08 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellIsn't that the post-hoc fallacy? If you want to show that Gibson's religious views are at the heart of his anti-Semitism, you'll have to demonstrate a causal link; not merely point to sequence.
Never said it was. But if you read the profile link I posted, or various others, it is clear that Gibson has - since he became a hard-line Catholic - had a number of "incidents" involving other religions and social groups.
It appears that in his case it his religion that is at the root of his problems, not alcoholism. He wasn't even particularly drunk this time.
There are a few clarifications that need to be made:
1. It is not clear that Mel Gibson is Catholic. His views appear to be those of many schismatic groups (SSPX, sedevacantists, "Old Catholics" etc.) that call themselves "Catholic" but are not part of the Church.
Just because I claim to be Chinese does not make me Chinese.
2. The "experiment" ("How drunk was Mel?" ) mentioned in the article is clearly not conclusive - people do have different sensitivities to alcohol (not to mention other factors like time, place, fatigue etc.)
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by dottewellI could point out that your article only mentions two such "incidents" (involving allegations of homophobia in 1995 and comments about his wife), but I find something more interesting in your post - your use of the word "distasteful".
I merely point out that since he became deeply religious, he has had a number of similarly distasteful run-ins with other social and religious groups.
What qualifies as "distasteful", in your book?
08 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerDistasteful? - calling the Holocaust a "numbers game" for a start (and that was in 2004). I won't post some of his other comments on Jews, homosexuals, atheists, etc. You can do your own research. The Wikipedia entry is a reasonable place to start, but there are various sources.
I could point out that your article only mentions two such "incidents" (involving allegations of homophobia in 1995 and comments about his wife), but I find something more interesting in your post - your use of the word "distasteful".
What qualifies as "distasteful", in your book?
It's only a post-hoc fallacy if there is no good reason to believe his religion is at the root of his views on social and political issues. It shouldn't be too hard for you to find numerous quotes where Gibson explains that his relgion is central to his life and views. Again, I'll let you do that yourself.
Being Catholic is not quite as clear cut as being Chinese. He professes "traditional" Catholic values, attends an all-pre-Vatican-II Latin mass, etc.
Why shouldn't he be considered Catholic?
08 Aug 06
3 edits
Originally posted by dottewellMy question was not about the "distasteful" comments that Gibson made - my question was what makes a comment "distasteful" in your book? And why did you choose that adjective?
Distasteful? - calling the Holocaust a "numbers game" for a start (and that was in 2004). I won't post some of his other comments on Jews, homosexuals, atheists, etc. You can do your own research. The Wikipedia entry is a reasonable place to start, but there are various sources.
It's only a post-hoc fallacy if there is no good reason to believe his reli ends an all-pre-Vatican-II Latin mass, etc.
Why shouldn't he be considered Catholic?
It's only a post-hoc fallacy if there is no good reason to believe his religion is at the root of his views on social and political issues.
Two problems here:
1. Religion may be at the root of some (even most) of a person's views. That does not mean it is at the root of, or the sole basis for, all his views.
2. You've provided no causal link yet between his religion and the issues mentioned (in particular, anti-Semitism).
It shouldn't be too hard for you to find numerous quotes where Gibson explains that his relgion[sic] is central to his life and views.
Which still isn't direct evidence in this case. I would argue that Catholicism is central to my life and views - that doesn't mean, for instance, that my preference for certain economic models is solely guided by my religion.
Being Catholic is not quite as clear cut as being Chinese.
Actually, it comes close. True, Catholics do not have "Catholic passports" to prove their identity -- but neither do most Chinese. Canonically, it is not a difficult matter to establish whether a person is Catholic or not.
In Mel Gibson's case if (as I suspect) he was baptised in a schismatic community, then he was never Catholic to begin with. Even if he was baptised in the Catholic Church, if he has publicly challenged the validity of Vatican-II, then he has automatically excommunicated himself.
EDIT: If you still think being Chinese is clearer, consider this - suppose X comes from Tibet. Or from Taiwan.
Or suppose X is an American citizen of Chinese descent.
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy question was not about the "distasteful" comments that Gibson made - my question was what makes a comment "distasteful" in your book? And why did you choose that adjective?
My question was not about the "distasteful" comments that Gibson made - my question was what makes a comment "distasteful" in your book? And why did you choose that adjective?
It's only a post-hoc fallacy if there is no good reason to believe his religion is at the root of his views on social and political issues.
Two problems here:
...[text shortened]... om Tibet. Or from Taiwan.
Or suppose X is an American citizen of Chinese descent.
What's wrong with the adjective? Do you really need me to explain why calling the Holocaust "a numbers game" is distasteful?
That does not mean it is at the root of, or the sole basis for, all his views.
Fine.
You've provided no causal link yet between his religion and the issues mentioned (in particular, anti-Semitism).
I neither need nor intend to. It's clear from a cursory glance at his quotes over the years that his religion, and his father's religion, have shaped his views on the matter.
I would argue that Catholicism is central to my life and views - that doesn't mean, for instance, that my preference for certain economic models is solely guided by my religion.
But it probably is central to your view of other religions and certain types of lifestyle etc. that are frowned upon by your god.
In Mel Gibson's case if (as I suspect) he was baptised in a schismatic community, then he was never Catholic to begin with.
Your church may not regard him as technically Catholic. From my point of view, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH: Even if he was baptised in the Catholic Church, if he has publicly challenged the validity of Vatican-II, then he has automatically excommunicated himself.
My question was not about the "distasteful" comments that Gibson made - my question was what makes a comment "distasteful" in your book? And why did you choose that adjective?
It's only a post-hoc fallacy if there is no good reason to believe his religion is at the root of his views on social and political issues.
Two problems here:
...[text shortened]... om Tibet. Or from Taiwan.
Or suppose X is an American citizen of Chinese descent.
Please cite some Church authority for the remarkable statement that one can "automatically excommunicate" oneself.
08 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellWhat's wrong with the adjective? Do you really need me to explain why calling the Holocaust "a numbers game" is distasteful?
My question was not about the "distasteful" comments that Gibson made - my question was what makes a comment "distasteful" in your book? And why did you choose that adjective?
What's wrong with the adjective? Do you really need me to explain why calling the Holocaust "a numbers game" is distasteful?
That does not mean it is at the root of, ically Catholic. From my point of view, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
That wasn't my question at all. The term "distasteful" indicates something more akin to political incorrectness than moral wrongness, which is why I asked.
I neither need nor intend to.
Since you made the argument, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it; i.e. you "need" to. It's clear you don't intend to, however.
It's clear from a cursory glance at his quotes over the years that his religion, and his father's religion, have shaped his views on the matter.
It's not at all clear - which is why I'm asking. Neither Mel Gibson's father nor Mel have identified their religion as the source of their anti-Semitism. If you want to claim that there is a logical connection, then demonstrate it.
But it probably is central to your view of other religions and certain types of lifestyle etc. that are frowned upon by your god.
Yes, but that, in itself, is not sufficient to make me a bigot - any more than your disagreement with a Communist makes you an anti-Communist bigot.
Your church may not regard him as technically Catholic. From my point of view, it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Sorry - doesn't cut it. Just because you don't want to acknowledge clear criteria for membership in certain organisations exist does not mean they don't. What makes your "point of view" the final authority on this, anyway?
Just as my claiming to be Chinese does not make me Chinese. For my claim to be validated, the Chinese government would need to back me with official documents of recognition as a citizen (e.g. a passport). The situation is not substantially different with the Catholic Church.
What's more, by his own admission, Mel Gibson neither "walks" nor "quacks" like a Catholic - he does so like a schismatic (by all accounts).
08 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderCode of Canon Law, 1364.1:
Please cite some Church authority for the remarkable statement that one can "automatically excommunicate" oneself.
Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication...
The definition of latae sententiae penalty is provided in can. 1314:
Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not bind the guilty party until after it has been imposed; if the law or precept expressly establishes it, however, a penalty is latae sententiae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed.
Any more questions?
08 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerNever mind; there's no sense talking to you. If mere public disagreement with the Church's position on various matters gets an "automatic excommunication", there's hardly any Catholics at all.
Code of Canon Law, 1364.1:
Without prejudice to the prescript of can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication...
The definition of latae sententiae penalty is provided in can. 1314:
Generally, a penalty is ferendae sententiae, so that it does not b ...[text shortened]... ae, so that it is incurred ipso facto when the delict is committed.
Any more questions?
08 Aug 06
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammer1. Look up the word "distasteful". You might be surprised.
What's wrong with the adjective? Do you really need me to explain why calling the Holocaust "a numbers game" is distasteful?
That wasn't my question at all. The term "distasteful" indicates something more akin to political incorrectness than moral wrongness, which is why I asked.
I neither need nor intend to.
Since you made the acks" like a Catholic - he does so like a schismatic (by all accounts).
2. Just one example:
They [the Jews] are the people with an eye for eye and tooth for a tooth. They must have revenge. You know they caused the Roman persecutions too. They called attention to the fact that the Christians were refusing to offer incense to the emperors when the emperors became gods. The Jews were notable for getting the wood to burn the Christians...a labor of love you could say. To a Jew a Christian commits idolatry every time he looks at a crucifix and says a prayer. (Hutton Gibson)
My dad taught me my faith, and I believe what he taught me. The man never lied to me in his life (Mel Gibson)
4. Plently of stuff on Hutton Gibson, and his religious views, etc., at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutton_Gibson. He is apparently from a tiny sect which believes Vatican 2 was a conspiracy arranged by Masons and Jews as part of a bid to take control of the world.
5. Of course being a Catholic is not a sufficient condition for being a bigot. So what? Does that mean there is no connection between Mel Gibson's religion and his views of society and other religions? Clearly not. I'm not attacking Catholics. I am attacking Mel Gibson's religion, which he calls Catholicism.
6. And on that point: "The greatest benefit anyone can have is to be a Catholic. You have the lifelong satisfaction of being right. But we can't go to mass, there are no sacraments and I feel cheated." (Hutton Gibson)
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauder"Thanks" is the usual response, but still...
Never mind; there's no sense talking to you. If mere public disagreement with the Church's position on various matters gets an "automatic excommunication", there's hardly any Catholics at all.
Whether disagreement/opposition qualifies for latae sententiae excommunication or not depends on the matter, the exact nature of the disagreement, the manner in which it is made etc.
08 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo one cannot possibly know if they've "automatically excommunicated" themselves or not. And you can't possibly know whether Mel Gibson has as you are not in possession of much information apparently. There are plenty of Catholics performing the Tridentine Mass who remain in the Church or who have publicly rejected other aspects of Vatican II. And the vast majority of American Catholics reject the teachings of the Church on birth control which has been determined to be infallible.
"Thanks" is the usual response, but still...
Whether disagreement/opposition qualifies for latae sententiae excommunication or not depends on the matter, the exact nature of the disagreement, the manner in which it is made etc.
I'm sure you have an absolute knowledge of all the circumstances though, at least in your own mind.
EDIT: Mel was quoted as saying "there is no salvation but inside the Church" so he's a rather odd schismatic.
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by dottewell1. Not really. Take a look at the American Heritage Dictionary definition:
1. Look up the word "distasteful". You might be surprised.
2. Just one example:
They [the Jews] are the people with an eye for eye and tooth for a tooth. They must have revenge. You know they caused the Roman persecutions too. They called attention to the fact that the Christians were refusing to offer incense to the emperors when the emperors became ...[text shortened]... t. But we can't go to mass, there are no sacraments and I feel cheated." (Hutton Gibson)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/distasteful
You seem to be using defn 1b. Look at the example provided. Is it about morality or aesthetics?
2. That's a start. But Hutton's views are not derived (in this instance) from his religious beliefs -- but from his membership in a group that was historically persecuted. In other words, there is nothing in the body of beliefs itself that compels him to adopt an anti-Semitic position.
(What happened to (3)?)
5. You keep implying a relationship between Mel Gibson's religion (let's call it 'Old Catholicism' to avoid confusion) and his expressed anti-Semitic views -- but you do not make clear what that relationship is. Is it derived from certain fundamental tenets of OC? If so, which ones and how? Is it a fundamental tenet of OC in itself?
08 Aug 06
To be specific, I'm only challenging this broad assertion:
LH: Even if he was baptised in the Catholic Church, if he has publicly challenged the validity of Vatican-II, then he has automatically excommunicated himself.
I don't think "publicly challenging the validity of Vatican II" amounts to apostasy, heresy or being a schismatic.