Christopher Reeve, RIP

Christopher Reeve, RIP

  • ASOLUTELY!!! Couldnt agree with you more Dom. I am sick and tired of the lies that are coming out of the Kerry camp et al. Adult stem cells from umbilical cords are demonst. safety and efficacy. Why destroy nascent human beings when it is intrinsically evil and when ESC has been shown to be dangerous(back in the 1980’s) causing tumors in rats!

  • Sadly, you KNOW that Reeve’s death is going to be a huge boost for Kerry and his ilk.  It won’t be long (you heard it here first) that someone will attempt to lay part (if not all) of the blame for Reeve’s demise on President Bush for his alleged ban on stem cell research.

    I realized that there was no ultimate depth to which the Kerry camp’s absurdity wouldn’t sink when I heard President Bush blamed (yes, blamed!) for the British company’s failure to make enough flu shots in time.

    And the saddest part of all is that so many morons believe this pap!

  • There is a Kerry Ad which has him saying the whole AIDS campaign. Because some notable Hollywood types got the disease as a result of their homosexual activity, then we all should be appalled that more is not being done. I feel more sympathy for the innocent victims of AIDS t_author_url>
    2004-10-11 21:11:18
    2004-10-12 01:11:18
    I write this as a cancer patient/ survivor(?) of nearly 10 years:  B-cell, cleaved, small nodule non-Hodgkins lymphoma that has morphed into difused cell non-Hodgkins lymphoma. The change is not atypical. To date I have yet to see or hear of clinical trials – and I’m a big fan of them – that suggest that any ESC holds any promise of even the remotest form of cure.  To suggest that ESC holds the answers is a flat out LIE!! ESC could no more relieve nor cure Christopher Reeves’ paralysis than Doans’ pills can relieve or cure kidney failure. It ain’t gonna happen. If ESC was the be all/end all remedy, the drug/research companies around the world would be galloping into the patent offices across the globe securing the rights to these research methods and remedies. Again, it ain’t happening. The richest stem cells in the world, known to man and science, are daily dumped into the drain in the form of cord blood.

    Cord blood is the very best source of stem cell research; the best source! It’s free and without harm. All other sources are little more than secular speculations governed by a group of scientists(?) that have a peculiar bent on playing God in a lab, or they crave notoriety. As to whether “illnesses are the nature of the fallen human condition following the Fall of our First Parents” well, they didin’t drink the water, eat the food we eat, nor breathe the air we breathe today. Given the way we’ve crapped up our environment – which cannot ever be turned back – I have an opinion contrary to yours not fit for this forum. We just live with what we have and we get on with it: known as life it’s own-self.

  • Al Gore???? The inventor of the internet, the plot source of Love Story? Surely you cannot mean the man who didn’t carry HIS OWN COUNTY in ‘00? “

    “Paging Drs. H. Clinton and J. Reno: please report to Concourse 3, Gate 2 for a cavity search of a failed Presidential Candidate…”

  • Dom, it’s one thing to oppose embrionic stem-cell research. Your comment about “killing unborn babies so that Hollywood stars can be cured,” however, really crosses the line into cruelty.

    This church loves to talk about being “pro-life.” Yet it would throw people with Alzheimer’s and various other neurological diseases under the bus, rather than emphatically encourage research using stem cells from umbilical cords (cf, KMac) or from adults.

    This Church would also throw victims of rape and incest under the bus rather than allow them to take a “day after” pill, all in the name of being “pro-life”. And if any of you think rape and incest are morally equivalent to consentual intercourse, and that taking a “day after” pill undersuch circumstances is equivalent to a woman getting an abortion so she can have money to travel to Europe, then you are moral idiots.

    This Church would rather complain about “pro-choice” politicians than actively support (or encourage others to support) places like Mary’s Shelter in Orange County, Calif., where unmarried, pregnant young women can have their babies in a safe environment. get high school credits and take time to make decisions about their and their babies’ lives.

    Tell me, fellow Catholics, when was the last time your priest or bishop mentioned such facilities, hmmm?

    Then again, those unmarried, pregnant young women don’t serve the agenda of gaining political influence through “pro-life” rhetoric, do they?

    I wonder if JPII thought about such women when he offered the Eucharist to a center-left “pro-choice” Italian politician three years ago?

    I do not support abortion on demand nor creating embryos just to “harvest” them. I’d sooner vote for a chipmunk than John Kerry. But I’m sick and tired of Catholics (and our hypocritical leadership) misusing “pro-life” rhetoric to justify political ambition while refusing to advocate legitimate alternatives strenuously.

    God help this whitewashed sepulchre of a Church!

  • “This Church would also throw victims of rape and incest under the bus rather than allow them to take a )have worth 2)aren’t equal in God’s eyes to a full-grown human. The Catholic notion of “limbo” also supports this premise.

    In another area of the Mosaic Law, if a man suspects a woman of adultery, he must take her to the high priest. The high priest then formulates a concoction that the woman must drink. If she has a miscarriage as a result, she is guilty.

    Dom, that concoction is a de facto abortifacent!

    Now, why would God allow the unborn to die through miscarriage? After all, it wasn’t the fault of the unborn child that the mother committed adultery, was it? Perhaps it was to impress upon the Israelites the seriousness of adultery as sin and the consequences upon the innocent.

    Certainly, Christ fulfilled the Law as it dealt with atonement and redemption. Nevertheless, the Law offers a guide for moral behavior that comes from God Himself.

    None of this is to justify the narcissistic expediency of the “pro-choice” position. The point in my first post, Dom, is to show that Church doctrine concerning abortion in cases of rape and incest ignores the legitimate emotional suffering of the victim.

    Dom, suppose your 12- or 14- or 16-year-old daughter were raped. What would you do?

  • Oh I see the rightness or wrongness of abortion is based on something other than its rightness or wrongness…that makes sense. And I had a spinal injury 25 years ago this month…and I don’t support the Superman position…

  • I have a friend who just wrote about embryonic stem cell research, but it’s in a protected journal entry.

    She was taking on the proposition: “=You= wouldn’t oppose it, if it were someone in =your= family who needed it…”

    Well, her father died due to Type I diabetes when he was in his early 40s.  My aunt did, as well.  And we both have Type I & II diabetes widespread in our families, and are at risk for getting it ourselves (you =can= get Type I as an adult.  That happened to my uncle.)  That does not mean we say “What the hell—clone and destroy those embryos!  Just as long as =I= get well!” 

    I liked South Park’s take on this.  People don’t realize that there are plenty of people out there, even supposed beneficiaries of various new medical technologies, who don’t believe in expediency in getting well.  To be less offensive than South Park, how many people think it’s okay to harvest organs from death row criminals?  China does it.  Indeed, in Larry Niven’s future universe, the state makes this type of organ harvesting a standard sentence for all sorts of crimes, not just murder, as more people need replacement hearts and livers and will use the force of law to get what they want (and then there’s the organleggers, who run human chop shops outside of the state … but the people in this society find this beyond the pale, as the criminals clearly deserve death for theft or whatnot and society benefits, while the organleggers target innocent people…)

    Anyway, food for thought.

  • Why is the baby worthy of life when the mother had consensual intercourse, but not worthy of life if she’s been raped? What makes you different from any pro-abortionist?

    The question is not the disposition of the mother. The question is whether the unborn child is a human being or not. If he is a human being then he has a right to life. If not, then it doesn’t matter and you should have an abortion whenever you want.

    The moral idiot is the one who descends into subjectivity and proportionalism.

    As for bishops assisting the unborn as well as women in crisis pregnancy, while many don’t do a great job, you can’t whitewash them all. There are plenty of examples of bishops being very active in helping women in crisis pregnancies.

  • Paul said, “Where sin abounds, grace abounds all the more.”  It is true that, in dealing with the sin of abortion there is a tremendous opportunity for a grace-ful response:  in reconciling post-abortion women and men, in providing shelter and succour for “crisis” pregnancies, in fostering alternatives to abortion, etc.  And, apropos of today’s readings, one does witness to God by active caritas.

    However, Joseph, the failure of one or more people to embrace the opportunity for Christian caritas (the grace that abounds) in no way obviates the reality of the sin that is so abundant in abortion.  The idea that Christians (and, to your thinking, especially bishops) can only label “sin” when they are actively involved in charitable action that might prevent it—that idea is fatuous at best.  Tell me, do you feel hypocritical in labelling bank robbery as a sin?  You must, since you are doing nothing at all to provide options for bank robbers!

  • My blog has a link and comment on the myth of there being hundreds of thousands of available embryos.

    I also comment in my blog on Detective Steven McDonald another quadrapelegic faithful to Church teaching on the sanctity of life

  • When you think about these well-known and very wealthy actors with very debilitating injuries or diseases, ask yourself this question: Why are they stumping for taxpayers money to cure them?

    Oh, sure, they’ll tell you that they want to help all spinal cord injuries or Parkinson’s suffering person, and I don>If a pilot wanted to crash the plane, he doesn’t need a weapon. He can just push forward on the yoke and pull the throttle back to zero thrust and the plane will crash.

    This is as dumb as searching grandmothers, toddlers, and Al Gore.


    2004-10-11 13:52:33
    2004-10-11 17:52:33

    2004-10-11 17:07:09
    2004-10-11 21:07:09
    Take that back, Dom!  No grandmothers and toddlers want to be lumped into the same category as Al Gore!

  • Fr. Clark, I complain about the Catholic reaction to abortion because I believe that reaction sacrifices the practical for the political. Here’s what I mean:

    The only way Roe v. Wade can be overturned would be through a Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court ruling. Given the current political climate, neither seems likely.

    How many unborn children must die while some “pro-life” activists fritter their energies away on political “solutions” that aren’t likely to be enacted? How many unborn children must die while bishops preen and posture to discourage people from voting for Kerry? How many unborn children must die while other bishops try to play both ends against the middle, politically speaking?

    And how can the American bishops have any credibility on this issue when the Pope who appointed them offers the Eucharist to a center-left, “pro-choice” Italian politician?

    Fr. Clark, I’ve come to believe that, in general, “pro-life” Catholics are more interested in attaining political power to propagate their agenda than in saving unborn children.

    To me, the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” movements (as opposed to “pro-life” individuals) would sacrifice both women and the unborn on the altar of political ambition.

  • Well Joe, on the one hand, there is plenty of Scriptural support: John the Baptist leaping in Elizabeth’s womb; the Lord telling Jeremiah that He knit him in his mother’s womb; “I knew you before you were born” and so on.

    But the nice thing is that as Catholics we believe that the Bible alone is not our source of Revelation, but both Scripture and Tradition. Tradition is the teaching of the Apostles handed down through the line of the bishops. And the teaching against abortion was held from the very beginning—as in the first-century document called the Didache—all the way to today.

    So Joe, I hate to tell you, but if you’re saying that abortion is okay, you’re speaking heresy.

    “Why would God allow a child to die through miscarriage?” God allows children to die through miscarriage everyday.

    It is not the “Church’s doctrine.” It is the will of God as expressed through the teaching of the Church as guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. You may as well ask why God’s will “ignores the legitimate emotional suffering.” Plus I certainly can’t understand why emotional suffering of any kind should trump the right to life of an innocent unborn child.

    If I had a teenage daughter who was raped, I certainly wouldn’t take it out on my innocent grandchild. If I had a wife who was raped and made pregnant, I wouldn’t take it out on my stepchild.

    By your argumentation from emotion, not logic, I’d be justified in going to the rapist’s home and killing his children. The reality is that they’re all innocent bystanders who committed no crime of their own. Why should the sins of the father be visited upon their children? That is not a Christian belief.

    By the way, try to put all your responses in one comment. Multiple responses means everyone gets a notifying email every time. I want to reduce the amount of email people get from me so as not to annoy.

    I reserve the right to abritrarily delete multiple comments.

  • Hey Dom,

    While I most certainly agree with your politics, I am not so sure that I like the idea of “dancing on the casket” of Christopher Reeve.

    Yes, he was participating in an evil action.  Yes, he was a Democrat.  Yes, some of his liberal views were contrary to what Catholics believe in.  Yes, he starred in a movie that was a slap in the face of Catholics everywhere (The Monsignor).

    But, he died a horrible death.  He lived a life that while politically inept, and morally shallow, but he was courageous in his fight to keep his dignity.  His ideals were wrong, but the motives behind them were not only for himself but for all those who are afflicted.  For that we can applaud him.

    I think that while he lived a life that was hard, I can respect him as a person.  I can respect him as an afflicted person in search of what would best personify dignity based upon his condition.

    Another thing that we should take into account is that he wasn’t Catholic.  He was raised Presbyterian.  While in our minds that is not an excuse, it is nevertheless a fact.

    It may be said that he suffered from invincible ignorance.  While it would have been imperative that he educate himself, it may not have been imputed to him.  While no one can be deemed ignorant of the moral law, the prompting of feelings and emotions can lessen the character of the offense.  I think that Christopher Reeve may have fallen into that category.


  • Who’s dancing on his casket? I’m criticizing the mindset, most visible especially with Kerry and Edwards, that gives priority to a disease because a famous person has it and that even would be willing to sacrifice the lives of children to find cures for them.

    I won’t applaud someone for whom the end justified the means. Was he courageous for fighting for his life after his injury? Sure, but that doesn’t exempt from criticism for a disgusting mindset that would see children killed in order to harvest organs that may abeth’s womb. Do you not think JTB had divine protection (from miscarriage, for example) because he would play a vital role in heralding Christ’s appearance as the “Lamb of God”?

    As far as Jeremiah is concerned, would not the same protection apply? Moreover, God said what he did to give Jeremiah courage and confidence, to let him know that he want meant to be a prophet.

    These are special-case scenarios designed by God to fulfill preordained purposes (which God is well within His rights to do).

    Yes, God knits humans in the womb. God creates all living things. But the same God who does these things is the the same God who inspired the Mosaic injunctions to which I referred in my last post.

    I’m not arguing from emotion. I’m arguing from the fact that, as a husband and a father, I would have a moral obligation to commit myself to my family’s welfare more than anything else—more even that the esoteric theology concerning abortion that the Church promotes. If that makes me a “heretic” in your eyes, so be it.

    Dennis Prager, a well-known conservative social commentator and a Jew who reveres Christianity, believes that, sometimes, religion can make people cruel. I believe forcing a woman who has been raped or victimized by incest to have a child illustrates that cruelty.

  • It is not a non-answer, it is an answer. If I had a daughter I would raise in the same beliefs I cherish. And since I would be her father and she would not be an adult yet, I would decide in her best interests and in her child’s that murdering her child would not happen. Do you need me to spell it out for you or to send you a telegram?

    You make it sound like the girl would be strapped to a table to give birth. No, but I would explain to her that the child she was carrying is as innocent a victim as herself. I would hope my daughter would be intelligent enough to grasp the point.

    You’re just being offensive in contrasting hate for abortion and love for families. The two are not opposed. On the contrary, since that baby would be part of my family, it would be love I was showing to it.

    You too easily capitulate to emotion and anger, as evident in everything you write. “I’m angry because my daughter was raped. She’s angry too. Kill the baby!” “I’m angry because the bishops let kids be raped. Kill the bishops!” “I’m angry because some Muslim terrorists killed Americans. Nuke Mecca and all their women and children!” I think you need to deal with some anger issues in addition to your cafeteria Catholicism.

    It is not religion that says a woman cannot abort a child, but God. Are you going to accuse him of cruelty now?

  • Dom, if your teenage daughter wishes to have a baby conceived through rape (as long as she is not coerced into doing so), that would be a valid, even commendable, decision given the circumstances.

    However, other decisions are equally valid and commendable under the exact same circumstances. If you believe that God said a woman cannot abort a child if she has been victimized by rape or incest, I suggest you talk to devout Jews (who oppose abortion on demand, btw) who believe otherwise.

    Throughout this whole exchange, you have yet to answer the following challenge: “(T)he same God who (knits babies in the womb) is the the same God who inspired the Mosaic injunctions (regarding varied punishments for the perpetrator of assault against a pregnant woman and a chemically-induced miscarriage to determine guilt or innocence in adultery) to which I referred in my last post.”

    Your quarrel isn’t with me, Dom. It’s with God. Scripture and Tradition might hold equal weight in terms of inspiration but without Scripture, Tradition would be irrelevant since most of Scripture was written either before the Church (OT) or as the Church was taking shape (NT). 

    I do not accuse God of cruelty. I accuse misguided religionists who try to force suffering people into their esoteric notions of reality of cruelty. And that includes liberals as well as conservatives.

  • btw, Dom, when you are willing to criticize the Pope for giving the Eucharist to a center-left, “pro-choice” Italian politician, then I’ll take your comments about “cafeteria Catholicism” seriously. Until then….

  • Okay, I criticize the pope for giving Communion to a pro-abortion politician, if indeed it happened. Can you give me proof that it did, as well as the complete context? Even if he did, that doesn’t detract from his office.

    As for whether a Jew would agree with you or not, I could not care less. You see, I’m not Jewish and therefore I don’t hold their beliefs on abortion to be the will of God.

    As for responding to your assertion on Mosaic injunctions, I reply to it when you give me the biblical citation and I can look it up in its context. On its face, it doesn’t suggest to me what you think it does.

    And no my quarrel is not with God. God does not contradict himself and thus if both the New Testament and the Old Testament (including the verses I cited) as well as 2,000 years of unchanging apostolic teaching (Tradition) agree that abortion is wrong, then that is what God wills.

    Your position is that of setting yourself up as the arbiter of what God wills, of being the interpreter of Scripture and Tradition. How arrogant. Fortunately, as Catholics we believe that role has been given to the apostles and their successors, not anyone who chooses to seize it.

  • Joseph
    Your quarrel isn’t with Dom, it’s with God.  And His Church.

    For the love of all that’s holy, please read in your Catechsim # 2270-2275
    If you choose not to, let me give you the briefs:
    2270…“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…(see Jer 1:5, Job 10: 8-12, Ps 22:10-11)

    2271…“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable…

    2272…“A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication”…she (the Church) makes clear the gravity of this crime.

    2273 …The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of civil society …“These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents…they belong to humannature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.  Among such fundatmental rights one should mention in this regard every human beings’ right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death” (taken from Donum vitae III)

    2274 Prenatal diagnosis…is gravely oppossed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion…a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentance.

    2275 well, all of it, just read it.

    Please also consider the research done that is hidden, but true, that women can acutally suffer more-or again-from an abortion after a rape.  Inherently she knows it is life, and life being taken from her. On the flip side, adoption is not harmful of either the mother or the baby.  (emotionally difficult to be sure, but not a desctruction of life.)

    And I would carry the child if I were raped.  I may or may not give it up for adoption.  My family would assist me, my church would assist me, and if that were to fail, several wonderful ministries exist to help.

    You’re opinion is a no-go.

  • You said it Jen.

    Joe said;

    “Your quarrel isndiscarded or flushed down the toilet, these tiny individuals should have the dignity, given to every human being.

    It is a reflection of todaymt>
    Ok Joe….

    We have gone over this all before on this blogsite, but I will do it one more time…(sorry I have to open this wound Dom).

    This thread ended the first time on Jul 08, 2004.

    Here is the deal….We were to be obedient to the particular local bishop until there was clarification from the Holy See y. To summarize, he is to bring his wife to the high priest, who makes a bitter concoction for her to drink. If she has committed adultery, she will become infertile. Now, if she is in the early stages of carrying an infant as a result of her adultery, what do you think happens to the infant?

  • Well, in the first case, the problem is that since the unborn child is so small, it is understandable that they would not think of the child’s existence until the woman started to show. And in the second, I think miscarriage, if she’s pregnant, is an unintended side-effect.

    But really this is all pointless unless you’re a Jew and only hold the Old Testament to be Scripture. After all, the Mosaic Law allows a man to divorce his wife, but Jesus specifically abrogates it. So is Jesus wrong? Like others have said, the provisions of the Law in the Old Testament have lost their force in the New Testament. And many of those provisions were, as Jesus says, given by Moses to accommodate the weakness of the people. In other words, they were Mosaic Law, not necessarily God’s Law, unchanging and forever.

  • Dom, I think there’s a major difference between divorce and the situations I mention. Divorce does not involve the death (or potential death) of the parties involved; the situations I mention do. That in itself creates a different moral imperative. Furthermore, the only sections of the Law that Jesus specifically abrogates are those dealing with divorce, diet (through a vision to St. Peter) and circumsision (through St. Paul’s ministry). Even though Jesus’ death and resurrection fulfills the sections of the Law dealing with atonement and redemption (which obviously take up considerable space), they do not abrogate those injunctions concerning moral behavior toward others.

    Now, I’m not saying that all civil and criminal law should imitate the Mosaic Law to the letter. I’m not saying that Jesus’ redemptive act lacks anything. I’m not even saying that we should imitate the Mosaic Law’s procedure for determining adultery.

    However, I am saying that the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law reflect God’s mind concerning how people are to deal with each other. As such, the Mosaic Law offers a challenge to the Catholic assertion that an unborn child and a full-grown human being are equivalent in God’s eyes (and, no, that doesn’t mean that God supports abortion on demand). Dom, how have Church figures subsequent to the NT dealt with the particular passages I mention? That’s not asked in arrogance but in an honest search for understanding.

  • Sorry, but you are once again going with sola scriptura. Just because something is not written explicitly in the Bible does not mean that it isn’t long held. Once again, the Didache, a creed of the apostles from the 1st century, specifically bans abortion.

    The explication of God’s will does not end with the Mosaic Law, just like it doesn’t end with his orders to the Israelites to wipe out other tribes to the last man. The law was given as a teacher, as St. Paul says in Galatians 3.

    In 3:10 it says that, “For all who depend on works of the law are under a curse” but in 3:13, “Christ ransomed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.”

    Then in 3:23-25 it adds: “Before faith came, we were held in custody under law, confined for the faith that was to be revealed. Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a disciplinarian.”

    That’s the key point. The Law was instituted to mold, to discipline, to form through hardship because we were under the curse of our own sin. But now that Christ has come the restrictions of the law are not operative.

    The Law was not a reflection of the God’s Will as he desired it, but was an accommodation to Israel’s propensity to break covenants. Thus there were things contained in the Law which were not meant to be, but for human failure. But now with Christ, those aspects of the Law are no longer in force because we have a perfect High Priest, representing who has formed a covenant that cannot be broken.

    This is why specific provisions of the Law such as those dealing with adultery were not operative after the Resurrection and why they do not reflect God’s will.

    Besides, if it were the Law and reflected God’s Will, then it would be no different than a miscarriage. The difference is that it would be God’s law and not an individual’s choice.

  • Dom, I asked you for any Church figures who have dealt with, analyzed, commented upon, whatever, two specific passages in the OT. Perhaps you cannot find such people or don’t know of any offhand. That’s understandable; this isn’t exactly a subject that comes up in theological conversation. But I seriously doubt in the 2000 years since Christ walked the Earth that nobody has commented upon those or any other specific passages pertaining to the moral demands of the Mosaic Law (and I’m not talking about St. Paul here; he basically said that the Law cannot save).

    I’m not talking about atonement, redemption or salvation. I’m talking about the equation of an embryo or a fetus with a full-grown human being.

    This whole sola scriptura business is nothing but a red herring. It’s the typical answer given by all-too-many Catholics in the face of legitimate questions and challenges based on Scripture. Given the way many Catholics seem to quote the CCC, you’d think it was Scripture. It’s like using the Mishnah as inspired Scripture instead of the Torah.

    You say the Didache bans abortion. So how did the writers deal with the passages in question? Or did they? That’s a legitimate question that can’t be answered by talking about sola scriptura.

  • Joe,

    “You say the Didache bans abortion. So how did the writers deal with the passages in question?”

    The Didache with commentary.

    Good reading….

    How can Dom’s assertion about sola scriptura be a red herring?  A red herring is precisely that which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.

    That isn’t Dom’s tactic…..hint, hint….

    Asserting that you are using Scripture within the framework of sola scriptura is a very relevant criticism….your calling it a red herring is a red herring….go figure.


  • Joe,

    I’ve said what I have to say on this. The Church’s teaching is very clear on abortion, and I’m not going to go around and around with you on it.

    I have told you what the Church teaches about the Mosaic Law in its place in Divine Revelation. I don’t have saints or Doctors of the Church or popes to cite at my fingertips. I don’t have a library of theological books. I am not a theologian despite my theological degree. I think the onus is on you if you want to dispute the Church’s teaching, not on me to defend it.

    And i like the way you just dismiss St. Paul. He is not just saying that the Law cannot save; he is saying what I just told you he is saying. But you don’t want to hear that so you dismiss the parts of my argument you don’t like and come back with more.

    And no, the CCC is not Scripture but it is part of Tradition, or is at least an expression of the Divine Revelation in the teaching Tradition. And no, sola scriptura is not a red herring as Cam points out.

    This is going nowhere. If anybody else wants to argue with you on this, they’re welcome to, but I’ve said what I have to say.