08 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWith apostasy and schism, a Catholic who is aware of the pertinent canons and the definitions of these terms knows immediately that he has incurred a latae sententiae excommunication. Heresy is a bit trickier if the subject is obscure or the person has been ill-catechised; but, for the "standard" issues (abortion, birth control), an aware Catholic who denies the truth of these can know that they've incurred the penalty.
So 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 v ...[text shortened]... you have an absolute knowledge of all the circumstances though, at least in your own mind.
As to Mel Gibson, I never claimed to know whether Mel Gibson has incurred such a penalty (if he comes under the canonical jurisdiction of the Church) or not. Go back and read my statements - they are all conditionals.
That said, I have read reports that Mel Gibson established his own independent church unaffiliated to the diocese or any approved religious order or body. That would make him a schismatic and, hence, he would incur the penalty (assuming he was licitly baptised Catholic in the first place).
As to the traditionalist Catholics you've mentioned, there are a number of issues that need to be clarified. First, Vatican II did not do away with the Tridentine Mass - to celebrate it is not dissenting with V2. A lot of liturgical and theological abuses followed in the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II"; faithful Catholics who correct these abuses can give the appearance of rejecting aspects of Vatican II -- they're not. Third, not all dissent automatically brings about the penalty of excommunication.
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by kirksey957Maybe, but we don't have to be defined by our feelings either do we?
Here's something that a person in recovery from alcoholism might say: "I said some bad things that reflect the bad attitude I have." Everyone is making excuses for him. I keep hearing "it was the alcohol making him say that." Maybe the alcohol was just bringing out the truth of what he really feels and he is just too dishonest to admit it.
We can feel a lot of things and not act upon them.
Kelly
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo it is your assertion that any Roman Catholic who states in public that the Church is wrong on birth control is automatically excommunicated? Then there's not much sense worrying about schismatics in the US; by all accounts already most American Catholics have "automatically excommunicated themselves". Think they can get a refund back of the money they have given the Church?
With apostasy and schism, a Catholic who is aware of the pertinent canons and the definitions of these terms knows immediately that he has incurred a latae sententiae excommunication. Heresy is a bit trickier if the subject is obscure or the person has been ill-catechised; but, for the "standard" issues (abortion, birth control), an aware Catho ...[text shortened]... re not. Third, not all dissent automatically brings about the penalty of excommunication.
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderTo clarify, by "publicly challenging" I did not simply mean publicly asking "Was Vatican II valid?" -- I meant a public denial of the validity of Vatican II; i.e. claiming that Vatican II teachings were in error. To do so necessitates a denial of the infallibility of ecumenical councils - which is heresy.
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.
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat basis would they have for a refund?
So it is your assertion that any Roman Catholic who states in public that the Church is wrong on birth control is automatically excommunicated? Then there's not much sense worrying about schismatics in the US; by all accounts already most American Catholics have "automatically excommunicated themselves". Think they can get a refund back of the money they have given the Church?
08 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerFraud? I've never heard anyone say that the RCC position is that anyone who publicly supports birth control is "automatically excommunicated"; certainly this position is not followed by the clergy in the US.
What basis would they have for a refund?
And not just the US: www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=22678
Do you adhere to your position that a large number of Catholics, probably a majority in the West, are "heretics" and thus have been "automatically excommunicated"?
EDIT: I thought the position of the Church was that contraception was a "grave sin" but the penalty for a "grave sin" is not automatic excommunication. Are you seriously asserting that it is worse in the Church's eyes to say that the Church is wrong on birth control (which is "heresy"😉 than to actually practice it?
08 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderPublicly "supporting" birth control is not necessarily the same as denying that it is wrong. That said, most informed Catholics (orthodox or otherwise) these days know what the Church teaching is on the subject and also that obstinately denying it constitutes heresy. Most Catholics would also know that heresy is an excommunicable offence. They may not specifically know that it is a latae sententiae excommunication -- but ignorance of the law does not necessarily excuse breaking it. Certainly, most bishops and priests in the US may not advertise the law (many do, btw) - but that constitutes fraud no more than the government perpetuates fraud by not having large signs everywhere that say "Keep your driving licence with you every time you drive a vehicle".
Fraud? I've never heard anyone say that the RCC position is that anyone who publicly supports birth control is "automatically excommunicated"; certainly this position is not followed by the clergy in the US.
And not just the US: www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=22678
Do you adhere to your position that a large numbe Church is wrong on birth control (which is "heresy"😉 than to actually practice it?
Do you adhere to your position that a large number of Catholics, probably a majority in the West, are "heretics" and thus have been "automatically excommunicated"?
The majority have probably never taken a public stance on the matter, nor had the opportunity to. I'd think that, in a good number of cases, they may not even be aware that it is to be considered a divine and universal belief due to poor catechesis. There are probably a good number who are aware, whose denial is obstinate (and therefore constitutes heresy) and have therefore excommunicated themselves.
I thought the position of the Church was that contraception was a "grave sin" but the penalty for a "grave sin" is not automatic excommunication. Are you seriously asserting that it is worse in the Church's eyes to say that the Church is wrong on birth control (which is "heresy"😉 than to actually practice it?
In some ways, yes. In committing a grave sin like contraception, you are only endangering your own soul; in a public stance of heresy (which is a grave sin in itself), you induce others to endanger theirs as well. Remember what Jesus said about millstones round one's neck?
One thing to remember about penalties such as excommunication is that they are medicinal in nature - they are intended to prevent you from further endangering your soul (e.g. by receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin) and "knock the sense" back into you. If it succeeds, then that's a small penalty to pay for avoiding eternal damnation - which is the penalty for a grave sin knowingly committed.
EDIT: Note also that "grave sin" and "excommunication" are not really comparable entities. They belong to two different domains - one is in the realm of salvation and morality, the other in canonical jurisprudence.
08 Aug 06
5 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerUnless you are using the word "public" in a different way for Mel Gibson than for Roman Catholics in the US, I'm pretty sure that most Roman Catholics in the US have "publicly" said the Church position on contraception is wrong i.e. they've said it to other people. I think your position that this is heresy is ridiculous. But most positions by far right Catholics like yourself are out of the mainstream of the Catholic body public in the Western world.
Publicly "supporting" birth control is not necessarily the same as denying that it is wrong. That said, most informed Catholics (orthodox or otherwise) these days know what the Church teaching is on the subject and also that obstinately denying it constitutes heresy. Most Catholics would also know that heresy is an excommunicable offence. They may not e realm of salvation and morality, the other in canonical jurisprudence.
EDIT: How exactly an "automatic excommunication" that you don't know about is "medicinal" in nature is beyond unclear to me.
EDIT2: Perhaps you could find a site where a priest or bishop in the United States says that belief that the Church position on contraception is wrong means that one is a heretic AND automatically excommunicated.
08 Aug 06
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI think your position that this is heresy is ridiculous.
Unless you are using the word "public" in a different way for Mel Gibson than for Roman Catholics in the US, I'm pretty sure that most Roman Catholics in the US have "publicly" said the Church position on contraception is wrong i.e. they've said it to other people. I think your position that this is heresy is ridiculous. But most positions by far right C contraception is wrong means that one is a heretic AND automatically excommunicated.
You would find the idea that any position is heresy ridiculous. Nevertheless, that is what it is. Heresy is "the obstinate ... denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same" (CCC 2089). The key word (to me) is "obstinate" - I'm not sure to what extent dissenting Catholics act from a position of poor catechesis and, therefore, can be helped with better catechesis.
But most positions by far right Catholics like yourself are out of the mainstream of the Catholic body public in the Western world.
Quite frankly, I don't care. The Church isn't running for an election or popularity contest here. If it can survive the vast majority of the world's bishops being Arian, then it can sure as hell survive a "mainstream of the Catholic body public in the Western world" wanting to have their cake and eat it too. As Pope Paul VI wrote in Humanae Vitae (n.18):
It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church... She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical.
Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.
no1:-
Perhaps you could find a site where a priest or bishop in the United States says that belief that the Church position on contraception is wrong means that one is a heretic AND automatically excommunicated.
Why is that necessary? Aren't people in the US smart enough to connect the dots? Do they need everything spelt for them in large neon lights?
EDIT: Maybe can. 1323 is why most American priests and bishops stay silent on the issue:
The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:
...
2/ a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance
Of course, that still doesn't apply to the aware Catholics or those who are deliberately negligent.
08 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerFrom the definition you quote - "Objectionable; offensive". So what if the example is not from morality? It is but one example.
1. Not really. Take a look at the American Heritage Dictionary definition:
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 memb mental tenets of OC? If so, which ones and how? Is it a fundamental tenet of OC in itself?
I see you think the metaphysical and socio-political aspects of a religious group or sect can be carefully picked apart. I disagree. I am not saying that rabid racism or homophobia is written into Gibson Sr's bible; but it is a belief he and his religious peer group share based on their interpretation of that bible, and on the way they interpret events within that bible and since. These, to me, are part of one's "religious beliefs". If you want to claim that his belief that Vatican 2 was a plot by Masons and Jews bent on taking over the world is is no way shaped by his "purely religious" beliefs, then good luck to you. To me that seems a distinction that is so fine it disappears to nought.
Incidentally, Hutton Gibson was once asked about the fact he thought the Pope was fake and the great Masonic-Jewish conspiracy. He said: "It's not just my salvation but a lot of other people's depends on it."
Sounds a bit - I don't know - religious?
08 Aug 06
1 edit
Just my two cents:
From what I have studied, I think LH's assessment of one of the two forms (that I know of) of
excommunication is correct.
This has come into effect a few times in the Pittsburgh area. For example, recently several women
were 'ordained' by a woman 'bishop' who claimed to be a Roman Catholic bishop. That is, she
herself was 'ordained' and 'elevated' by a Roman Catholic bishop (from Germany?) and claimed
validity/licitness through apostolic succession, &c &c.
Anyway, the local RC Newspaper (The Pittsburgh Catholic) detailed that those who attended in
support of these 'ordinations' were excommunicating themselves by publicly participating in an event
which was explicitly contrary to the teachings of the RCC.
A few years ago, a RCC priest 'defected' and formed his own (schismatic) church in violation with Rome.
Similarly, The Pittsburgh Catholic made it clear that those who attended his church and partook of the
valid but illicit sacraments also excommunicated themselves.
What LH is saying about this issue concords (as best as I can tell) with the Orthodox RCC stance on
a latae sententiae excommunication.
I would be surprised to know the Gibson had excommunicated himself simply because I saw him on the
Eternal Word Network (the RCC channel) engaging in an explanation about his movie. The interviewer
never touched upon his religious status in any sort of inquisitive way; the way the interview proceeded
was with the presumption that he was a Roman Catholic in good standing, just one who preferred the
old Tridentine Rite (which, in America, can be executed with Diocesan permission, as they do in Holy
Wisdom Parish at Saint Boniface in the Pittsburgh Diocese).
That having been said, I have no personal knowledge about his RCC status, nor do I know of any official
pronouncements from any authenticated RCC source suggesting that he was in bad standing.
Nemesio
08 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.catholicvu.com/newpage30.htm
EDIT2: Perhaps you could find a site where a priest or bishop in the United States says that belief that the Church position on contraception is wrong means that one is a heretic AND automatically excommunicated.
Evidently one does not excommunicate oneself, commits 'grave sin' and is no longer in a
'state of grace' which would require them to abstain from receiving communion until
going to reconciliation. Dying while not in a 'state of grace' entails committing one's
immortal soul to hell.
I'm not sure I see the difference between excommunicating yourself and knowingly,
willingly, and repeatedly performing a 'grave sin' like contraception, but evidently there
is a difference.
Nemesio
P.S., I'm assuming we are talking about pre-conception contraception, not abortaficent
contraception.
09 Aug 06
Originally posted by NemesioFr. Bloom's answer refers to couples who use contraception - not people who obstinately believe that the Church was wrong on the issue. The two are not necessarily synonymous. You can deny the teaching without violating it (e.g. as a single person who supports contraception might do) and you can violate it without disagreeing with it (e.g. a couple might agree that the Church is, in principle, correct but they cannot see a way out of their concrete situation without violating it; or it is too tempting).
http://www.catholicvu.com/newpage30.htm
Evidently one does not excommunicate oneself, commits 'grave sin' and is no longer in a
'state of grace' which would require them to abstain from receiving communion until
going to reconciliation. Dying while not in a 'state of grace' entails committing one's
immortal soul to hell.
I'm not sure I see the dif ...[text shortened]... g we are talking about pre-conception contraception, not abortaficent
contraception.
Also, one needs to clarify what the term 'grave sin' means. Fr. Bloom himself uses the term 'mortal sin' - which does indeed lead to hell without reconciliation. Note - he talks about "objectively" mortal sin. A mortal sin has three conditions - grave matter, full knowledge, full consent. Contraception is grave matter -- which is all the term 'objectively mortal sin' refers to. For it to actually be a mortal sin in any particular case requires the other two conditions (knowledge and consent) to be satisfied as well. Knowledge could be impaired, for instance, by poor catechesis (although natural law still applies). Consent could be impaired, for instance, by a forceful spouse, addiction, psychological conditions, sociological conditions etc. So, a grave sin (i.e. objectively mortal) need not be subjectively mortal (i.e. in this particular instance).
Mortal sins and excommunication belong, as I pointed out to no1, to two distinct domains. Mortal sin implies damnation unless you receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation or perform a perfect act of contrition. Excommunicable offences are, generally, objectively mortal but, as I pointed out above, needn't necessarily be a subjectively mortal sin. Even if a particular case of excommunication involves mortal sin, the person can still perform a perfect act of contrition and attain salvation - even if he isn't canonically reconciled with the Church. One is in the domain of soteriology, the other canon law. It's apples and oranges (although there is a connection).
09 Aug 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerDo you really bleieve that if one knowingly and deliberately practices contraception, becaue one obstinately refuses to agree with the RCC's teaching on the matter, then one is in danger of going to hell?
Publicly "supporting" birth control is not necessarily the same as denying that it is wrong. That said, most informed Catholics (orthodox or otherwise) these days know what the Church teaching is on the subject and also that obstinately denying it constitutes heresy. Most Catholics would also know that heresy is an excommunicable offence. They may not ...[text shortened]... e realm of salvation and morality, the other in canonical jurisprudence.
09 Aug 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeIsn't that a bit of a rhetorical question?
Do you really bleieve[sic] that if one knowingly and deliberately practices contraception, becaue one obstinately refuses to agree with the RCC's teaching on the matter, then one is in danger of going to hell?
The case you've mentioned involves two sins - contraception and heresy - both of which are grave. In danger of going to hell? Certainly. But, I won't presume to judge whether that is the case for any particular individual. Hence, I won't presume to judge whether that is true for all (or even any) similar actual Catholic.