mel gibson

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think your position that this is heresy is ridiculous.

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 doesn't apply to the aware Catholics or those who are deliberately negligent.

Unbelievable that anyone who purports to be a reasonable, rational person would seriously believe that a member of a Church stating that the Church's position is incorrect on contraception would would put their soul in danger of damnation. Your medieval view of the RCC is truly disturbing.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Unbelievable that anyone who purports to be a reasonable, rational person would seriously believe that a member of a Church stating that the Church's position is incorrect on contraception would would put their soul in danger of damnation. Your medieval view of the RCC is truly disturbing.

It's not my "mediaeval view" - it's what the Church teaches. If Catholics are disturbed by it - then perhaps a bit of introspection into why they are in the Church in the first place is in order. One doesn't have to be "nice" or say "anything goes" to be a reasonable, rational person -- often the opposite, at times.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's not my "mediaeval view" - it's what the Church teaches. If Catholics are disturbed by it - then perhaps a bit of introspection into why they are in the Church in the first place is in order. One doesn't have to be "nice" or say "anything goes" to be a reasonable, rational person -- often the opposite, at times.

No it isn't. You are reading your own preconceptions into the Canon. As you pointed out, excommunication is supposed to be "medicinal" but you never responded to my point that an "automatic excommunication" that someone is not aware of cannot be "medicinal". I think your reading of the Canon, while facially feasible, is unwarranted. I do not think that mere public expression of belief that one of the Church's positions is incorrect means one is a "heretic" and "automatically excommunicated"; at most I think the Canon is poorly phrased and in need of revision. "Automatic excommunication" seems to me to be a sanction reserved for very grave sins.

I know that right wing Catholics like you prefer gutting the Church of all possible dissent and having a smaller, more "pure" one but that is not a point of view that is supported by the American RCC.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No it isn't. You are reading your own preconceptions into the Canon. As you pointed out, excommunication is supposed to be "medicinal" but you never responded to my point that an "automatic excommunication" that someone is not aware of cannot be "medicinal". I think your reading of the Canon, while facially feasible, is unwarranted. I do not think that m pure" one but that is not a point of view that is supported by the American RCC.

As I said before, I don't care what the "American RCC" supports or disagrees with. If they have a serious problem with the teachings of the Church, they can always start an "American Church". There's plenty of precedent (e.g. the Anglican Church). If you want to interpret that as my wanting a smaller, more "pure" Church - so be it. The Church is in the business of truth, not popularity - and so am I.

Also, I pointed out the relevant canon which states that penalties (such as excommunication) do not apply when the person is non-wilfully ignorant of it (which, incidentally, makes your question about how it can be medicinal moot). Further, every time I have written on the subject, I have made it clear that I do recognise mitigating factors that may make such disagreement less than heresy. You seem to ignore the things I say that do not fit in with the stereotype you want to paint of me.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As I said before, I don't care what the "American RCC" supports or disagrees with. If they have a serious problem with the teachings of the Church, they can always start an "American Church". There's plenty of precedent (e.g. the Anglican Church). If you want to interpret that as my wanting a smaller, more "pure" Church - so be it. The Church is in th ...[text shortened]... ignore the things I say that do not fit in with the stereotype you want to paint of me.

You're confusing apples and oranges. I am not saying that the person is "non-wilfully ignorant" of the Church's position regarding contraception; I'm saying they're "non-wilfully ignorant" of YOUR belief that they are "AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated" for saying that they disagree with it. This, of course, does not make my question "moot" but makes it highly relevant. Moreover, the fact that you adopt a certain reading of the Canon that is not followed by the American RCC does not make it "truth".

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm saying they're "non-wilfully ignorant" of YOUR belief that they are "AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated" for saying that they disagree with it. ... Moreover, the fact that you adopt a certain reading of the Canon that is not followed by the American RCC does not make it "truth".

Fine. I've provided you with the relevant Catechism definition of heresy, the canon that provides the penalty for heresy and the canon that states the exception. If you think my conclusion (i.e. Catholics who obstinately deny Church teaching on birth control incur a latae sententiae excommunication unless they are non-wilfully or non-negligently ignorant of the penalty) is wrong, then prove it. Provide a more reasonable interpretation of the relevant texts as they apply to this situation.

Your entire post boils down to, "Well, that's YOUR opinion". I'm sorry, but it isn't - it's my conclusion. If you want to assert my argument is fallacious, you're going to have to demonstrate it with an argument of your own.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Fine. I've provided you with the relevant Catechism definition of heresy, the canon that provides the penalty for heresy and the canon that states the exception. If you think my conclusion (i.e. Catholics who obstinately deny Church teaching on birth control incur a latae sententiae excommunication unless they are non-wilfully or non-negligentl ...[text shortened]... is fallacious, you're going to have to demonstrate it with an argument of your own.[/b]

I've presented my argument; it is unreasonable to suppose that the majority of Catholics in the US are "heretics" and are "automatically excommunicated" because they merely publicly state disagreement with the Church on a particular issue. I find nothing in the Canon inviting the conclusion that it is possible for people to be "automatically excommunicated" for mere disagreement with the Church on a single issue. I would say that the definition of "heresy" and the section on "automatic excommunications" are poorly worded in the Canon as they leave open this POSSIBLE interpretation though this interpretation is clearly a minority one.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I've presented my argument; it is unreasonable to suppose that the majority of Catholics in the US are "heretics" and are "automatically excommunicated" because they merely publicly state disagreement with the Church on a particular issue. I find nothing in the Canon inviting the conclusion that it is possible for people to be "automatically excommunicat en this POSSIBLE interpretation though this interpretation is clearly a minority one.

it is unreasonable to suppose that the majority of Catholics in the US are "heretics" and are "automatically excommunicated" because they merely publicly state disagreement with the Church on a particular issue.

That's a strawman; I explicitly stated that I don't know how many (if any) of American Catholics actually meet all the criteria to incur the penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication on the issue.

This is an example of what I wrote about you ignoring the bits I write that don't fit your preconceptions.

I find nothing in the Canon inviting the conclusion that it is possible for people to be "automatically excommunicated" for mere disagreement with the Church on a single issue.

The canon simply says "heresy". The Catechism definition of heresy (also provided earlier) clearly indicates that a single issue (it uses the singular) is sufficient for heresy.

EDIT: Also, the "mere disagreement" bit is another strawman if it does not refer to the obstinate denial I have written about many times.

I would say that the definition of "heresy" and the section on "automatic excommunications" are poorly worded in the Canon as they leave open this POSSIBLE interpretation

Then give an alternative, more reasonable interpretation.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]it is unreasonable to suppose that the majority of Catholics in the US are "heretics" and are "automatically excommunicated" because they merely publicly state disagreement with the Church on a particular issue.

That's a strawman; I explicitly stated that I don't know how many (if any) of American Catholics actually meet all the crite interpretation[/b]

Then give an alternative, more reasonable interpretation.[/b]

You're being inconsistent. Earlier you asserted that Mel Gibson would have been automatically excommunicated IF he publicly asserted disagreement with the validity of Vatican II. NOW you are asserting that you "wouldn't know" if American Catholics would meet the criteria for automatic excommunication IF they publicly asserted disagreement with the Church's position on birth control. Which statement would like to repudiate; they are irreconcilable.

"Mere disagreement" repeated publicly of the validity of someone's else position is the same as "obstinate denial". What is this absurdity with laballing every statement of someone's else as a "strawman" that some posters here have recently fallen into? The examples I see of heresy that revolve around single issues are ones central to Catholic theology like Arianism. I see no reason to believe that the term "heresy" was meant to extend to every possible statement made in contradiction to any position of the Church. Dissent has always been allowed in the RCC without formal declarations of heresy.

I've given my interpretations above. They are consistent with Church history and the purpose and severity of "automatic excommunications". Your position is clearly not; so far as I know, the RCC has never supposed that large members of the faithful could be excommunicated without even knowing it.

EDIT: Regarding paragraph 1, your words:

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 Catholic who denies the truth of these can know that they've incurred the penalty.

One hardly needs add that someone who is an apostate or a schismatic would hardly be concerned with being excommunicated, while someone declared a heretic without his knowledge who considers himself one of the faithful would be.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're being inconsistent. Earlier you asserted that Mel Gibson would have been automatically excommunicated IF he publicly asserted disagreement with the validity of Vatican II. NOW you are asserting that you "wouldn't know" if American Catholics would meet the criteria for automatic excommunication IF they publicly asserted disagreement with the Church c without his knowledge who considers himself one of the faithful would be.

no1: Which statement would [you] like to repudiate...

The Mel Gibson statement is clearly incomplete in its present form so that's the one that would need to be modified.

no1: "Mere disagreement" repeated publicly of the validity of someone's else position is the same as "obstinate denial".

No it isn't. "Mere" is clearly not the same thing as "obstinate" (EDIT: neither is "repeated" ). You may want to revisit your dictionary:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mere
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obstinate
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repeated

no1: What is this absurdity with laballing[sic] every statement of someone's else as a "strawman" that some posters here have recently fallen into?

There is nothing absurd about it if some posters continue to make strawman arguments.

no1: The examples I see of heresy that revolve around single issues are ones central to Catholic theology like Arianism.

If you think the history of heresy ended with Arianism (or other Christological heresies of the first millennium), you need another history book. The Council of Trent alone defines no less than twelve heresies against marriage:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct24.html

You may also remember that one of the major reasons why Albigensianism was declared heresy was because of its position on marriage and sex. The Church takes very seriously heresies regarding marriage and the events therein.

no1: I see no reason to believe that the term "heresy" was meant to extend to every possible statement made in contradiction to any position of the Church.

First, heresy does not apply to mere statements (note: this is how you use "mere" ) - it applies to obstinate positions. You're engaging in strawman argumentation again.

Second, I never said that heresy applies to "any" position of the Church (another strawman) -- it applies to "divine and catholic [universal] truths". As both Popes Pius XI (Casti Connubii, 1930) and Paul VI (Humanae Vitae, 1968) make clear (not to mention the Catechism), the Church considers its teachings on marriage and contraception both divine and universal.

no1: I've given my interpretations above. They are consistent with Church history and the purpose and severity of "automatic excommunications".

I'm sorry - they're not. Your reading of Church history seems to stop with the Council of Nicaea.

no1: so far as I know, the RCC has never supposed that large members[sic] of the faithful could be excommunicated without even knowing it.

There's the strawmen (pl.) again ("large members[sic] ... without even knowing it" ).

EDIT: That said, the Church has placed an entire country (England under Henry VIII) under interdict (a lesser penalty than excommunication) in the past, so your "large members[sic]" bit doesn't necessarily hold true. Another example of not knowing your Church history.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
no1: Which statement would [you] like to repudiate...

The Mel Gibson statement is clearly incomplete in its present form so that's the one that would need to be modified.

no1: "Mere disagreement" repeated publicly of the validity of someone's else position is the same as "obstinate denial".

No it isn't. "Mere" is clearly ld true. Another example of not knowing your Church history.

You're wasting my time by parroting the word "strawman" while basically conceding that your position is EXACTLY what I am saying! I've stated many times I'm not interested in semantic arguments; if you want to take away the word "mere", go ahead - your position continues to seem to be that repeated public disagreement with ANY ex cathedra position of the Church leads to "automatic excommunication". You may want to actually try to learn to read other's sentences and paragraphs together; this gives a better idea of what they are saying.

I never said that heresy ended with Arianism; that, my boy, is REALLY a "strawman"! I gave that as an example of a "heresy" revolving around only one issue. Please again, read my statements in their proper context; your Balkanization form of response seems to have leaked over into your reading of others' statements.

Please read this ENTIRE SENTENCE and respond to it, rather than breaking it into parts:

so far as I know, the RCC has never supposed that large members[/i][sic] of the faithful could be excommunicated without even knowing it.

According to all the figures, the vast majority of the RCC faithful in the US and most other countries in the Western world reject the Church's position on birth control and do so publicly (they even respond to poll questions!). The result of your position is that the majority of the faithful in these countries have "automatically excommunicated" themselves. It is beyond question that they are unaware of this; I have seen members of the US clergy many times discussing this issue and have NEVER heard them say that anybody was excommunicated for this. Please give SOME evidence that the RCC ever intended this result. You could also explain why something that is beyond question a logical result of your positions as you have spelled them out, is a "strawman"; this would require an actual explanation rather than the mere parroting of a term though.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're wasting my time by parroting the word "strawman" while basically conceding that your position is EXACTLY what I am saying! I've stated many times I'm not interested in semantic arguments; if you want to take away the word "mere", go ahead - your position continues to seem to be that repeated public disagreement with ANY ex cathedra position of the ...[text shortened]... quire an actual explanation rather than the mere parroting of a term though.

marauder: "I've stated many times I'm not interested in semantic arguments ... "

I just love people with a good sense of humour ..... 😀 😵

Originally posted by ivanhoe
marauder: "I've stated many times I'm not interested in semantic arguments ... "

I just love people with a good sense of humour ..... 😀 😵

Please don't disrupt the thread with off-topic comments if you have nothing constructive to add. Thank you.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
no1: Which statement would [you] like to repudiate...

The Mel Gibson statement is clearly incomplete in its present form so that's the one that would need to be modified.

no1: "Mere disagreement" repeated publicly of the validity of someone's else position is the same as "obstinate denial".

No it isn't. "Mere" is clearly ...[text shortened]... ld true. Another example of not knowing your Church history.

Your statement was:

LH: 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.

Do you want to modify this statement as well?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're wasting my time by parroting the word "strawman" while basically conceding that your position is EXACTLY what I am saying! I've stated many times I'm not interested in semantic arguments; if you want to take away the word "mere", go ahead - your position continues to seem to be that repeated public disagreement with ANY ex cathedra position of the quire an actual explanation rather than the mere parroting of a term though.

I'm going to "Balkanise" my response, and if that gives you an aneurysm - then so be it.

your position continues to seem to be that repeated public disagreement with ANY ex cathedra position of the Church leads to "automatic excommunication"

No, it isn't. If you'd been reading my posts, you would've seen that.

For latae sententiae excommunication on heresy to apply, several conditions must be met (there are more, but I'm listing the ones relevant to our discussion):

A: Heresy
1. "obstinate denial or obstinate doubt" (CIC 751)

Obstinacy is not the same thing as repitition. Saying the same thing 10 times instead of 2 does not make you more obstinate. Obstinacy pertains to persistence in one's position despite being presented with arguments, instructions, evidence etc. to the contrary.

As I've repeatedly said before (and which you obstinately continue to ignore), I suspect a good number of American Catholics who oppose Church teaching on contraception do so from a perspective of poor catechesis; their rejection cannot be considered 'obstinate'.

2. "some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (CIC 751)

An ex cathedra declaration falls under this category by definition (CIC 750, #1).

I don't think we disagree that Humanae Vitae was ex cathedra.

B: Excommunication
3. "a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance [is not subject to a penalty]" (CIC 1323, 2/)

I've pointed this out before as well -- a person does not incur a latae sententiae excommunication if he is non-wilfully or non-negligently ignorant of the law.

Yet, for some reason, you continue to misrepresent my position:

your position continues to seem to be that repeated public disagreement with ANY ex cathedra position of the Church leads to "automatic excommunication".

... YOUR belief that they are "AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated" for saying that they disagree with it.


If you cannot see why none of these is equivalent to the following statement ...:

Catholics who obstinately deny Church teaching on birth control incur a latae sententiae excommunication unless they are non-wilfully or non-negligently ignorant of the penalty

... then you need a class in English, not logic.

You could also explain why something that is beyond question a logical result of your positions as you have spelled them out, is a "strawman" (italics mine)

Then again, maybe you need a class in logic as well. Nowhere have I said that the majority of American Catholics satisfy (1) and (3) -- therefore your misrepresentation of my position does not "logically" follow from what I've said.

That's why it's a strawman.