But I remember God telling Peter, “Upon this Church, the gates of hell shall not prevail.”

We must remember the fight will be long and difficult, but in the end we know exactly who will be called to be with Him.

They are both very good articles, and though I think we still disagree, my cursory reading of them suggests that what you have written is accurate, if not necessarily comprehensive.

You should be commended for your vigorous defense of the faith in those articles, and indeed I thank you.

I will not, however, debate this. It is obvious that we are at an impasse and that we both must move from our current positions before we may move forward.

Please continue to pray for me, as I will for you.

You’re still erring about the definition of ‘torture’. That’s too bad. And it’s not even a Catholic thing.

It’s unfortunate that you believe that I claim to be more Catholic than the pope. Are you assuming again?

I’m also glad you admit what exactly what the Church is. I’ve got two columns about the Crusades and the Inquisition that give the true facts. Whether you want to believe truth or not is your call. Just give me your e-mail and I’ll be glad to send them to you.

I’ve already prayed for your soul, as I have mine. I hope the Holy Spirit does not wait until after your mortal life to see the truth.

I hope God blesses you despite your faults. He’s blessed me already.

Convincing someone to follow the path of righteaousness was not the point you seemed to be making. Also, Joan of Arc was not stated by the actual Church to be burned at the stake. I don’t see how she could be named by the Church as an honored saint if that was the case.

I’m also glad you admit the error commited by Amazon. TAN Books seemed to get closest to the truth whn they called the book ‘a true history book’. But I guess you still haven’t read it yet.

I suppose all of this would be easier if there were an explicit statement about waterboarding by the pope, which I acknowledge that there does not seem to be.

I joined this discussion out of concern that a fellow Catholic might be making use of God’s name to advocate the torture of persons, which is blasphemy. I believed that the Holy Spirit might be able to work through me to turn you from this belief and back to the path of righteousness.

My intent is not to make you face truths about Christ that may be incompatible with your convictions if that would push you from Christ, but rather as it says in Hebrews, to ensure “that none of you may have an evil and unfaithful heart, so as to forsake the living God. Encourage yourselves daily while it is still `today,’ so that none of you may grow hardened by the deceit of sin.”

I could have very easily ignored your opinion or dismissed it as I told a third party about a faceless person on the internet, but doing so would be even more hateful, since so doing I would be declaring that I do not care if you get your eternal reward.

We share a common background, and I hoped that that would help me to convince you.

It is clear that you are very certain of your position, and that continuing to debate this may simply encourage you to look on me with disfavor rather than to examine your position, which will cause more harm than good.

I will make one final plea here that you take time to reevaluate your position. From some of your responses, I get the sense that you value certainty and consistency. In some of your arguments (which I apologize for turning this into rather than a cooperative discussion), about infallibility and past excesses by the clergy, it sounds like you are trying to be more Catholic than the Pope, who claims only the infallibility in doctrine that he has and has acknowledged the sins committed by clergy in the name of the Church (the Church herself, we must be careful to say, did not commit these sins and is herself indefectible).

I will probably leave off here. At any rate, I will adjourn my half of the debate. From here, I may (but probably will not) continue a more constructive discussion, but it will be a dialogue of encouragement, not of rebuke. Some years later, we may take up the issue again, but for now, I simply leave you and wish you well on your journey.

I ask that you would pray for me, and I will keep you in my prayers. May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you.

I did not mean to imply that we are definitely joined by people who may be enemies of the Church, but rather that we may be joined by people who are definitely enemies of the Church.

I regret the error, and if I have caused offense, I crave pardon.

I would note that the specific infallibility you refer to is “when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church” (or so says the first Vatican Council, which I agree with).

If the pope said that the best pizza comes from Sicily, that’s not infallible because it’s not concerning faith or morals. If the Pope says that Rome should have a 9AM mass, that’s not infallible because it applies only to Rome. If he says that he personally thinks that people should wear red to Pentecost mass, that’s not infallible because it’s not stated ex cathedra.

There is also the general infallibility of the Magisterium of the Church as a whole, but that also is expressed through definitions of doctrine.

Specific actions are not necessarily infallible. On this matter, the church declared during a day for pardon during the 2000 Jubilee “even men of the Church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel in the solemn duty of defending the truth.” This was labeled Confession of Sins Committed in the Service of Truth, and was spoken by the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Inquisition), Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI). If he (under a liturgy approved by John Paul II) states that he believes that men of the Church have gone against the Gospel, it would seem a reasonable thing to believe. I also think that there must have been something wrong with the Inquisition at some point if it endorsed the execution of Saint Joan of Arc.

I will, however, not cause scandal to the Church by naming more infamous crimes while those who may be enemies of the Church are reading, and I will state that I believe that the Roman Inquisition was by and large a good thing, even during the periods which are cited as being the height of abuse.

As to conversion, the goal of Jesus during His time on Earth was to give us salvation and bring about the conversion of the heart in each of us. Convincing someone to follow the path of righteousness after using tactics like waterboarding would have been very difficult. That was my point.

You state that Lord of History is not a high school text. I do apologize and crave pardon for the error. I was confused by the reviews at Amazon.com, which refer to it as a high-school level homeschooling text.

Likewise, its publisher, TAN books sells a companion workbook that is “For home schooling, private study, Catholic or private schools, parochial schools, or anywhere a true history book is desired.”

I followed your Cardinal Martino link. It is a news article so it carries less weight than the Catechism. Find me a good encyclical to support your claim, and I’ll be happy to reconsider overnight.