The quotation you gave.

But the link just posted contains this quote, "Outside the Church there is no salvation" This is hard to explain to your Protestant friends and family.

Source?

However, since penal law is to be interpreted benignly, the judge or ordinary should not too easily attribute criminal intent to the alleged offender. By contrast, the former code simply presumed criminal intent (dolus) if the law were broken (CIC 2200, §2)

I should also note that there is a great difference between a presumption and a statement of fact. A presumption only makes clear where the burden of proof is. For example, all marriages are presumed to be valid; a person requesting an annulment has to provide sufficient evidence to overturn that presumption. That's a strong presumption. I do not know how strong the presumption of wrongdoing was under the former code.

If I may, the better question is: is this liberal newspaper considered to be Catholic? And the answer is: no.

It's not in the spirit of ANY council, not even the Council of Trent...

Weren't they ordered many years ago by the Church to remove 'Catholic' from its name?

As the editors of the National Catholic Reporter know, I have tried as their pastor, responsible for their eternal welfare, and that of those whom they influence, to guide them on a responsible course in harmony with Catholic teachings. When private conferences were of no avail, as is well known, I had to issue a public reprimand for their policy of crusading against the Church's teachings on the transmission of human life, and against the Gospel values of sacred virginity and dedicated celibacy as taught by the Church.

NOW, AS a last resort, I am forced as bishop to issue a condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter for its disregard and denial of the most sacred values of our Catholic faith. Within recent months the National Catholic Reporter has expressed itself in belittling the basic truths expressed in the Creed of Pope Paul VI; it has made itself a platform for the airing of heretical views on the Church and its divinely constituted structure, as taught by the First and Second Vatican Councils. Vehemently to be reprobated was the airing in recent editions of an attack on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the virgin birth of Christ, by one of its contributors.
Finally, it has given lengthy space to a blasphemous and heretical attack on the Vicar of Christ. It is difficult to see how well instructed writers who deliberately deny and ridicule dogmas of our Catholic faith can possibly escape the guilt of the crime defined in Canon 1325 on heresy, and how they can escape the penalties of automatic excommunication entailed thereby.

In fairness to our Catholic people, I hereby issue an official condemnation of the National Catholic Reporter. Furthermore, I send this communication to my brother bishops, and make known to the priests, religious and laity of the nation my views on the poisonous character of this publication.

...IN AS MUCH as the National Catholic Reporter does not reflect the teaching of the Church, but on the contrary, has openly and deliberately opposed this teaching. I ask the editors in all honesty to drop the term "Catholic" from their masthead. By retaining it they deceive their Catholic readers and do a great disservice to ecumenism by being responsible for the false irenicism of watering down Catholic teachings.

I further ask the editors and the board of directors, for the love of God and their fellow men, to change their misguided and evil policy; for it is evident to me that they have already caused untold harm to the faith and morals not only of our laity, but of too many of our priests and religious. ...

Yes, I did.

The quotation you gave clearly stated that the situation is different under the new code in exactly that respect.

Yet, they did not exclude dolus.

The authors clearly say that judges should avoid the presumption of dolus. What part of that is hard for you to understand?

Hard for me to understand ... seriously?


Anyway, it actually says, "the judge or ordinary should not too easily attribute criminal intent to the alleged offender."

"Too easily."

Meaning that one COULD presume dolus with the new CIC.

Thus it does not support the notion that the new CIC exclude dolus as a presumption.


And that is from a heretical liberal modernist book (see Fr. John Trigilio's comment on it over at amazon)

beng, you are wrong. The previous CIC as a matter of law presumed it. The current CIC doesn't. You need to show where it does. This is Roman law after all. What is not expressly permitted cannot be assumed to be so.

Where can one find this in St. Augustine?