Need Help Debating an anti-Catholic!

[dmelosi]

The difference I see is with catholics they submit to the authority of the Church. The earthly representation of the church they submit to is preists and bishops. As a noncatholic christian I don’t submit to any worldly authority on morals.

I believe the following quote applies to you…

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
― Fulton J. Sheen

 

[truthquester]

Sorry to take away from the subject at hand but all of this talk about the sex abuse that went on for so many years has gotten me a little upset. Catholic or not, being Christians can we at least offer a prayer for the victims. These poor people were abandoned by their parents, let down by the church, let down by society, let down by every authority that existed at the time. Some of them did not fare very well in their lives and were misunderstood by society and somehow it became all about the priests. People did not want to believe that people who worked for the church were capable of such despicable acts.

Let’s not forget these poor people,

Please God, help the victims to find forgiveness in all of the people who let them down so that they may find healing and peace of mind and please allow us to remain vigilant towards such things so the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. Please guide our church leaders to have the strength and wisdom to do what is right. Amen.

 

[Ignatius]

So, I’m in this online debate with an anti-Catholic and he hurled a slew of accusations against the Church at me.

Don’t debate or argue, Just explain Catholic teachings. The Socratic method may be the most effective.

 

[SplendidSt]

So I’m in this…

Thank you so much! to all who responded and especially Sunbreak, The conversation just stopped at the first premise he had, and I don’t really feel he actually seriously looked into all of the bold claims he made. The comments and accusations he made were all under a video concerning the Catholic understanding of sexuality and many people hate the Church for her good news concerning the, should I say, Theology of the Body. It was a specific and wonderful video called "the Third Way” on youtube and is about the Church’s care for those with same-sex attractions. I am a witness to the fact that the Catholic Church saved my life and has granted me freedom and true charity as a young man with same-sex attraction. I really hope someday this anti-Catholic will see the Church, the pillar and ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15) for who she really is; The bride of Christ Jesus our Lord.
Bless all of you

 

[808Catholic]

Thank you so much! to all who responded and especially Sunbreak, The conversation just stopped at the first premise he had, and I don’t really feel he actually seriously looked into all of the bold claims he made. The comments and accusations he made were all under a video concerning the Catholic understanding of sexuality and many people hate the Church for her good news concerning the, should I say, Theology of the Body. It was a specific and wonderful video called "the Third Way” on youtube and is about the Church’s care for those with same-sex attractions. I am a witness to the fact that the Catholic Church saved my life and has granted me freedom and true charity as a young man with same-sex attraction. I really hope someday this anti-Catholic will see the Church, the pillar and ground of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15) for who she really is; The bride of Christ Jesus our Lord.
Bless all of you

God Bless you for faithfully defending Our Lord and His Church.:clapping:

 

[fastenatingguy]

Sorry to take away from the subject at hand but all of this talk about the sex abuse that went on for so many years has gotten me a little upset. Catholic or not, being Christians can we at least offer a prayer for the victims. These poor people were abandoned by their parents, let down by the church, let down by society, let down by every authority that existed at the time. Some of them did not fare very well in their lives and were misunderstood by society and somehow it became all about the priests. People did not want to believe that people who worked for the church were capable of such despicable acts.

Let’s not forget these poor people,

Please God, help the victims to find forgiveness in all of the people who let them down so that they may find healing and peace of mind and please allow us to remain vigilant towards such things so the mistakes of the past will not be repeated. Please guide our church leaders to have the strength and wisdom to do what is right. Amen.

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[pablope]

So, I’m in this online debate with an anti-Catholic and he hurled a slew of accusations against the Church at me. I formulatied his accusations into a succinct argument so you guys can help me out.

1. The Catholic Church institutionalized the rape and torture of children over 2000 years.
2. The Catholic Church criminally shuffled around pedophiles and “scam artists”.
   e. Thanks

nytimes.com/aponline/2015/05/28/world/europe/ap-eu-rel-britain-methodists-abuse.html?_r=0

LONDON — Britain’s Methodist Church said Thursday it had found almost 2,000 reports of physical and sexual abuse within the institution over more than half a century, and has apologized for failing to protect the victims.

Martyn Atkins, general secretary of the Methodist Conference, made an “unreserved apology” for the past abuse.

He said the abuse “inflicted by some Methodists on children, young people and adults is and will remain a deep source of grief and shame to the church.”

 

[SplendidSt]

His arguments are flawed and simplistic. Don’t waste “flawed premise” arguments on this person.
You will find when you counter with ‘facts’ which are adequately supported and request for evidence/proof from a reputable source from them to support their argument, they will change tact and move the baseline, they won’t counter argue your point, they will ignore it and simply spew out another accusation.

This has been so true, let me give you guys some back and forth from the conversation:

Anti-Catholic: “The Fascists overtook Rome?” Did they come from outer space… lol? Most were practising Catholics, many of whom were supported by their clergy. It was the existing Catholic establishment in Rome at the time which was instrumental in allowing Mussolini’s government to take control. You are quite correct when you say alliances are political. And this was just one of the Church many brilliant and terrible political moves in the 20th century. For more reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_fascism

You must know as well as I that being “officially neutral” doesn’t mean very much when your priests and clergy enthusiastically preach ideologies in-step with fascism, racism and Nazism from the pulpit. This was true both in Nazi Germany, as well as Rwanda, which I failed to mention earlier. For more reading:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/08/catholic-church-apologise-failure-rwanda-genocide-vatican

 

[SplendidSt]

Me: Here’s what you claimed in the first premise:

1. The Catholic Church made an alliance with German and Italian fascism.

Here’s what I said in a syllogistic format, with one correction:

1. The fascists overtook Rome.
2. The Vatican is a small city state surrounded by Rome.
3. The Vatican is politically lead by the holy father, and spiritualy led by the Catholic Church.
4. The Catholic Church is not a politcal state, but the Vatican is.
5. The Vatican has no formal army and thusly no threat of force behind it as a city state.
6. The only political stance of the Vatican during the war and the -]occupation/-] rise of the Fascists was neutrality.
7. Alliances are political.
8. Hence, there was no alliance made with German or Italian fascism by the Vatican due to the fact the Vatican was politically neutral.

You replied with:
Most [facsists] were practising Catholics, many of whom were supported by their clergy.

It was the existing Catholic establishment in Rome at the time which was instrumental in allowing Mussolini’s government to take control.

However, a practicing Catholic is someone who practices the Catholic faith. The Catholic faith is guided by the infallible teaching authority of the holy magisterium. The magisterium inerrantly teaches that racism is a grave matter that if done willingly with full knowledge and consent is mortally sinful. Thus these Catholics who took up racism and hatred as a good thnig were acting contrary to the inerrant teaching of the Catholic Church, so they weren’t practicing Catholics.

“Catholic establishment”? I can gaurantee it’s another group of Catholics acting contrary to the teachings of holy mother Church. Try again.

being "officially neutral” doesn’t mean very much when your priests and clergy enthusiastically preach ideologies instep with fascism, racism and Nazism from the pulpit

Actually it does. It means that some priests were racist bigots influenced by facsism, which as we previously established, is contrary to Catholic doctrine. The disposition of these priest is despite fact that the Vatican state was politically neutral. The opinion and disposition of certian priests is separate in category from the Vatican city states official position, because the official position isn’t determined by the dispostion of dissident priests. That’s pretty easy to see. So as my argument stands, Premise #1 is still false.

 

[SplendidSt]

Anti-Catholic: I wouldn’t bother you on this any more if I were not previously promised a rebuttal to my points of shame against the Catholic Church. We’ve barely covered the first point (Fascism and the Church) and you haven’t responded? You even listed my arguments by number and gave me an opportunity to edit and clarify them because you said you were going to analyse them factually, for heaven’s sake…

I’m not trying to be aggressive- you did actually say that you could rebut at least ONE of my points. So far you’ve sort-of responded to one of them, somewhat half-heartedly and without any secondary sources.

You seemed like such an enthusiastic apologist when we started, now you’ve disappeared? Your 2nd most recent comment started with “AND WE BEGIN”. And what now- we end? In silence? Either present an argument or admit that you don’t have one and STOP ignoring the atrocities both historical and contemporary committed by this church which you claim to be able to support with logic and stuff.

Keep in mind, we are talking about topics like child rape, genocide and totalitarianism. These are not topics on which one just stops responding when someone points out that the entity they are accusing of these disgusting crimes is actually guilty of them… If you can’t defend these plunderers and rapists of civilization, then STOP PRETENDING TO DO SO. The Church pays a high enough percent of your weekly donation to attorneys who defend their crimes around the world at a premium price. They don’t need you to work for them pro-bono…

 

[SplendidSt]

Me:Hey man, How’ve you been? I see you’ve just left a comment and you mentioned the following:

I’m not trying to be aggressive you did actually say that you could rebut at least ONE of my points. So far you’ve sort of responded to one of them, somewhat half heartedly and without any secondary sources.

My computer has been very erratic since the last time we dialogued. I’m currently straining to respond to this on my phone solely because I care about how this conversation can establish the truth surrounding the extensive list of claims you made against the Catholic Church. The problem with your quote is that it doesn’t challenge or argue against any specific response I made to your first claim. To be plainly honest all your response is, is a dismissal of my response as “half-hearted” without demonstrating a coherent reason why based on the text of the actual response. Your comment called for secondary sources, yet honestly, your introductory litany against the Church lacked any sources at all. The sources you did in fact give in a later response confirm what I just recently responded to you with. Since notably in the first source you have clerical fascism described as referring to individual Catholics who wanted a synthesis of Catholicism and fascism, the source notes the term itself was coined by an actually faithful Italian Catholic priest at the time named Fr. Don Luigi Sturlo. This priest was put in political exile obviously for his outspoken opposition to the party as the source you gave clarifies as he was a member of the senate. Not to mention Benito Mussolini, just like his father, was anti-clerical as was reiterated in link attached to his name in your given source.
(Look a little further you’ll also discover Mussolini was a staunch atheist and admirer of Neitzche en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini)

The second source you gave featured Pope Pius XI’s 1937 encyclical Mit brennender Sorge , the first in history to be written in German actually, condemning Nazism and related ideologies. The Pope also then had it read in every German church on Palm Sunday 21st of March 1937. The source features a quote by the Venerable Pope Pius XII’s 1942 Christmas address:

“Humanity owes this vow to those hundreds of thousands who, without any fault on their part, sometimes only because of their nationality or race, have been consigned to death or to a slow decline”

It features this Pope’s notice to the British:

"Pius advised the British in 1940 of the readiness of certain German generals to overthrow Hitler if they could be assured of an honourable peace, offered assistance to the German resistance in the event of a coup and warned the Allies of the planned German invasion of the Low Countries in 1940.”

It also mentions that the Venerable Pope Pius XII:

…wrote of “anti-Christian movements” bringing forth a crop “poignant disasters” and called for love, mercy and compassion against the “deluge of discord”. Following themes addressed in Non abbiamo bisogno (1931); Mit brennender Sorge (1937) and Divini redemptoris (1937), Pius wrote of a need to bring back to the Church those who were following “a false standard … misled by error, passion, temptation and prejudice, [who] have strayed away from faith in the true God”.He wrote of “Christians unfortunately more in name than in fact” having showed “cowardice” in the face of persecution by these creeds, and endorsed resistance.

My friend, the source even features the Pope’s words long before he was even elected:

“[The Nazis] are in reality only miserable plagiarists who dress up old errors with new tinsel. It does not make any difference whether they flock to the banners of the social revolution, whether they are guided by a false conception of the world and of life, or whether they are possessed by the superstition of a race and blood cult.” (Lourdes, France 1935)

And his political neutrality during his pontificate:

"As the Holy See had done during the pontificate of Benedict XV (1914–1922) during World War One, the Vatican under, Pius XII (February 1939 – September 1958), pursued a policy of diplomatic neutrality through World War Two Pius XII, like Benedict XV, described the position as “impartiality”, rather than “neutrality.”

The links about Rwanda are off track of what we were discussing, let’s talk about your first premise. That premise of “the Catholic Church made an alliance with Italian and German fascism” doesn’t hold water considering the facts already previously established. Plainly and honestly address the response I made, refrain from unfounded dismissal and also from just restating and intensifying your position without seriously considering the opposing arguments. Sir, if we’re going to get anywhere, both of us have to be honest and without being too proud to admit when we’re wrong. As of now, the argument I made previously and this comment right here confirm the Catholic Church was
a.) politically neutral concerning Nazi led states and leaders
and b.) severely morally opposed to Nazism,
factors that prove Premise #1 false. I invite only an honest response.

 

[Hawkiz]

Thank you for keeping us updated. I see a lot of anger in your ‘opponent’s’ posts and we will be praying that Jesus finds him/her and brings him/her some peace. There isn’t any reason that someone should be THAT angry even if they truly believed that The Catholic Church DID side with Germany in WWII…there is an as yet uncovered underlying issue that this person has on a much more personal level that is driving such anger. We will pray for him/her.

I suspect that his/her next tactic will be to dismiss your sources as unacceptable, even if he/she previously accepted them or even used those same sources to form their own premise. This is a common response when someone is presented with evidence that disproves their premise…Catholics sometimes do it too, for example, we would dismiss evidence presented from a ‘Chick tract’. I suspect that your ‘opponent’ will give anything written by a priest n about the same level we would put something written by Jack Chick.

‘In the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Lord, we pray that you will send SplendedSt Your strength, Your wisdom, Your guidance, and Your Spirit as SplendedSt works to bring the Truth to this world. Bring peace and calm to the hearts of all involved in this discussion and allow Your Spirit to settle in all the hearts and minds who read of this discussion. We all love You Lord, and ask You drive our passionate love only to seek You, and not to ‘win’ or to ‘beat’ another in our race towards You. Bring mercy to us all Lord, in Your name we pray…whose Father? OUR Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done; on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day our daily Bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. amen’

Peace in Christ

 

[Ignatius]

That premise of “the Catholic Church made an alliance with Italian and German fascism” doesn’t hold water considering the facts already previously established. Plainly and honestly address the response I made, refrain from unfounded dismissal and also from just restating and intensifying your position without seriously considering the opposing arguments. Sir, if we’re going to get anywhere, both of us have to be honest and without being too proud to admit when we’re wrong. As of now, the argument I made previously and this comment right here confirm the Catholic Church was
a.) politically neutral concerning Nazi led states and leaders
and b.) severely morally opposed to Nazism,
factors that prove Premise #1 false. I invite only an honest response.

You know that he is not going to admit any wrong on his part, right?

 

[steve_b]

So, I’m in this online debate with an anti-Catholic and he hurled a slew of accusations against the Church at me. I formulatied his accusations into a succinct argument so you guys can help me out.

**Argument A: **
*1. The Catholic Church made an alliance with German and Italian Fascism. *
*2. The Catholic Church yearly celebrated Hitler’s birthday from the pulpit. *
*3. The Catholic Church was silent during the holocaust. *
*4. The Catholic Church institutionalized the rape and torture of children over 2000 years. *
*5. The Catholic Church criminally shuffled around pedophiles and “scam artists”. *
*6. The Catholic Church said condoms increase the rate of AIDS/HIV. *
*7. The Catholic Church suggests that gay people should live a totally sterile life. *
*8. Premise #6 is Disgusting. *
*9. The Catholic Church had ties with fascist Spain. *
*10. The Catholic Church influenced the criminalization of abortion and prevention of access to divorce in Ireland. *
11. The Catholic Church forced conversion of indigenous people in South America.
*12. All of these things that the Catholic Church has done are evil. *
13. Therefore, the Catholic Church is consistently Evil.

I let him know that logically speaking, all of his premises must be true in order to have a sound argument, even if the conclusion is valid. I am convinced a majority of these accusations are false, but I cannot address all of the false accusations by myself. You all are welcome to logically proove as many as you wish to false. I really need help, this anti-Catholic guy adamantly stands by all of these premises as true. Thanks

I’ll answer #11.
OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE, MOTHER OF AMERICA with way to go mom!!! :extrahappy:

As for all the other issues your opponants lodge against you, ask them for proof. Besides, when the mother of God is on Our side what are they going to say THEN?