Gingrich on ABC: 'GET OVER IT' Mourdock’s Rape Comments Are What ‘Virtually Every Catholic’ Believes

[pnwmom]

52. You're the one misinterpreting that sentence.

But that's no surprise.

If you want to get back to the original discussion, that is whether God ever wills that humans do evil. For example, whether it would ever be God's will that a rape occurred, as Murdoch implied. And there is no question, in Catholic theology -- that He does not. Because human beings have free will, they are capable of acting against God's will; and specific acts of evil are not pre-ordained.

Since you mentioned your supposed Jesuit education, here is a link to an article in AmericanCatholic, the Jesuit magazine, which should be able to clear up your misunderstandings about the rarity of infallible teachings in Catholic dogma.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0388.asp

Infallibility guarantees the truth of the meaning of a statement, not the particular formulation of the meaning. Every formulation is limited to particular words, concepts, theological viewpoints. As times and cultures change, these particulars may need different formulations to express the central meaning. Given these severely limiting conditions for an infallible pronouncement, such pronouncements are very rare. Indeed, since Vatican I, there has been only one: the definition of Mary's Assumption (1950).

What, then, is to be said about other official statements, such as the documents of Vatican II and the papal encyclicals? Not too creatively, these documents are called noninfallible but authoritative teachings. They are not infallible declarations, yet they carry the weight of the magisterium. A proper understanding of noninfallible, authoritative teachings is absolutely essential for clarifying the confusion surrounding infallibility.

Noninfallible teachings

Noninfallible, authoritative teachings of the Church are presumed to be true. This presumption is based on the faith conviction that the Spirit is present in the magisterium, guiding it so that its teaching will be accurate. When an official teaching is given, the theoretically expected response of the Roman Catholic is: This is a true teaching.

Still, noninfallible teachings do not require blind acceptance. For you or me to respond properly to such a teaching with religious submission of will and of mind, certainly study, discussion, reflection and prayer are presupposed on our part. Such a response takes seriously the distinction between infallible and noninfallible teachings. Such a response also steers between two extremes: 1) an absolute, blind submission to authority (this approach seems to say that the reasons for the teaching really do not matter), or 2) the rejection of any unique teaching prerogative on the part of the magisterium (this approach judges the argument to be only as good as the reasons given). The proper response, then, finds the delicate blend both of individual reflection and of acceptance of the authoritative role of the magisterium.

SNIP