Especially for Catholics: Are Catholics allowed to debate?

[Bible Defender]

Got a question for the Catholics out there.

Here is something I came across on the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"It is not, then, surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in "Sextus Decretalium", Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith.

The text reads: We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.

But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy."

So the way I read this, since according to Roman teaching, Protestants are heretics. According to the Catholic Catechism: "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"

That being the case, from what I understand, then, is that Catholic laymen are indeed fobidden from engaging in debates concerning the Catholic faith and must refer such debates to the clergy. Am I missing something?

Any thoughts?

[spl_cadet]

I don't think that it is in force anymore. The Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1913 after all. Also, I believe it probably has a different meaning that engaging in apologetics/conversion efforts. I know I've seen it discussed before, but that was a couple years ago.

[Bible Defender]

I don't think that it is in force anymore. The Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1913 after all. Also, I believe it probably has a different meaning that engaging in apologetics/conversion efforts. I know I've seen it discussed before, but that was a couple years ago.

Hey there!!
Hmmm, a couple of things. First, it mentions "The Editors have insisted that the articles should contain the latest and most accurate information to be obtained from the standard works on each subject." I have taken the prior quotes from New Advent web site. Second, the quotations given before doesn't differintiate from "apologetic" efforts. It simply says debates with heretics both public and private are forbidden to laymen. Third, the site says that the decree is still in effect, so unless you can find another decree of some kind that states that that law is now obsolete etc I have misgivings about that.

The reason why I make this is because I do enjoy talking to and debating Catholics (used to be one myself) and I do not want to be the cause of someone else's doing something that they feel is wrong. So, I want this to maybe be a warning and to make sure that it is ok for you guys to debate.

So, if you could find something let me know.

P.S. When are you going to give your opening statement?

In Christ -

[Constantine]

Could you provide a link to the page on New Advent? It would be most helpful.

[Paul]

It simply says debates with heretics both public and private are forbidden to laymen.

No it doesn't quite say that. Did you read the entire article?

"This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. In modern life, it frequently happens that an O'Connell or a Montalembert (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10513b.htm) must stand forward as a defender of Catholic interests upon occasions when a theologian would be out of place. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy."


Third, the site says that the decree is still in effect, so unless you can find another decree of some kind that states that that law is now obsolete etc I have misgivings about that.

Did you read the entire article? Because it doesn't say that. You are probably thinking of this sentence:

"That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm) regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled."

But "this legislation" refers not the decree that you quoted in the OP which was some four centuries prior to "1645," but rather to this legislation described in the immediately preceding paragraph:

"But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide" (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March, 1625: "The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude. [See the decree of 1631 regarding the missionaries in Constantinople; also the decrees of 1645 and 1662, the latter forbidding the General of the Capuchins to authorize such disputes (Collectanea, 1674, n. 302).]"



The reason why I make this is because I do enjoy talking to and debating Catholics (used to be one myself) and I do not want to be the cause of someone else's doing something that they feel is wrong. So, I want this to maybe be a warning and to make sure that it is ok for you guys to debate.

This doesn't make any sense. You don't want someone to do something they feel is wrong. That's good. But if you don't tell them it is considered wrong then they would never feel that it is wrong. So why tell them in the first place? And why do you make an inaccurate representation of what the article says? Is it because you didn't read the entire article? Did you have problems following it?

[Bible Defender]

No it doesn't quite say that. Did you read the entire article?

"This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public. There are numerous questions, somewhat connected with theology, which many laymen who have received no scientific theological training can treat more intelligently than a priest. In modern life, it frequently happens that an O'Connell or a Montalembert (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10513b.htm) must stand forward as a defender of Catholic interests upon occasions when a theologian would be out of place. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy."

Yes I did. And look again at the last sentence. But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defence of it to the clergy."

This states that in matters of dogmatic theology ie the Immaculate Conception or the Papacy etc laymen will leave the defence of it to the clergy.


Did you read the entire article? Because it doesn't say that. You are probably thinking of this sentence:

"That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07424b.htm) regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled."

But "this legislation" refers not the decree that you quoted in the OP which was some four centuries prior to "1645," but rather to this legislation described in the immediately preceding paragraph:

"But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide" (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March, 1625: "The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude. [See the decree of 1631 regarding the missionaries in Constantinople; also the decrees of 1645 and 1662, the latter forbidding the General of the Capuchins to authorize such disputes (Collectanea, 1674, n. 302).]"


What you quoted above concerns the clergy. From what I gather, the clergy is not free to just go and debate matters of dogmatic theology, they must get proper authorization beforehand.

Here again is what is stated in the second paragraph: "It is not, then, surprising that the question of disputations with heretics has been made the subject of ecclesiastical legislation. By a decree of Alexander IV (1254-1261) inserted in "Sextus Decretalium", Lib. V, c. ii, and still in force, all laymen are forbidden, under threat of excommunication, to dispute publicly or privately with heretics on the Catholic Faith. The text reads: "Inhibemus quoque, ne cuiquam laicæ personæ liceat publice vel privatim de fide catholicâ disputare. Qui vero contra fecerit, excommunicationis laqueo innodetur." (We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication.)"

So don't tell me that it doesn't say that, it does. Black and white. I am just wondering, when it comes to dogmatic theology, can a Catholic debate on the issue at hand? Or are they under this law, forbidden to do so. Is there an annulment to this law somewhere?

This doesn't make any sense. You don't want someone to do something they feel is wrong. That's good. But if you don't tell them it is considered wrong then they would never feel that it is wrong. So why tell them in the first place? And why do you make an inaccurate representation of what the article says? Is it because you didn't read the entire article? Did you have problems following it?

Sure, I could have kept it quiet, but that would be decietful and it would weigh on my conscience. This way, they are aware and can look for themselves, see if I am wrong etc etc. They would be making an informed discission. As for inaccurately representing what the article states, is that an accusation? I spicifically asked if what I had read is right. And is specifically states that all laymen are forbidden, and that this law is still in effect. That is why I asked the question in the first place. I have also written Catholic apologists on the matter, because I might be wrong. They have as yet to answer though.
So I take acception with what you said as if implying that it was intentional.
Here is the link.

Religious Discussions (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm)

[Paul]

This states that in matters of dogmatic theology ie the Immaculate Conception or the Papacy etc laymen will leave the defence of it to the clergy.


Not it does not. First it says "dogmatic OR moral theology" and second you are ripping one sentence out of context and failing to read this one: "The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public."


So don't tell me that it doesn't say that, it does.

You are right that it was still in force at that time. However you are not interpreting it correctly. The word "dispute" according to the article has a technical meaning.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law per canon 6 would have abrogated this law and replaced it with any others that have similar application. The 1917 Code may have done the same but I am not familiar with the 1917 Code. You can find the 1983 Code of Canon Law here:

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm

or alternatively on the Vatican website.

The 1917 Code can be found online also but I think it can only be found in Latin.

[Bible Defender]

Not it does not. First it says "dogmatic OR moral theology" and second you are ripping one sentence out of context and failing to read this one: "The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public."



You are right that it was still in force at that time. However you are not interpreting it correctly. The word "dispute" according to the article has a technical meaning.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law per canon 6 would have abrogated this law and replaced it with any others that have similar application. The 1917 Code may have done the same but I am not familiar with the 1917 Code. You can find the 1983 Code of Canon Law here:

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm

or alternatively on the Vatican website.

The 1917 Code can be found online also but I think it can only be found in Latin.

First, I cannot find Law 1983. What does it say exactly. Second. the term dispute does have a technical term. "the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public." What is a debate, moderated, in a university, church or auditorium or even here? Do not these forums satisfy the definition for dispute? I think it does. Third, I have not found anything that states that they aren't in force anymore. For example, here in the military, a message will go out or something similar that states that this instruction or article etc supersedes previous ones.

IIRC A debate between James White and Catholic Jim Staples, Mr. White asked Mr. Staples the question as to how the decree by Alexander IV doesn't apply to him since he is a layman without response. So, evidently I am not alone in asking this question.

[Paul]

First, I cannot find Law 1983.

What are you talking about? I gave you the link. Here it is again:

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm

1983 refers to the year in which it was promulgated. Canon 6 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law can be found specifically here:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P1.HTM

I'll reproduce it for you:

Can. 6 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1/34.HTM) §1 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/H.HTM) When this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM) comes (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1/G7.HTM) into force (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/8W.HTM), the following (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/7F.HTM) are abrogated (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/K6.HTM):

1° (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/36.HTM) the Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM) of Canon (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/CH.HTM) Law (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/R.HTM) promulgated (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/TN.HTM) in 1917;

2° (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/37.HTM) other laws (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/5W.HTM), whether universal (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/60.HTM) or particular (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2C.HTM), which are contrary (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/6I.HTM) to the provisions (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2R.HTM) of this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM), unless it is otherwise expressly (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/7W.HTM) provided (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/3Y.HTM) in respect (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/B4.HTM) of particular (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2C.HTM) laws (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/5W.HTM);

3° (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/56.HTM) all penal (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/AR.HTM) laws (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/5W.HTM) enacted (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/Z1.HTM) by the Apostolic (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1N.HTM) See (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1K.HTM), whether universal (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/60.HTM) or particular (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2C.HTM), unless they are resumed in this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM) itself;

4° (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/AO.HTM) any other universal (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/60.HTM) disciplinary (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/F2.HTM) laws (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/5W.HTM) concerning (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/3J.HTM) matters (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/4A.HTM) which are integrally (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/BB.HTM) reordered by this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM).

§2 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/I.HTM) To the extent (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/QO.HTM) that the canons (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/74.HTM) of this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM) reproduce the former law (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/R.HTM), they are to be assessed in the light (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1/96.HTM) also of canonical (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/6O.HTM) tradition (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/XI.HTM).

[Pythagoras]

Are catholics allowed ot debate?



Seriously, no! The 'church' interpretes Scripture . catholics have no choice but to follow Church dogma and doctrine. Faliure to do so results in excommunication.

[Bible Defender]

What are you talking about? I gave you the link. Here it is again:

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0017.htm

1983 refers to the year in which it was promulgated. Canon 6 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law can be found specifically here:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P1.HTM

I'll reproduce it for you:

Can. 6 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1/34.HTM) §1 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/H.HTM) When this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM) comes (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1/G7.HTM) into force (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/8W.HTM), the following (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/7F.HTM) are abrogated (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/K6.HTM):

1° (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/36.HTM) the Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM) of Canon (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/CH.HTM) Law (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/R.HTM) promulgated (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/TN.HTM) in 1917;

2° (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/37.HTM) other laws (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/5W.HTM), whether universal (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/60.HTM) or particular (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2C.HTM), which are contrary (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/6I.HTM) to the provisions (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2R.HTM) of this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM), unless it is otherwise expressly (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/7W.HTM) provided (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/3Y.HTM) in respect (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/B4.HTM) of particular (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2C.HTM) laws (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/5W.HTM);

3° (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/56.HTM) all penal (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/AR.HTM) laws (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/5W.HTM) enacted (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/Z1.HTM) by the Apostolic (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1N.HTM) See (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1K.HTM), whether universal (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/60.HTM) or particular (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2C.HTM), unless they are resumed in this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM) itself;

4° (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/AO.HTM) any other universal (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/60.HTM) disciplinary (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/F2.HTM) laws (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/5W.HTM) concerning (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/3J.HTM) matters (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/4A.HTM) which are integrally (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/2/BB.HTM) reordered by this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM).

§2 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/I.HTM) To the extent (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/QO.HTM) that the canons (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/74.HTM) of this Code (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/II.HTM) reproduce the former law (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/R.HTM), they are to be assessed in the light (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/1/96.HTM) also of canonical (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/6O.HTM) tradition (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/XI.HTM).


Thanks!!! What I meant was that the link for one reason (probably due to the firewall the military put on here or something) the link didn't work.

But thanks for clearing this up for me.

[Paul]

Thanks!!! What I meant was that the link for one reason (probably due to the firewall the military put on here or something) the link didn't work.

But thanks for clearing this up for me.

Sorry for misunderstanding. Here's another link that might work:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

It could just be an internet hiccup also.

[Rushing Jaws]

Hey there!!
Hmmm, a couple of things. First, it mentions "The Editors have insisted that the articles should contain the latest and most accurate information to be obtained from the standard works on each subject." I have taken the prior quotes from New Advent web site.## "[l]atest and most accurate" was said over 90 years ago :lol: - why should we be required to behave as though that time had not passed, and as though that passage of time had seen no changes ?

What is significant is not that nothing should change in any respect - that is impossible to stop, because the world outside the Church changes whether we like it or not; so problems, challenges, temptations & opportunities change accordingly. The Church is not faced with the circumstances of 1913, but with those of 2006. She is free of some problems she had then, and has acquired different ones; as has the world in which the Church is to live and to minister.

Changelessness in all respects is not required of the Church, it is not possible, and it is not claimed by the Church. That sort of changelessness, is not the same as fidelity - for fidelity to the Church's Lord, and to His Will for the world & her, does not require that she never change in any respect. She is not required to be changeless in that way, but to be constantly faithful to what she has received - and to do & be that, requires changes of various sorts. Otherwise, the Church is in danger of fossilisation and death. Change is not the important thing, nor is the avoidance of it; faithfulness to CHrist & to all that is in Him (whatever this faithfulness may require), is.

The circumstances of the 1250s, are not those of today - what may have been appropriate then, is not necessarily appropriate today. ##


Second, the quotations given before doesn't differintiate from "apologetic" efforts. It simply says debates with heretics both public and private are forbidden to laymen. Third, the site says that the decree is still in effect, so unless you can find another decree of some kind that states that that law is now obsolete etc I have misgivings about that.## That article on the site was not in a position to address the circumstances of today. ##

The reason why I make this is because I do enjoy talking to and debating Catholics (used to be one myself) and I do not want to be the cause of someone else's doing something that they feel is wrong. So, I want this to maybe be a warning and to make sure that it is ok for you guys to debate.## It's very kind of you to think like that :smile: ##

So, if you could find something let me know.

P.S. When are you going to give your opening statement?

In Christ -