I hope you pray and reconsider your role as a Catholic, and realize that you cannot separate your faith from any aspect of your life. If you do, how Catholic are you, really?

Catholic opposition to gay marriage through legislation:

americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp

Catholic requirement for opposition to abortion:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/opposition_to_abortion_is_a_nonnegotiable_requirement_of_catholics_says_bishop_aquila/

 

[PatriciaEllen]

my siblings are still being taught that abortion is wrong in their publicly funded Catholic schools.

Wait…what? Are you saying Catholic schools in Canada receive public, taxpayer funds? If they do, then Catholics should hardly be surprised when the Canadian government wants to enforce state law within schools they pay for.

In the U.S., Catholic parents pay taxes and then pay tuition to the parish school or private Catholic school their children attend. Diocese, parishioners and the parents of Catholic children who attend Catholic schools bear complete financial responsibility.

If Catholics in Canada want to be free from interference by the Canadian government, they should not take government money - they should fund Catholic schools the way we do in the States so as to have separation of church and state.

 

[snowflakeinlove]

Wait…what? Are you saying Catholic schools in Canada receive public, taxpayer funds? If they do, then Catholics should hardly be surprised when the Canadian government wants to enforce state law within schools they pay for.

In the U.S., Catholic parents pay taxes and then pay tuition to the parish school or private Catholic school their children attend. Diocese, parishioners and the parents of Catholic children who attend Catholic schools bear complete financial responsibility.

If Catholics in Canada want to be free from interference by the Canadian government, they should not take government money - they should fund Catholic schools the way we do in the States so as to have separation of church and state.

Not all Catholic schools in Canada.
Not sure how it works elsewhere but in Ontario taxpayers can choose if their taxes go towards either public or Catholic schools. By default it goes to the public boards. There are private Catholic schools too though that aren’t funded. Funding Catholic schools originates back to 1867- it was guaranteed in the constitution and it hasn’t changed in Ontario.
At the time of Confederation, Ontario was mostly Protestant (and Quebec was mostly Catholic) so both groups were worried about their religious rights being taken away. Which is why they put a section in the constitution promising that citizens would have rights to religious schools and the government would continue funding them. I don’t think Quebec has publicly funded religious schools anymore though. There’s been a lot of debate on whether Catholic schools should continue to be funded- but both keeping them (and possibly funding all religious schools) and getting rid of them
pose huge problems for the government. So for all these years I guess maintaining the status quo has just been easier for the government.

 

[Linux]

If you cannot reason it, then here is a quote from paragraph 2357 of the CCC:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.“142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

As for your interesting quote, I wonder where it is from. I have a different source that tells me exactly when a person becomes a person:

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

First of all human rights are not the same thing as the inviolable right of innocent beings given by God. One is given by man according to reason, and the other is given by God. These are two different concepts operating in two different contexts. Things like this is why I accused you of committing a contextual fallacy.

Secondly, I asked of you the following…

“I would like you to cite an infallible document that specifically says that civil partnerships between gay people should not be* legal** under any circumstance. Remember I am not asking you to point to where it says that homosexuality and gay marriage is intrinsically evil. I am asking you to show me where it is infallibly stated that gay civil partnerships or marriage should not be legal even if it means preventing the greater good of democracy and accepting fascism.*”

You failed to deliver. All you gave me is what the church thinks about homosexuality and abortion as “moral acts”. I agree that we should oppose homosexuality and abortion, and we have the tools of evangelisation to do so. But what you have not shown me is that those specific acts can never be legal under any circumstance even if that means accepting fascism and forcing our religious beliefs on the rest of the populous. All you did is falsely imply that those quotes reflect an absolute position in regards to legal permission in light of those specific acts regardless of the consequences.

Any honest person that can reason can see that I have given good reasons for my position that has not been addressed.

The reality is, if we cannot prove with certainty our religious convictions about the personal status of a foetus from conception (which involves believing that God gives each of us a soul at conception) then there is no legal grounds for opposing the legal permission of abortion and calling it murder; regardless of our moral beliefs. An attempt to undo democracy by imposing ones religious beliefs on a nation through legal enforcement is immoral and is a form of fascism which is not the goal of Christianity regardless of whether we happen to have the truth or not. This is why I showed you the following quote…

“In its last statement on abortion, the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, the Vatican acknowledged that it does not know when the fetus becomes a person: “There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” This disagreement has a long history as well; neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas, two of the most important theologians in the Catholic tradition, considered the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy to be a person.”

 

[PeaceInChrist]

First of all human rights are not the same thing as the inviolable right of innocent beings given by God. One is given by man according to reason, and the other is given by God. These are two different concepts operating in two different contexts. Things like this is why I accused you of committing a contextual fallacy.

Secondly, I asked of you the following…

“I would like you to cite an infallible document that specifically says that civil partnerships between gay people should not be** legal** under any circumstance. Remember I am not asking you to point to where it says that homosexuality and gay marriage is intrinsically evil. I am asking you to show me where it is infallibly stated that gay civil partnerships or marriage should not be legal even if it means preventing the greater good of democracy and accepting fascism.”

You failed to deliver. All you gave me is what the church thinks about homosexuality and abortion as “moral acts”. I agree that we should oppose homosexuality and abortion, and we have the tools of evangelisation to do so. But what you have not shown me is that those specific acts can never be legal under any circumstance even if that means accepting fascism and forcing our religious beliefs on the rest of the populous. All you did is falsely imply that those quotes reflect an absolute position in regards to legal permission in light of those specific acts regardless of the consequences.

Any honest person that can reason can see that I have given good reasons for my position that has not been addressed.

The reality is, if we cannot prove with certainty our religious convictions about the personal status of a foetus from conception (which involves believing that God gives each of us a soul at conception) then there is no legal grounds for opposing the legal permission of abortion and calling it murder; regardless of our moral beliefs. An attempt to undo democracy by imposing ones religious beliefs on a nation through legal enforcement is immoral and is a form of fascism which is not the goal of Christianity regardless of whether we happen to have the truth or not. This is why I showed you the following quote…

“In its last statement on abortion, the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, the Vatican acknowledged that it does not know when the fetus becomes a person: “There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement.” This disagreement has a long history as well; neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas, two of the most important theologians in the Catholic tradition, considered the fetus in the early stages of pregnancy to be a person.”

If, even having shown you that Catholics are required to protest even secular LAWS that allow intrinsic evils(you might try reading the encyclicals I posted), and giving firm evidence that the Church considers abortion and gay marriage to be intrinsic evil (from the Catechism), then I really have nothing further to say to you. The quotes I gave are from the Catechism. That is authoritative Catholic teaching. The encyclicals are authoritative: accepted by the Magisterium as true. If you really believe that Catholics can separate morality from civil law, even after I showed authoritative teaching that declares otherwise, you are either in rebellion against Church teaching, or willfully ignorant. Or simply trolling.

"…If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”

You know, that darn moral order, which declares things like abortion and gay marriage to be evil? And enacting laws contrary to the moral order is always wrong. So… I guess they can’t be, you know, permitted at all. Unless you’re a secular humanist/progressive with nominal ties to Catholicism.

I suppose the Catechism isn’t enough. And thank you for, once again, not responding to all of the arguments I presented (awaits a ‘you didn’t respond to my arguments’ load, even though I clearly did). Any honest person will see that you failed to provide rebuttals to the genuinely Catholic teachings I have shown. Any honest person will see that you failed to address the parallels I’ve shown to early Christians. Any honest person will see that your intellectual integrity isn’t very honest at all.

Edited to add: of course Augustine and Aquinas didn’t know when a person began. They had none of the technology that we have. It has always been Church teaching, however, that abortion and contraception are grave evils, and must be opposed. It was simply a matter of determining when one became another that was difficult for more primitive people. And I already showed you the Catechism quote that states life begins at conception. So… nothing really to discuss. You’re quote from God-knows-where, or authoritative Catholic teaching. Hmmm…

 

[PeaceInChrist]

I have explained Catholic belief regarding opposition to intrinsic evils in the form of laws. If the universal call of the Church by the Vatican to all its members to oppose abortion and gay marriage through private evangelization AND legislation is not enough, then I don’t know if any spoken word will be. I hope you pray and reconsider your role as a Catholic, and realize that you cannot separate your faith from any aspect of your life. If you do, how Catholic are you, really?

Catholic opposition to gay marriage through legislation:

americancatholic.org/News/Homosexuality/default.asp

Catholic requirement for opposition to abortion:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/opposition_to_abortion_is_a_nonnegotiable_requirement_of_catholics_says_bishop_aquila/

To Linux:

You also didn’t respond to my links showing that the Church hierarchy itself is calling for abortion laws and gay marriage laws to be opposed through legislation (posted above). So, is it just me making up this stuff about Catholic teaching, or is it coming from, you know, the Church? Conversely, where, exactly, are you getting all this stuff you’re preaching? Where can morals and civil law be separated? This is stated by secular humanists and progressives everywhere, but I’ve never seen Church teaching state this. Not once. I’d also like to note that you have consistently ignored a great deal of my posts, while you’ve had me posting authoritative Church documents to present my points, including papal encyclicals and the Catechism itself. Your burden of proof is increasingly higher, and my requests have not been fulfilled. You are good at arguing, but not much good at honest debate or using the reason that God gave you.

I’m done now. If you won’t actually read the sources I’ve given, or choose still to reject them in favor of your preconceived secular nonsense, then there is nothing more I can do for you. The very Church you claim to belong to is also ‘fascist’ by your own definition. In the coming years, as the Church becomes more and more at odds with secular governments around the world, and opposes more and more intrinsically evil laws, I hope you’ll reconsider your blind ‘all or nothing’ approach to secular democracy, and come back to full allegiance with the Church, in which lies all Truth and reason.

 

[Linux]

To Linux:
the Church hierarchy itself is calling for abortion laws and gay marriage laws to be opposed through legislation (posted above).

Can you please quote that so you don’t appear deceptive.

The Church hierarchy is not politically infallible. This doesn’t mean anything to me other than the fact that the catholic hierarchy has a political agenda. You are merely speaking about their political opinion which has no bearing on whether such legislation is justified or can be enacted without forcing ones religious beliefs about the nature of human sexuality on those who don’t share that belief; an enforcement which is wrong and is not in line with other social teachings of the church, not to mention destructive to democracy and dangerously bordering on fascism. Neither does it have any bearing on whether or not I should agree with that particular agenda merely because it is shared by the hierarchy of the Church. The church does not dictate who I should vote for as a Catholic, although it can certainly act as a moral Guide. The Pope is not politically infallible. And it is a mistake to think that in the political arena the Pope can do no wrong or cannot make mistakes out of ignorance regarding the nature of democracy.

There is a thin line between agreeing with the political agenda of the church and idolising everything they say as correct in every possible context merely because of their position of religious power.

If the Pope said that he thinks that the government should force science classrooms to discuss intelligent design, I am not going to agree with him merely because he is the Pope. He is not infallible in all respects.

 

[Linux]

"…If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. In such a case, “authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse.”

You are being deceptive and distorting context. This in no way means that one must accept fascism and the destruction of democracy in favour of stopping people from legally having abortions or entering into gay marriage.

This is not difficult to understand.

 

[Linux]

On encyclicals, it notes:

“As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case.”

newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

In other words context is of utmost importance when judging these issues. Which is something you have ignored completely.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

On encyclicals, it notes:

“As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case.”

newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

In other words context is of utmost importance when judging these issues. Which is something you have ignored completely.

So, because the pope was not speaking ex cathedra, it is not authoritative? Do you know the difference between infallible and authoritative? I believe this would fall under the ‘ordinary Magisterium’, and has been propagated as sound Catholic doctrine. It would thus be authoritative. You are now disputing that the encyclicals are not authoritative or binding using this quote, so I’d like you to provide evidence that these specific encyclicals are somehow in dispute. I can give you a hint: they are authoritative, which is still binding on all Catholics. So how, exactly, have I ignored context by using authoritative Church teaching to provide proof for my views?

Humani Generis (vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html) is also good at explaining the authoritative nature of encyclicals.

Also, another quote from the Catechism:

2246: "It is a part of the Church’s mission “to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it.”

Please read up on the ordinary Magisterium. Encyclicals can be authorititative without being infallible. Such is Humanae Vitae. It declares contraception to be immoral. Despite this document only being authorititive, as opposed to infallible, it is still dogmatically a grave offense to use contraception.

By all means, continue to argue against the very words of the Magisterium itself. Just know that, in doing so, you reject the teaching authority of the Church. And thank you, yet again, for not responding to much of my previous quotes. Since you did not respond to a vast portion of my arguments, neither shall I entertain any more of yours. The pedestal you place a form of government upon is absolutely shocking to me, so much so that you are willing to allow the existence of intrinsically evil laws simply to support it fully.

There is a thin line between agreeing with the political agenda of the church and idolising everything they say as correct in every possible context merely because of their position of religious power.

Actually, it’s quite simple: anything deemed authoritative by the Church, or required of Catholics to believe by the Church, must be followed. There is a thin line between being a critical thinker and being in rebellion against the Church by rejecting authoritative dogma in favor of a ‘greater good’ than God’s law. Guess which side of the line you are on.

Good luck in your obstinance. Let me know how being a Catholic in part of life and a supporter of secular democracy in another goes for you. Living a half faith is surely popular today. Unfortunately, I cannot condone it, and I hope that you reconcile yourself to full allegiance with the Church (even though their teaching is, according to you, quite fascist right now).

 

[Linux]

Good luck in your obstinance. Let me know how being a Catholic in part of life and a supporter of secular democracy in another goes for you.

And let me know how it goes with the destruction of democracy and the supporting of fascism in the guise of the Catholic Faith.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

Linux: I have carefully read all of your postings, and I must say that you obviously enjoy a good debate, and are quite proud of your skills. However, your argumentative methods remind me of some lawyers we have here in New York City, who will defend the most base felons by obfuscation and shifting the blame to their victims!
I especially find your argument vile that obeying the mandate of the Church that Catholics fight to oppose legislation supporting abortion, coontreception and gay marriage will result in fascism.
It is people like you, who when they lose a referendum in which a majority of the voters have voted, take to the law courts,and find a judge with views similar to yours to overturn the election. This is Democracy?
And no, this is not a personal attack. I am merely calling attention to a specious method of debate!

 

[Linux]

Linux: I have carefully read all of your postings, and I must say that you obviously enjoy a good debate, and are quite proud of your skills. However, your argumentative methods remind me of some lawyers we have here in New York City, who will defend the most base felons by obfuscation and shifting the blame to their victims!
I especially find your argument vile that obeying the mandate of the Church that Catholics fight to oppose legislation supporting abortion, coontreception and gay marriage will result in fascism.
It is people like you, who when they lose a referendum in which a majority of the voters have voted, take to the law courts,and find a judge with views similar to yours to overturn the election. This is Democracy?
And no, this is not a personal attack. I am merely calling attention to a specious method of debate!

The political opinion of the Pope is not necessarily binding. Nothing I have said is a lie or a distortion of facts.