The Pope opened his mouth...

[wild_quinine]

It is true that, in faith, you cannot choose to believe some things and disregard others for your own convenience. But you should also be aware that men have done this for generations before you, and your case stands on their work, either way. No gospel is gospel in the hands of your fellow man.

In this thread, MG, you have argued tirelessly for what you believe. But I think that what you believe has been placed on a pedestal so high you can no longer see it. This has been done by men, not by God.

Therefore, you should never be afraid to take your beliefs back to base principles. Christ did it after all - see Mark 12, 28-31 - and it seems hard to believe that such accessibility was not an integral part of this plan.

Working forwards from this central tenet, I think we would find it hard to reach many of your conclusions. More importantly, I think we would find many of them irrelevant.

Working backwards from current doctrine might give a different result. But to place your faith the the infallibility of current doctrine is to place your faith in man. You are working backwards from a pillar of corruption.

[macgamer]

Thanks for your comment wild_quinine and its honesty.

I would say that love of God and love of one's neighbour is reflected in all of the Church's doctrines. Even when some seem harsh, unrealistic or condemn whole groups of people, it is the sin which the doctrines condemn and are harsh towards, not the sinner. The Church through the sacrament of confession expresses God the Father's love, exemplified in the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). However even Jesus himself was harsh against sin in the case of the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11) at the end he said 'Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.'

So this, which will hopefully be my final post on this thread, is meant as a way of a postscript to the doctrines of the Church which I have attempted to defend. They do ask a lot of the faithful and they can seem harsh, however the Church has a duty to preach the truth but it does so with compassion and always extending the mercy of God through the sacraments.

I came across this piece written by Solzhenitsyn, which seems relevant to what was discussed on this thread:

I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralysing man's noblest impulses.

He Continues....

In today's Western society, the inequality has been revealed between the freedom for good deeds and the freedom for evil deeds... It is time in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations. Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defence against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organised legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

[RedCelt69]

the Church has a duty to preach the truth

(there wasn't a smiley face available to express a broader grin than this one)

[jollytiddlywink]

I would say that love of God and love of one's neighbour is reflected in all of the Church's doctrines.

The distortions of a fun-fare mirror, perhaps?

I came across this piece written by Solzhenitsyn, which seems relevant to what was discussed on this thread:

I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either...

In today's Western society, the inequality has been revealed between the freedom for good deeds and the freedom for evil deeds... It is time in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations. Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defence against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organised legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

It isn't relevant, unless you are going to classify homosexuality alongside "moral violence against young people, pornography, crime and horror".
And please don't attempt to reframe the debate as your efforts to resist a society with "no other scale but the legal one". That isn't what this thread is about, and it isn't relevant, either.

Its interesting that you chose to try and reframe the entire discussion, rather than try to continue to argue your corner in the face of questions which it seems you are either unwilling or unable to honestly face and answer.

[macgamer]

N.B. I did not notice your post prior to posting my previous comments.

No, the secondary uses are still perfectly valid provided that some (not all) of the individuals alive at any given time pass on their genes, and indeed the secondary uses can, and obviously do, provide survival benefits to the genetics of the species as a whole. The non-procreational uses of sex in this case includes homosexuality.

'Obligate homosexuals' are unable to pass on their genes not because they necessarily chose not to, but because their sexuality is incompatible with procreation. In this sense homosexuality is a malfunction of the sexual faculties when considering their primary purpose.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot resort to biology as evidence to support your arguments and then reject it when it supports my arguments. It is especially egregious for you to argue your case from a biology=morality standpoint and then deny my biologically-based points on the basis that they do not conform to your moral codes. This is intellectually bankrupt, and so is the case you attempt to build on such shoddy foundations. This includes the excerpt you quote from Aquinas:

The supposed 'end intended by nature' is, as I have demonstrated, frequently violated by nature itself, every time an orang-utan masturbates, every time that dolphins have oral sex, and every time that numerous animal species (including humans) engage in homosexual sex. As logical support for bigotry, this passage is useless. It falls and breaks a leg or four at the first hurdle.

You are confusing animals which do not possess abilities of reason and humans who do. Here is some more Aquinas:

Now in order for a thing to be done for an end, some knowledge of the end is necessary. Therefore, whatever so acts or is moved by an intrinsic principle, that it has some knowledge of the end, has within itself the principle of its act, so that it not only acts, but acts for an end. On the other hand, if a thing has no knowledge of the end, even though it have an intrinsic principle of action or movement, nevertheless the principle of acting or being moved for an end is not in that thing, but in something else, by which the principle of its action towards an end is not in that thing, but in something else, by which the principle of its action towards an end is imprinted on it. Wherefore such like things are not said to move themselves, but to be moved by others.

[b]Whether there is anything voluntary in irrational animals?

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), it is essential to the voluntary act that its principle be within the agent, together with some knowledge of the end. Now knowledge of the end is twofold; perfect and imperfect. Perfect knowledge of the end consists in not only apprehending the thing which is the end, but also in knowing it under the aspect of end, and the relationship of the means to that end. And such knowledge belongs to none but the rational nature. But imperfect knowledge of the end consists in mere apprehension of the end, without knowing it under the aspect of end, or the relationship of an act to the end. Such knowledge of the end is exercised by irrational animals, through their senses and their natural estimative power.

Consequently perfect knowledge of the end leads to the perfect voluntary; inasmuch as, having apprehended the end, a man can, from deliberating about the end and the means thereto, be moved, or not, to gain that end. But imperfect knowledge of the end leads to the imperfect voluntary; inasmuch as the agent apprehends the end, but does not deliberate, and is moved to the end at once. Wherefore the voluntary in its perfection belongs to none but the rational nature: whereas the imperfect voluntary is within the competency of even irrational animals.

You examples of animal engaging in non-precreative sex are involuntary acts or at most imperfectly voluntary acts. Either they are completely driven my sexual urges or they deliberately seek the pleasure. They do not know that certain sexual acts result in procreation and other do not. Most humans have perfect knowledge of these facts [the end / purpose of the act] and provided we can exercise self-control over our sexual urges any sexual act is voluntary and therefore subject to the moral scrutiny I have outlined numerous times before.

You earlier said "This authority has been passed down through the Popes to the current successor and Vicar of Christ, Benedict XVI."
Again, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot insist that church tradition has been handed down from human to human over the past 2000 years, infallibly and incorruptibly, and then lightly dismiss any fallible and corrupt behaviour as the failings of 'just the person in the office,' especially when you earlier insisted that the authority was passed down through the people. In any case, the office of the pope cannot transmit tradition, only the holders of that office, and the other lower posts in the church, can transmit tradition. The howling corruption and scurrilous behaviour of the Borgia popes may not alter the truth of the faith, but it certainly altered the transmission of church tradition down the centuries. Many of the popes of that era appointed 'nephews' of theirs to be cardinals, with 'nephew' being a more or less open secret name for an illegitimate son. And you still maintain that these popes were infallible in the teaching of faith and morals?

As debased as their personal morals were they were still Popes and infallible in the teaching of faith and morals. Show me where teaching on faith and morals has changed since their time.

With regard to your comment on the homosexuality/SSA argument:
I think we'll argue to disagree on this one. It really isn't that important.
No, I won't agree to disagree. This is important. You're wrong.
Words are very important. If you think that calling a group of people "disordered" and applying a label to that group of people which is used only by extremists seeking to demonise and dehumanise that group of people is unimportant, that simply shows how callous you really are, and it makes your half-hearted protestations about how parents should not do physical violence to their homosexual children ring all the more false.
The term is homosexuality. Use it.

The distinction is clear in my mind, but to cater to sensitivities I shall henceforth refrain from using terms which you find so odious. Just to be clear the Church's philosophy very much defends the human dignity of all mankind and does not demonise any group. You may be thinking of certain Christian sects in America who hate Catholics almost or just as much as homosexuals.

You acknowledge that children are an irrelevance to civil and legal marriage, and you further recognise that canon law is separate from any consideration of civil and legal considerations. I take it, then, that you support civil marriages (rather than civil partnerships) between any two adults who care to enter into such an undertaking, particularly if they do not consider the purpose of marriage to be having as many catholic children as possible?

I acknowledge that in as much as what is or is not demanded by the law. However marriage whatever form it takes is for the creation of a family. Some people live by this others do not, but it does not change that concept of marriage.

So I take it that "employing whatever works best for the couple" extends to a man marrying another man, because that is what works best for some people.

They can pretend that they are married if they want to be, but to for a law to say that they are married would redefine marriage itself.

[macgamer]

And please don't attempt to reframe the debate as your efforts to resist a society with "no other scale but the legal one". That isn't what this thread is about, and it isn't relevant, either.

With society increasingly accepting moral relativism there really is no other scale but a legal one. For example Alan Johnson's seeking to classify mephedrone as Class B is doing just that. There is a sense that mephedrone is being used by those who would not normally take drugs because it is legal.

Our disputation granted was not necessarily about that, but our sources of morality are diametrically opposed which is prevents any mutual understanding.

[RedCelt69]

our sources of morality are diametrically opposed

Possibly, because jollytiddlywink has reached his own conclusions about the issues. Rather than, say, basing them on the words of a guy in a funny hat... that celibate expert on sex.

Or there's always that inestimable source of much of conservative Christianity's moral ethos; Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274).

Were you born 60 years too late or 860 years too late?

[jollytiddlywink]

Sorry: totally mucked up the formatting!
Trying again...

[jollytiddlywink]

Please pardon the empty post: I got my quotes nesting wrong. It was rather a mess!

No, the secondary uses are still perfectly valid provided that some (not all) of the individuals alive at any given time pass on their genes, and indeed the secondary uses can, and obviously do, provide survival benefits to the genetics of the species as a whole. The non-procreational uses of sex in this case includes homosexuality.

'Obligate homosexuals' are unable to pass on their genes not because they necessarily chose not to, but because their sexuality is incompatible with procreation. In this sense homosexuality is a malfunction of the sexual faculties when considering their primary purpose.

Again: the secondary uses of sex are perfectly valid. If they weren't valid (or more precisely, if they were not of evolutionary benefit), they wouldn't be happening. You are also taking an overly narrow view of genetic survival. Your unstated assumption is that any given animal is a genetic failure if it does not mate. But animals often have siblings, or live in family groupings. Indeed, many animal societies are structured in a way which prevents most males from mating. Many large mammals that I am familiar with operate in this way: lion prides, any animal with horns or antlers used to gain dominance and thus exclusive breeding rights with females.
Here is an article you might find it worthwhile reading. It covers some of these points in more depth, and while the research is very new, there are distinct indications of the benefits to a genetic population as a whole and to a family group particularly of having homosexual members.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magaz ... ral&src=me

You can't have it both ways. You cannot resort to biology as evidence to support your arguments and then reject it when it supports my arguments. It is especially egregious for you to argue your case from a biology=morality standpoint and then deny my biologically-based points on the basis that they do not conform to your moral codes. This is intellectually bankrupt, and so is the case you attempt to build on such shoddy foundations.

The supposed 'end intended by nature' is, as I have demonstrated, frequently violated by nature itself, every time an orang-utan masturbates, every time that dolphins have oral sex, and every time that numerous animal species (including humans) engage in homosexual sex. As logical support for bigotry, this passage is useless. It falls and breaks a leg or four at the first hurdle.

You are confusing animals which do not possess abilities of reason and humans who do. Here is some more Aquinas:

More Aquinas is no use if you fail to take the obvious point. Your argument was that the church's moral opinion on homosexuality was " justified by natural law (the biological function of sex is procreation, the biological function of sexual attraction is to bring two complementary members of the same species together to achieve this end)". If you base your moral argument on biological evidence, and I then refute that argument with counter-evidence, it is beyond silly for you to claim that you reject that evidence on a moral basis.
If you really want to split hairs, you could claim that your argument about the biological function of sex concerned purely the function of sex in humans. But you didn't say so. Moreover, humans also have many uses for sex other than procreation, and there are also homosexual humans (the article I posted above discusses the genetic benefits of homosexuality, so you're really on a hopeless case there). The refutation of your biological argument applies just as well wherever you chose to draw the arbitrary boundaries dictating which evidence doesn't count.
Given that Aquinas bases his argument on the principle of what happens in nature, etc, it is no use referring to him.

You earlier said "This authority has been passed down through the Popes to the current successor and Vicar of Christ, Benedict XVI."
Again, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot insist that church tradition has been handed down from human to human over the past 2000 years, infallibly and incorruptibly, and then lightly dismiss any fallible and corrupt behaviour as the failings of 'just the person in the office,' especially when you earlier insisted that the authority was passed down through the people. In any case, the office of the pope cannot transmit tradition, only the holders of that office, and the other lower posts in the church, can transmit tradition. The howling corruption and scurrilous behaviour of the Borgia popes may not alter the truth of the faith, but it certainly altered the transmission of church tradition down the centuries. Many of the popes of that era appointed 'nephews' of theirs to be cardinals, with 'nephew' being a more or less open secret name for an illegitimate son. And you still maintain that these popes were infallible in the teaching of faith and morals?

As debased as their personal morals were they were still Popes and infallible in the teaching of faith and morals. Show me where teaching on faith and morals has changed since their time.

It will take me a little more time to dig into the church teachings on slavery, which was practiced in Italy into the 15th century, but in the meantime, perhaps you care to explain why the infallible Pope Honorius was declared a heretic by the (also infallible) sixth ecumenical council. One of them must have been in error on a matter of faith.

As you wrote previously:

Tradition can help to inform the Church today in its mission and ongoing development of doctrine, but some aspects are better off left in the past.

So, you're now backing away from your argument that the inherited tradition of the church is unchanging. If that tradition merely "helps to inform" the modern church, with some parts of that tradition "better off left in the past," again we come to the question of why? Why does the church hold onto some bits of tradition and not others? Is it just the pope sitting around, musing to himself, and then announcing, "No, we don't hire prostitutes to entertain our dinner guests anymore. But we're still homophobic, no doubt about it!" Why not leave the bigotry in the past as well?

With regard to your comment on the homosexuality/SSA argument:
I think we'll argue to disagree on this one. It really isn't that important.
No, I won't agree to disagree. This is important. You're wrong.
Words are very important. If you think that calling a group of people "disordered" and applying a label to that group of people which is used only by extremists seeking to demonise and dehumanise that group of people is unimportant, that simply shows how callous you really are, and it makes your half-hearted protestations about how parents should not do physical violence to their homosexual children ring all the more false.
The term is homosexuality. Use it.

The distinction is clear in my mind, but to cater to sensitivities I shall henceforth refrain from using terms which you find so odious. Just to be clear the Church's philosophy very much defends the human dignity of all mankind and does not demonise any group. You may be thinking of certain Christian sects in America who hate Catholics almost or just as much as homosexuals.

Lots of things seem to be clear in your mind but nowhere else. The fact that you consider using the dictionary definition of a term to be 'catering to sensitivities' is pathetic.

So I take it that "employing whatever works best for the couple" extends to a man marrying another man, because that is what works best for some people.

They can pretend that they are married if they want to be, but to for a law to say that they are married would redefine marriage itself.

There is no need to pretend. Men are married to other men in a variety of jurisdictions, and some christian churches hold religious gay wedding services. Others, like the Anglican church, bless gay unions but do not perform marriage services.
Regarding this useless notion that this would "redefine marriage:"
I will briefly cite here the sworn testimony of David Blankenhorn, the man the defence team in the Proposition 8 trial (properly Perry vs Schwarzenegger) brought in as an expert on marriage (this is the guy brought in to SUPPORT the ban on gay marriage)
Prosecutor: "NO singularly accepted universal definition of marriage. Marriage constantly evolving."
Blankenhorn: "Yes, I wrote those words in my book."
Prosecutor: "No further questions, your honour."
Also entered as evidence in the case was the fact that 83% of societies practice polygamy.
If you want to argue that YOUR definition of marriage is THE definition of marriage, be prepared to have a great many people laugh loudly.

[Frank]

our sources of morality are diametrically opposed

Possibly, because jollytiddlywink has reached his own conclusions about the issues. Rather than, say, basing them on the words of a guy in a funny hat...

I dunno about JTW's celibacy or expertise, but he is a guy and I have seen him in a funny hat or two.

[RedCelt69]

I dunno about JTW's celibacy or expertise, but he is a guy and I have seen him in a funny hat or two.

Hat-wearing or not, my guess is that he isn't a celibate expert on sex...

I just wish they'd also emailed the men of the AU... I'd be at that party with bells on. And very little else!

[wild_quinine]

However even Jesus himself was harsh against sin in the case of the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11) at the end he said 'Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.'

This exact section of the Bible is interesting for a few reasons.

Firstly, because there is debate about whether it was in the original draft, so to speak.

Secondly, because this seems like the biggest example of 'No harm, no foul' in the entire Bible.

It looks to me very much like Jesus is saying 'Well, if nobody else has anything to object to in your sexual conduct, then it's alright by me, too.'

Was her sexual conduct above reproach? Doesn't matter. Probably not, since the next line is 'and sin no more'.

The important thing is, if you say 'if it's alright with everyone else, then it's alright with me', and you're the Son of God, then it kind of has to be true - even if you're only saying it to show someone up, or make a point.

I think that's important because, morally, I think there is a lot of weight invested in sex, and not wrongly. Why? Because people get hurt by sex. Because it is so easy to use someone for sex. Because, in my experience, casual sex hardly even exists. It's easy, but it's rarely casual. Somebody always has more invested, or is more fragile, and maybe somebody else doesn't too much care as long as it ends in orgasm. Sex is a moral minefield, by any standard, because you risk hurting someone else for something ephemeral and desirable.

And, for me, this passage in the Bible is about the importance of respecting the people you have sex with, as much as you respect yourself, and that's a fucking hard thing to do when fulfilling such an epicentre of desire. (Usually the people who believe they've achieved it are often the ones who are furthest from it, and the fullest of their own shit.)

It may very well be that monogamy is the only way to fuck with any hope of achieving that kind of respect and balance. (And it may be that this isn't a strict moral law, but a pragmatic limitation! )

But I think the message is pretty clear. If the sex you're having doesn't hurt anyone, and doesn't become more important to you than your God, or your 'Neighbours', then it might very well be OK. I have a hard time seeing why not.

Is that a license to free love for all? No, because we're really bad at not using other people. But I think it says that fucking's OK, with due respect given to God and your fellow man.

Life organised legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.

Ironic that you would choose a quote about the lack of moral sufficiency in blindly following the letter of the law to support your argument. Instead of starting your reading from John 7:53, you could simply focus on verse 24. I think that you'll find that it is not only a snappy soundbite but also hugely appropriate to the context.

Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.

[jollytiddlywink]

Has Macgamer run out of things to say?

And as for Redcelt's guess that I'm not a celibate expert on sex... correct. It is only fair to point out that I am both considerably less celibate than macgamer would wish me to be, but considerably more celibate than I myself wish me to be.

And as for being an expert on sex, it seems only prudent to make no comment.

[jollytiddlywink]

To summarise:

Your case is that the church bases its condemnation of homosexuality on three things:
The bible
church tradition and the teachings of the pope, using the authority of Jesus vested in that office, etc.
natural law

I note that you have not, so far, advocated killing gays and lesbians. Why are you being inconsistent?

The bible is inconsistent that is why we today cannot just pick it off the shelf and understand it from our 21st century outlook. It needs to be interpreted using the knowledge passed down from the Church fathers.

So, you cannot simply say "its in the bible" and base your bigotry on that, because it needs interpretation in light of the teachings of the church, which is infallible on moral and faith matters.
However, the infallible pope Honorius was declared a heretic (guilty of heresy: (n) an opinion or belief contrary to the authorised teaching) by the infallible 6th ecumenical council. Disproving infallibility is like finding the proverbial white crow. One instance and you can stop searching. Here we have two supposed infallibilities in conflict, on a matter of faith. Church tradition is not a safe or reliable guide for interpreting the bible, * as you yourself conceded:

Tradition can help to inform the Church today in its mission and ongoing development of doctrine, but some aspects are better off left in the past.

*

'Natural law' is, according to you, either the arguments of a philosopher seven centuries old based on deeply unstable premises, or analogies that you drew from animal behaviour up to morals, rejecting competing evidence because it was immoral behaviour.
You might as well insist that democracy is immoral because Plato preferred dictators, or that humans should sometimes eat our young, because crocodiles sometimes do that (ignore all the animals that nurture their young; they know not what they do!).

Dress your bigotry up however you wish to. The façade will crumble and fall under questioning, revealing the rotten supports, the absurd foundations and the logical cracks which have been so thinly papered over.

A bigot without even the courage to announce his views openly, who prefers instead to hide behind false arguments which purport tell him how to think, is a base creature indeed.

(edited because I succeeded in tracking down the quote I had been looking for, which I have inserted in * *)

[Wonderboy]

Oh you're still banging on about homosexuality. You should preach or something.

[RedCelt69]

Oh you're still banging on about homosexuality. You should preach or something.

It's clearly something he cares about and believes to be worth discussing. You should think or something.

[wild_quinine]

Oh you're still banging on about homosexuality.

I know, right? It's like come on, let it go already. Since we all agree here, and the issues have been sorted once and for all and, if you hadn't noticed, we're all living in a tolerant utopia, I think we can put this one to bed. Next up: abortion. Is that boring, or what?

It's clearly something he cares about and believes to be worth discussing. You should think or something.

This is a forum, not some kind of medium for the exchange of views.

[macgamer]

However, the infallible pope Honorius was declared a heretic (guilty of heresy: (n) an opinion or belief contrary to the authorised teaching) by the infallible 6th ecumenical council. Disproving infallibility is like finding the proverbial white crow. One instance and you can stop searching. Here we have two supposed infallibilities in conflict, on a matter of faith. Church tradition is not a safe or reliable guide for interpreting the bible

I recommend you read this article on Pope Honorius I:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

The matter is still debated as it was 1330 years ago. However it seems that there is insufficient evidence to prove that Honorius was actually a heretic or speaking ex cathedra when writing letters to known heretics. As much that can be said of him is that he did not act ex cathedra to condemn the monothelite heresy. So unless he made objectively heretical statements ex cathedra the jury would probably give a verdict of 'not proven' as they say in Scotland.

I believe I have announced my views quite openly and attempted to establish the justifications for why I hold them. I suppose that for a liberal someone whose conscience does not permit them to agree with the recent moral orthodoxy is a base creature indeed. Anathema sit? Pray tell, what is to happen to these base creatures?

[RedCelt69]

I believe I have announced my views quite openly and attempted to establish the justifications for why I hold them. I suppose that for a liberal someone whose conscience does not permit them to agree with the recent moral orthodoxy is a base creature indeed. Anathema sit? Pray tell, what is to happen to these base creatures?

The more interesting question is, as a Christian, do you hold the same views on homosexuality as Jesus Christ, your lord and saviour? Or are they the views of people who came much later and claim to know the mind of Jesus better than Jesus did, himself? Seeing as how Jesus, in all his teachings, never once condemned homosexuality.

Beyond that one simple fact, the orthodoxy of anyone's morality (yours, or those you seek to condemn) is rather moot.

[jollytiddlywink]

However, the infallible pope Honorius was declared a heretic (guilty of heresy: (n) an opinion or belief contrary to the authorised teaching) by the infallible 6th ecumenical council. Disproving infallibility is like finding the proverbial white crow. One instance and you can stop searching. Here we have two supposed infallibilities in conflict, on a matter of faith. Church tradition is not a safe or reliable guide for interpreting the bible

I recommend you read this article on Pope Honorius I:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

The matter is still debated as it was 1330 years ago. However it seems that there is insufficient evidence to prove that Honorius was actually a heretic or speaking ex cathedra when writing letters to known heretics. As much that can be said of him is that he did not act ex cathedra to condemn the monothelite heresy. So unless he made objectively heretical statements ex cathedra the jury would probably give a verdict of 'not proven' as they say in Scotland.

I believe I have announced my views quite openly and attempted to establish the justifications for why I hold them. I suppose that for a liberal someone whose conscience does not permit them to agree with the recent moral orthodoxy is a base creature indeed. Anathema sit? Pray tell, what is to happen to these base creatures?

Which part of the fact that two infallible institutions disagreed on a matter of faith did you not understand?
Even if a jury would return a verdict of 'not guilty' it doesn't matter what they say: they're only human. The infallible ecumenical council deemed the pope to be a heretic. One of them, despite their alleged infallibility, must be wrong. The whole edifice collapses. Face reality.

Yes, you have announced your views openly, and your justifications for holding them are lamentable. Are you going to change your views?
And as to what happens to such a base creature; they will be questioned on their beliefs until the contradictions are exposed and then they will be asked why they continue to hold beliefs when the justifications for those beliefs have been demonstrated to be so much rubbish.