I stand by my assertion, that you were making an assertion, and not an argument. Why? Because, I was refering to your claims about the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. You claimed that these two notions were “quite dumb”, “extremely unlikely” and “clearly false”. You made no argument or argument for these assertions, and TUAD in 74 said you did. You claimed that these assertions are based on scripture, but you provided no specific scripture, and why the latter refutes the two Marian doctrines, so your claims are merely assertions. You cite your claims about Papal Infallibility, and that you provided arguments for the latter; I agree, but as is evident from my comment, I wasn’t talking about that.

Using, perhaps not in your case, but my experience shows that when name calling in used, it’s because of the paucity of arguments on one’s side.

If you wish to call ideas, advanced by brilliant philosophers “stupid”, that’s your right, I would prefer to point out where, and how their premises or conclusions are false. But there’s likely a reason for their acceptance of seemingly counterintuitive ideas, that are likely not to be “stupid”, after all, they did become brilliant philosophers for a reason.

Augustine is one of philosophical heroes. Yet he had the dumb idea that Adam would have had to be in complete control of his sexual member with no involuntary responses, if Adam was initially without sin.

As for your last comment, that’s incorrect. I was indeed making an argument. My argument was against TUAD’s claims against the Catholic view of papal infallibility. My respect for Catholicism that you’re pretending not to exist was driving me to defend the doctrine against arguments that get the facts wrong. I was arguing that TUAD’s arguments are not legitimate. When TUAD then misunderstood my view, taking me to hold the Catholic doctrine itself, I clarified what my position actually is. But that doesn’t mean I wasn’t making an argument. I was, and it’s perfectly legitimate for someone resisting what I was saying to come to understand it and then say that my argument makes sense.

Jeremy, thanks for your response and the clarity of your response. I understand what you are arguing.

Pax.

“I would like to point out that it’s not necessarily an ad hominem to call someone a jerk.”

That’s a lovely example of special pleading. You should be a lawyer instead of a philosopher.

Disagree all you wish, but your disrespectful and arrogant claims have no place in this debate.

I’m not sure why you’re going on about this. I didn’t say the doctrine of papal infallibility is correct or that either of its two pronouncements was a good idea. Both the assumption and the immaculate conception are, frankly, quite dumb ideas that any reasonable consideration of the evidence in scripture would lead us to reject as extremely unlikely and clearly false, respectively. But we shouldn’t confuse the Catholic view of papal infallibility with their view that the current teaching of the magisterium is correct. They don’t think the current catechism is infallible or that ordinary pronouncements of the pope on things such as condoms are infallible, and I was merely pointing that out.

So based on your earlier comments above, you are stating that One can still be infallible without fulfilling a Primary Moral Obligation (#41) to be clear on teaching moral doctrines and practices.

Do you agree that this is your position?

Yes. Infallibility is compatible with failing at an obligation to be clear. You can be quite obtuse without saying anything false, and all infallibility requires is being unable to say anything false.

Of course, we shouldn’t place too high a requirement for clarity. There are plenty of biblical passages that aren’t all that clear on what they mean. For example, how much agreement is there on what it means to be saved through childbearing in I Tim 2? I wouldn’t call that utterly clear. That’s compatible with scripture being infallible and with its providing everything necessary for life and godliness. But a proper doctrine of scripture is not compatible with Paul or God failing at a moral obligation in producing I Timothy the way it is. So unclarity as an obligation has its limits, as evidenced by infallible scripture itself having unclarities. So I’m not sure how high a standard we should hold the pope to on this issue, as much as we’d like him to be clearer. We do have to be consistent in our evaluation of unclear things, at least.

John Bugay (#68): That argument isn’t very strong. I agree with the conclusion that the Protestant doctrine of church authority is correct, but I don’t think abandoning papal infallibility necessarily requires abandoning the rest of Catholic doctrine on this issue. There still is the elevated position of tradition and the authority of the magisterium. While they don’t see those as infallibly, they do place them very high. So being forced to reject papal infallibility because of the contradiction between scripture (which they do take to be inerrant and infallible) and one of the two papal ex cathedra statements will necessarily lead them to reject papal infallibility if they follow the argument all the way, but it doesn’t entail a thing about the magisterium as a reliable office for formulating correct theology or tradition as an elevated almost-canon. But perhaps you weren’t seriously making the argument that it does.

(On #70): I won’t get into who is and who is not being a jerk. I would like to point out that it’s not necessarily an ad hominem to call someone a jerk. If the argument is that the content of the claim is false or that we shouldn’t listen to someone because the person is a jerk, that’s an ad hominem. If it’s that I shouldn’t want to continue a conversation with someone who isn’t treating me well, that’s not an ad hominem. It’s simply a psychological explanation for why I might not want to continue to discuss that issue with that person.

“It would be more fruitful to dialogue with you if you were more respectful. I could be a total jerk, too, which is something my flesh calls me to be, but I’m trying to be civil. Straw men and ad homs don’t make your arguments compelling and winsome and they only make you out to be less than Christian in character.”

You’re trying to be “civil” while, in the very same sentence, you call your interlocuter a “total jerk.”

If I didn’t know better, I’d think that’s “disrespectful” and “ad hominem,” but you’re above that sort of thing, right?

“If it’s about intention, as Pope Paul VI insisted and as Benedict now reaffirms, then NFP intended to avoid conception is immoral. Yet Catholics allow it. If it’s not about intention but about mere possibility of conception, then condoms intended to avoid conception are just fine, because they do allow for the mere possibility of conception (they’re not 100% effective). Either way, it’s hard to get an absolutist prohibition.”

——

Also, I made several typos in #67 above. It should read:

“So based on your earlier comments above, you are stating that One can still be infallible without fulfilling a Primary Moral Obligation (#41) to be clear on teaching moral doctrines and practices.

Yes, we know those two things with certainty, beyond a shadow of a doubt. But really, what good are these two things?

For the rest of life, the Protestant paradigm of church authority applies.

Your response invites several counter-responses or observations. Let me just provide two, for the time being.

(1st) You wrote: “What you can’t do is be infallible and get it wrong. … One [infallible papal pronouncement] was about the immaculate conception of Mary (i.e. the doctrine that Mary, contrary to scripture, was conceived without original sin). … [A]t least it doesn’t contradict it [Scripture], as the immaculate conception does).”

A contradiction is like when one party, let’s say the Bible, says that 3 + 4 = 7. And another party, let’s say the RCC, says that 3 + 4 = -96. The two answers are mutually exclusive and contradict each other.

So Jeremy, when you say that the “Immaculate Conception” of Mary contradicts Scripture you are telling me that either the Bible is wrong or that the RCC Pope is wrong. (Let’s assume that one of them is absolutely correct.)

For discussion sake, let’s assume that you believe that Scripture is correct and that Mary was conceived with Original Sin. Then what you are flatly saying is that the Pope in his purportedly infallible ex cathedra pronouncement is WRONG about the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

And he is WRONG on one of the few times that papal infallibility was used. And being wrong, this flatly contradicts the doctrine of papal infallibility.

(2nd) You wrote: “You can be infallible and unclearly state something that you still truly state.”

So based on your primary comments above, you are stating that One can still be infallible without fulfilling the Primary Moral Obligation (#41) to be clear on teaching moral doctrines and practices.

Do you agree that this is your position?

I do insist that when there are multiple purposes, it’s ok to go with one rather than both. Thus I don’t think you can give a purely natural law argument against homosexuality; you need a divine command that isn’t based purely on nature; the wrongness of same-sex sexual relations has to do with perverting the divinely-mandated role of sex as part of marriage, which illustrates the relationship between Father and Son in the Trinity. I don’t think you can show that with extra-biblical arguments.

I have no problem with using food for silly children’s games, provided it isn’t wasting too much food. I have no problem with sex intended not to conceive (and neither do Catholics when they allow NFP), provided you don’t violate moral considerations that remain in place after other moral considerations are factored in. I do think there are strong moral reasons (ones that are sometimes outweighed by more important moral reasons) to resist contraception in many circumstances. But the absolutism of the Catholic view (and the view of many non-Catholics) on this issue strikes me as insensitive to the nature of moral principles as often running in opposite directions. I think it’s a moral obligation for some couples to engage in sexual relations for the sake of marital unity, but they may also have obligations to seek not to have any more children (e.g. they may already be unable to care for the ones they have, and it isn’t just about how many but about the particulars of their situation, including how high-need the kids are). There are circumstances where applying the Catholic view is just morally irresponsible, and that’s compatible with saying Catholic considerations do apply to most marriages.

If it’s about intention, as Pope Paul VI insisted and as Benedict now reaffirms, then NFP intended to avoid conception is immoral. Yet Catholics allow it. If it’s not about intention but about mere possibility of conception, then condoms intended to avoid conception are just fine, because they do allow for the mere possibility of conception (they’re not 100% effective). Either way, it’s hard to get an absolutist prohibition.

Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that the Infallible Pope and Magisterium has sometimes not been too good at keeping their Primary Moral Obligation.

I have two problems with this. One is that infallibility does not entail comprehensiveness or clarity. It just means never being wrong. You can be infallible without positively stating anything. You can be infallible while stating five things that you got right and nothing else. You can be infallible and unclearly state something that you still truly state. What you can’t do is be infallible and get it wrong.

Second, the pope is not claimed to be infallible except when speaking ex cathedra. To my knowledge (and Craig has already pointed this out), that has happened exactly twice in history, both in the early 20th century. One was about the immaculate conception of Mary (i.e. the doctrine that Mary, contrary to scripture, was conceived without original sin). The other was about the assumption of Mary to heaven ala Enoch or the risen Christ (which is not supportable by scripture, but at least it doesn’t contradict it, as the immaculate conception does).

It would be more fruitful to dialogue with you if you were more respectful. I could be a total jerk, too, which is something my flesh calls me to be, but I’m trying to be civil. Straw men and ad homs don’t make your arguments compelling and winsome and they only make you out to be less than Christian in character.