mel gibson

Originally posted by no1marauder
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?

No need to.

EDIT: Read the whole paragraph again (what was it you said about not breaking up sentences and paragraphs?):

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.

[i/]Originally posted by lucifershammer[/i]
I'm going to "Balkanise" my response, and if that gives you an aneurysm - then so be it.

[b]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 [i/]latae sententiae[/ mine)

Then again, maybe you need a class in logic as well.[/b]

The statement that you refuse to disavow makes your entire position disingenous. Unless Catholics are unaware of the Church position on birth control, your pettifogging objections do not apply.

The words "Obstinate denial" need to be in read in full context of Church doctrine. The RCC position is that it, and only it, can definitively ascertain the Moral Law given by God. Therefore, one it makes an ex cathedra declaration, the faithful are obligated to accept it. Any continued denial is "obstinate" once the person is informed of the Church's position and that it is ex cathedra. What you continue to do is tear a phrase out of all context. This is extremely poor reasoning and it is endemic to your arguments.

Your petty attempts at insults are childish. Please cease them.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No need to.

EDIT: Read the whole paragraph again (what was it you said about not breaking up sentences and paragraphs?):

With apostasy and schism, a Catholic who is [b]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 ...[text shortened]... b] Catholic who denies the truth of these can know that they've incurred the penalty.

[/b]

Is it seriously your claim that most American Catholics are unaware of the Church position on contraception?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The statement that you refuse to disavow makes your entire position disingenous. You state that Catholics are aware of the Church position on birth control. Therefore, your pettifogging objections do not apply.

The words "Obstinate denial" need to be in read in full context of Church doctrine. The RCC position is that it, and only it, can de ...[text shortened]... your arguments.

Your petty attempts at insults are childish. Please cease them.

I'm sorry. I had to resort to childish insults because the grown-up versions seem to fly right past you.

As to the rest, read the edited versions of both posts first.

The RCC position is that it, and only it, can definitively ascertain the Moral Law given by God. Therefore, [once] it makes an ex cathedra declaration, the faithful are obligated to accept it. Any continued denial is "obstinate" once the person is informed of the Church's position and that it is ex cathedra.

Merely knowing that X is the Church's position and that X has been proclaimed ex cathedra means nothing to a person who doesn't know what ex cathedra means or who has never been catechised well enough to know why faithful Catholics must accept them.

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

[b]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 [i/]latae sententiae[/ ally" follow from what I've said.

That's why it's a strawman.[/b]

BTW, you changed your statement from "non-wilfully or non-negligently ignorant of the law" to "non-wilfully or non-negligently ignorant of the penalty." This is a very different statement.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Is it seriously your claim that most American Catholics are unaware of the Church position on contraception?

I have neither made such a claim nor does it follow logically from anything I've written.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b/]I'm sorry. I had to resort to childish insults because the grown-up versions seem to fly right past you.

As to the rest, read the edited versions of both posts first.

The RCC position is that it, and only it, can definitively ascertain the Moral Law given by God. Therefore, [once] it makes an ex cathedra declaration, the faithful are obligate who has never been catechised well enough to know why faithful Catholics must accept them.

I can only state that, once again, you are incredibly ignorant of the US. Believe it or not, most American Catholics know the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and know that the teaching on birth control is ex cathedra whether they know that term or not.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I have neither made such a claim nor does it follow logically from anything I've written.

Then what are they ignorant of, LH? Please just state what you are claiming; this type of game is ridiculous.

Originally posted by no1marauder
BTW, you changed your statement from "non-wilfully or non-negligently ignorant of the [b]law" to "non-wilfully or non-negligently ignorant of the penalty." This is a very different statement.[/b]

Now who's playing semantic games?

EDIT: What's the difference, pray tell?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I can only state that, once again, you are incredibly ignorant of the US. Believe it or not, most American Catholics know the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and know that the teaching on birth control is ex cathedra whether they know that term or not.

I'll take your word for it.

Do you remember saying this on page 7:

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.

EDIT: As regards the change in statement above. More generally, I don't need to know that the penalty for stealing a car is 5 years in prison to be held accountable for the knowledge that stealing a car will incur a penalty. The change in statement suggests that knowledge of the specific penalty is required.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you remember saying this on page 7:

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.

EDIT: As regards the change in statement above. More generally, I don't need to kn ...[text shortened]... a penalty. The change in statement suggests that knowledge of the specific penalty is required.

I have been using them inter-changeably, as the sentence you quote in your post shows. By law, I mean it in the narrow sense of "canon law" or canon (not the wider sense of moral law or Church teaching).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Then what are they ignorant of, LH? Please just state what you are claiming; this type of game is ridiculous.

The conclusion of my argument is a conditional, not an assertion. So, in terms you understand:

If the majority of the Catholics in the US know of Church teaching against contraception and if they know that it is an infallible teaching and if they understand what an infallible teaching is and if they persist in denying or doubting that teaching and if they know that to do so is heresy and if they know that they incur a latae sententiae excommunication for heresy (or, if they are ignorant of what it is to be a heretic and the penalty, it is due to wilful negligence) and if they satisfy certain other canonical conditions (e.g. age, reason etc.) then (and only then) do they incur a latae sententiae excommunication.

You can't double-stamp a no-stampsies!

You can't kill the dead, unless you throw them in Hell.