Are Pro-"Choice" "catholics" Heretics?

[Akalyte]

sometimes i think we catholics are becoming worse than protestants. We cant even agree on many issues, we debate with each other.

[Era Might]

"Catholics agree on everything, but disagree on everything else." --GK Chesterton

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Jan 7 2006, 09:52 AM']"Catholics agree on everything, but disagree on everything else." --GK Chesterton
[right][snapback]848690[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


hahah aint that the truth..

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Akalyte' date='Jan 7 2006, 10:48 AM']sometimes i think we catholics are becoming worse than protestants. We cant even agree on many issues, we debate with each other.
[right][snapback]848686[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is a true thing that we argue often, but we do believe the same things.

Plus, we're all probably material heretics somehow.

[Cam42]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Jan 7 2006, 02:58 AM']1.  No Sir.  My position has not changed.  I believe you do not understand me.

2.  All abortionists do commint heresy.  You may say it till you are blue in the face "Abortionists do not commint heresy" but they do indeed.

3.  My statement was not erroneous, and it was not "totally different".  Yes way!  One who acutally procures an abortion, offers substantial support (paying or gives funding for it), or supports abortion commints heresy and is excommunicated.

4.  "At best incredulous" however in real life it is heresy.  In theological terms, incredulous is what you believe is proper terminology.  However incredulous it is not, it is Heresy.  Those who support in anyway abortion commint heresy, so they would have to be heretics.

5.  I did not say you could not make an informed arugment.  I did not say you could not be trusted and I did not say you "can not be accurate".  I said you are not a Priest, and I do not believe you.  I believe Father Corapi, I do not believe you.  And I still do not believe you its not because you are not a priest it is because you are wrong.  qfnol31 please forgive me Cam does not speak for me, by my logic, you are able to make an informed arugment just as he can.  However if I believe you to be wrong I will point it out.

6.  There is no shift in argument.  You told me support was not heresy.  So I wrote letters to those I've posted, asking if it was heresy.  You seem to like to use my real name.  I would like to know your real name, please.  If you will not give me yours please stop using mine, that would be rude.  I still say those who have abortions do commint heresy.  I have always said those who support abortion commint heresy.  No matter how much you want them to be in "two totally different arugments", does not make it so.  Yes Sir they are in the "same light", heresy if you can call it "light".

7.  No this statement only "sums up" that I was trying to fully understand what qfnol31 was trying to explain to me and what I've always said those who support abortion, teach that abortion is ok, or have or perform an abortion commint heresy.  And it is heresy not just mortal sin.
[right][snapback]848570[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Your position has changed, I have shown you how. I am not getting into a shouting match over this. If you don't accept it that is fine, but it is a fact that you have changed your position. I have quoted the change.

All abortionists do not commit heresy. You can't make that statement. An action is not heretical, a belief is. An action is sinful. The act of procurring an abortion is excommunicatable. That is clearly stated in Canon law. However, it is not heresy. If it were, it would be as clearly stated.

The action is incredulous. I have shown how. I have given the catechetical definition and I have applied it properly. I am sorry that you don't accept the terms, but the terms are not for you to accept or deny. The terms are static and when they are applied properly, as I have done, supported by the Magisterium, it is clear. I am sorry that you refuse to see that.

You discredit me because I am not a priest. I have the VERY same education as a priest. Many of my college classmates have gone on to become priests. I have the proper education and I have the proper knowledge to make the argument that I do. Just because I am not ordained does not lessen me in the academic world, just your eyes. That is a shame, because there are far more laymen like me. And being part of the Work, my academic credentials are EXACTLY the same as priests of the prelature. The formation is EXACTLY the same. I will not discuss my credentials again it is not germaine to the conversation.

I use your real name because you put it out there. If you want to use my real name that is fine, it is out there. It is not rude to call you by your name. Let's stay on topic, ok David?

This is the shift that you are making and you do it continually:

[quote name='David'] There is no shift in argument.  I still say those who have abortions do commint heresy. I have always said those who support abortion commint heresy.[/quote]

That is a huge distinction and it is one that your refuse to see. If that is your premise, then you need to prove this THROUGH CHURCH DOCUMENTS. Prove to me, by citing Magisterial documentation that your premeses are valid. I have asked you to do this several times.

It is my contention that it is not, PRECISELY because there is no Magisterial support for your position. The Church will teach that abortion is a mortal sin and that direct support of abortion is excommunicatable, but no where does it say this is heresy. Why? Because it is an action. It is a sinful action.

Part of the reasoning that it is not heresy is explained by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae. He states:

[quote name='Evangelium Vitae #44'] Although there are no direct and explicit calls to protect human life at its very beginning, specifically life not yet born, and life nearing its end, this can easily be explained by the fact that the mere possibility of harming, attacking, or actually denying life in these circumstances is completely foreign to the religious and cultural way of thinking of the People of God.[/quote]

He goes on to say though that this lack of respect is sinful because it attacks the dignity of the human person. He says:

[quote name='Evangelium Vitae #41']Thus the deepest element of God's commandment to protect human life is the requirement to show reverence and love for every person and the life of every person.[/quote]

Abortion is murder, abortion is not heresy. Your view, while zealous it is wrong. Not only do I have letters from the Vatican supporting my view, but also we can now see from Evangelium Vitae that it cannot be heresy, but rather it is mortal sin. Why? Because John Paul II says:

[quote name='Evangelium Vitae #48'] Life is indelibly marked by a truth of its own. By accepting God's gift, man is obliged to maintain life in this truth which is essential to it. To detach oneself from this truth is to condemn oneself to meaninglessness and unhappiness, and possibly to become a threat to the existence of others, since the barriers guaranteeing respect for life and the defence of life, in every circumstance, have been broken down.

The truth of life is revealed by God's commandment. The word of the Lord shows concretely the course which life must follow if it is to respect its own truth and to preserve its own dignity. The protection of life is not only ensured by the spe- cific commandment "You shall not kill" (Ex 20:13; Dt 5:17); the entire Law of the Lord serves to protect life, because it reveals that truth in which life finds its full meaning.

It is not surprising, therefore, that God's Covenant with his people is so closely linked to the perspective of life, also in its bodily dimension. In that Covenant, God's commandment is offered as the path of life: "I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you this day, by loving the Lord your God, by walking in his ways, and by keeping his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, then you shall live and multiply, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you are entering to take possession of" (Dt 30:15-16). What is at stake is not only the land of Canaan and the existence of the people of Israel, but also the world of today and of the future, and the existence of all humanity. In fact, it is altogether impossible for life to remain authentic and complete once it is detached from the good; and the good, in its turn, is essentially bound to the commandments of the Lord, that is, to the "law of life" (Sir 17:11). The good to be done is not added to life as a burden which weighs on it, since the very purpose of life is that good and only by doing it can life be built up.

It is thus the Law as a whole which fully protects human life. This explains why it is so hard to remain faithful to the commandment "You shall not kill" when the other "words of life" (cf. Acts 7:38) with which this commandment is bound up are not observed. Detached from this wider framework, the commandment is destined to become nothing more than an obligation imposed from without, and very soon we begin to look for its limits and try to find mitigating factors and exceptions. Only when people are open to the fullness of the truth about God, man and history will the words "You shall not kill" shine forth once more as a good for man in himself and in his relations with others. In such a perspective we can grasp the full truth of the passage of the Book of Deuteronomy which Jesus repeats in reply to the first temptation: "Man does not live by bread alone, but ... by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord" (Dt 8:3; cf. Mt 4:4).

It is by listening to the word of the Lord that we are able to live in dignity and justice. It is by observing the Law of God that we are able to bring forth fruits of life and happiness: "All who hold her fast will live, and those who forsake her will die" (Bar 4:1).[/quote]

To break a Commandment is not to commit heresy, to break a Commandment is to sin. He even goes on to put this into a category similar, but separate from apostasy.

John Paul II says:

[quote name='Evangelium Vitae #54']As time passed, the Church's Tradition has always consistently taught the absolute and unchanging value of the commandment "You shall not kill". It is a known fact that in the first centuries, murder was put among the three most serious sins-along with apostasy and adultery-and required a particularly heavy and lengthy public penance before the repentant murderer could be granted forgiveness and readmission to the ecclesial community.[/quote]

This implies that apostasy and murder are different types of sins which are similiar in penance. Notice that no where does John Paul II call these things heresy.

Speaking specifically of abortion, John Paul II says:

[quote name='Evangelium Vitae #62']The more recent Papal Magisterium has vigorously reaffirmed this common doctrine. Pius XI in particular, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, rejected the specious justifications of abortion.  Pius XII excluded all direct abortion, i.e., every act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb "whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end". John XXIII reaffirmed that human life is sacred because "from its very beginning it directly involves God's creative activity". The Second Vatican Council, as mentioned earlier, sternly condemned abortion: "From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes".

The Church's canonical discipline, from the earliest centuries, has inflicted penal sanctions on those guilty of abortion. This practice, with more or less severe penalties, has been confirmed in various periods of history. The 1917 Code of Canon Law punished abortion with excommunication. The revised canonical legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that "a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication". The excommu- nication affects all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached, and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed. By this reiterated sanction, the Church makes clear that abortion is a most serious and dangerous crime, thereby encouraging those who commit it to seek without delay the path of conversion. In the Church the purpose of the penalty of excommunication is to make an individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then to foster genuine conversion and repentance.

Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable.  Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church.[/quote]

Notice the language. The language does not speak of heresy, but rather the language speaks of sin. Notice that he speaks of excommunication, because of the act. I am being completely consistent with the Church's view.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jan 7 2006, 06:39 PM']You discredit me because I am not a priest.  I have the VERY same education as a priest.  Many of my college classmates have gone on to become priests.  I have the proper education and I have the proper knowledge to make the argument that I do.  Just because I am not ordained does not lessen me in the academic world, just your eyes.  That is a shame, because there are far more laymen like me.  And being part of the Work, my academic credentials are EXACTLY the same as priests of the prelature.  The formation is EXACTLY the same.  I will not discuss my credentials again it is not germaine to the conversation.

I use your real name because you put it out there.  If you want to use my real name that is fine, it is out there.  It is not rude to call you by your name.  Let's stay on topic, ok David?
[right][snapback]849144[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yet you still are not a priest, and no matter your education I do not believe you on this topic. A priest's words have more sway than yours, a priest is something more than just degrees and education. If your education as you say is "EXACTLY" the same as a priest's. Why is it you are not a priest and Father Corapi is? Answer a little thing called Holy Orders, something you do lack. Again it is not because you are not a priest that I do not believe, it is because you are wrong, plain and simple.

It would not have been rude to call me by my name, however you were [u]using[/u] my name in the third person [u]which is rude[/u], Sir. Your name is out there? How very rude of you to try and force me to find it. I will not go looking, you should have the repect and give it when I ask for yours and you use mine. And it was rude of you to still call me by my name when I kindly asked you not to if you could not give me yours. You never amnt you are wrong about anything, even the most little of things how sad.

A man that does not have the honor to give his name can not be trusted. All I asked was for at least a first name, and you know mine, Sir.

The Church does teach that support for abortion is heresy, teaching abortion is ok is heresy, having a opinion on abortion contrary to church teaching is heresy, dissenting or deviation from a reavealed truth (The Right to Life) by having or paying for or prefroming an abortion would be heresy. And yes it is also grave mortal sin. - I, David Earl Messick, believe that.

[Cam42]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='Jan 8 2006, 01:31 AM']Yet you still are not a priest, and no matter your education I do not believe you on this topic.  A priest's words have more sway than yours, a priest is something more than just degrees and education.  If your education as you say is "EXACTLY" the same as a priest's.  Why is it you are not a priest and Father Corapi is?  Answer a little thing called Holy Orders, something you do lack.  Again it is not because you are not a priest that I do not believe, it is because you are wrong, plain and simple.

It would not have been rude to call me by my name, however you were [u]using[/u] my name in the third person [u]which is rude[/u], Sir.  Your name is out there?  How very rude of you to try and force me to find it.  I will not go looking, you should have the repect and give it when I ask for yours and you use mine.  And it was rude of you to still call me by my name when I kindly asked you not to if you could not give me yours.  You never amnt you are wrong about anything, even the most little of things how sad. 

A man that does not have the honor to give his name can not be trusted.  All I asked was for at least a first name, and you know mine, Sir. 

The Church does teach that support for abortion is heresy, teaching abortion is ok is heresy, having a opinion on abortion contrary to church teaching is heresy, dissenting or deviation from a reavealed truth (The Right to Life) by having or paying for or prefroming an abortion would be heresy. And yes it is also grave mortal sin. - I, David Earl Messick, believe that.
[right][snapback]849319[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Why is it that I am not a priest? Because my vocation is not to Holy Orders. My vocation is to Opus Dei. Your view of the Sacrament of Holy Orders and your view of a vocation is askew if you think that it somehow more authoratative to become a priest. Your view is flawed and your logic is just as flawed on this manner.

I can only use your name in the third person. I am not you. When I speak of you, I can only speak of you in the third person, or the second person. It is impossible to speak of you in the first person. Ummm.....we all learned this in the 4th grade. It isn't rude to use your name. Again, you put your name out there David. I am not being rude by using it, I am simply stating your name. If you didn't want it known, you shouldn't have posted it. I (first person) am sorry that you (second person), David (third person), don't like it, but it is not rude of me (first person) to use your (second person) name.

I do not have to give you my name simply because you ask for it. While I don't have an issue with people knowing my name, I am not going to simply throw it out there. It has come up before on this site and that is fine, however, I am not one to simply throw it out there. You can't blame me because you want to put your name out there. Sorry...you want it, you go find it.

Nice ad hominem attack though. For all those on the board, what I have just responded to is a classic example of an ad hominem argument.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

This type of "argument" has the following form:


Cam42 makes the claim that abortion is not heresy.
David makes an attack on Cam42 (ie, he is not a priest therefore he cannot be believed.)
Therefore Cam42's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Thanks for letting me show just how an ad hominem works. This discredits your argument. This discredits your position. You cannot disprove my argument, so you start attacking my person. That is not fine. That is chicken. I have asked you for proof. You give me letters from men who are virtually unknown. Yet you claim them the authority that you deny me. Is Dan Lacey a priest? No. Is John Martignoni a priest? No.

However, you engage in another fallacy by using them as an authority. It is called an Appeal to an Authority. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:

1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.

Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.

Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.

2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.

It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.

It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics.

3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.

There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.

It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.


4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.

Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.

It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.


5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.

What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called "chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.

As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted.

A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master psychics" and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.

6. The authority in question must be identified.
A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.

This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim.

This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.

As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.

In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.

What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.

In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.

It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Dan Lacey is (claimed to be) an authority on abortion being heresy.
David makes the claim that abortion is heresy about any support of abortion.
Therefore, abortion is heresy is true.

No way. That is a fallacy and that further discredits your argument. The reason that I can claim appeal to authority and that it will stick is that I am just as qualified as Dan Lacey and John Martignoni. I may actually be more qualified as you have not given any credentials for them. Oh, I did my homework though. Lacey has a blog and he writes for Michnews.com. Hardly authoritative proof. Martignoni is an internet apologist. I could not find any academic credentials and I certainly didn't find a certificate of ordination for either of them. That is why the Appeal to Authority works.

How about showing some quantifiable proof. How about showing me where the Church teaches that abortion is heresy. You cannot, because she does not teach that. It is your opinion and it is an incorrect opinion. Sorry that you don't like it, but it is so. Abortion and formal support of it is a mortal sin, but it is not heresy. The reason, for about the 10th time now, those are actions, not beliefs.

[Cam42]

[url="http://www.englishdaily626.com/grammar.php?019"]Person.[/url]

I think that this is important. I was using proper grammar when referring to David in the third person. Properly speaking though, it is in relation to a pronoun and not a proper noun. Although using the pronoun model I can properly substitue David for he, when speaking in this manner:

"He (David) is wrong when applying the term heresy to abortion."

The use of "David" is as a substitute for the third person pronoun "he."

Now that we have had our 4th grade grammar lesson, I wonder if he will provide us the proof that is needed to prove my position wrong.

[qfnol31]

[quote]The Church does teach that support for abortion is heresy, teaching abortion is ok is heresy, having a opinion on abortion contrary to church teaching is heresy, dissenting or deviation from a reavealed truth (The Right to Life) by having or paying for or prefroming an abortion would be heresy. And yes it is also grave mortal sin. - I, David Earl Messick, believe that.[/quote]

Is there a difference between supporting the right to an act/the act itself, and actually performing the act?

[Cam42]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 8 2006, 01:37 PM']Is there a difference between supporting the right to an act/the act itself, and actually performing the act?
[right][snapback]849489[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Absolutely. It has been shown several times on this thread. I will leave it to you to find it for yourself.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 8 2006, 11:37 AM']Is there a difference between supporting the right to an act/the act itself, and actually performing the act?
[right][snapback]849489[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No supporting the sin in your heart is just as evil as actaully performing the act itself.

Matthew 5:27-30

[color=red]27
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
28
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
29
If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.
30
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your members than to have your whole body go into Gehenna.
[/color]
Please note the serious consequences of mental sin. To Christ they are the same. The act and the mental act. According to Jesus Christ, it is possible to end up in Hell aka "Gehenna" over this. Therefore, mental sin must not be taken lightly, as many people do.

Do you believe that Christ believes any differently about those whom support the murder of His children? I do not.

[qfnol31]

Did you know that it's not possible to do evil for its own sake?

You actually side-stepped the question, I think. Is the supporting an action the same as doing the action?

If you do an action, do you necessarily support it?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Jan 8 2006, 12:17 PM']Did you know that it's not possible to do evil for its own sake?

You actually side-stepped the question, I think.    Is the supporting an action the same as doing the action?

If you do an action, do you necessarily support it?
[right][snapback]849550[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

1. please explain what you mean by to do evil for evil's own sake.

2. Christ did not side step your question, nor did I.

3. YES!!! Just as having lust for a woman is just like adultery!

4. How much more can you support something when you do it!?!?!!? ANSWER - NONE. You support something to the full when you act it out.

[qfnol31]

Have you ever been in a very scary situation where a gun was put to your head unless you did something you don't believe in?

Oh, you cannot choose an evil just because you want to do evil.

[Cam42]

Hey David,

Are you going to give some substantive proof for your position or are you going to keep on with this apparently ignorant line of reasoning?

I have offered proof to support my position from your own posts as well as from Church documentation. At this point we can conclude that your view is outside the scope of Catholic teaching and is therefore in the realm of private and speculative opinion.

If you can offer support and proof to substantiate your position, we would love to see it, if not, you need to ammend your position to the accepted Catholic view.

In case [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]Evangelium Vitae[/url] wasn't enough, here are some further sources. I don't think that you'll find any condemnation as heresy in any of these either. [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html"]Veritatis Splendor[/url], [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html"]Ecclesia in America[/url], [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html"]Mulieris Dignitatem[/url], [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html"]Familiaris Consortio[/url], [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html"]Gaudium et Spes[/url], and [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html"]Dignitatis Humanae[/url]. These are the major moral documents of the last 30 years, plus the Vatican II Documents that support them. There are more documents that we can turn to, but I think that you'll see that all of these speak to the PROPER dignity of the human person.

Good Luck, the Church's position is clearly stated throughout these documents, various letters (one of which I posted) and theological works. Abortion is a MORTAL SIN against the dignity of the unborn human person. It is not a heresy.

Again, I ask you to please point to where any document from the Magisterium supports your claim. Thanks, David.