"I appreciate the information, but I get a sense that you were trying at the same time to be offensive. If that's not the case, I apologize."
I certainly was not trying to be offensive, no (I expect being deliberately offensive during a theological discussion would qualify as what the Russians call nekulturniy, to say the least). I apologize if I gave that impression.
"All right. Now, how about my hypothetical Hindu? Is it possible for him to serve God, never having been exposed to any philosophy or theology of the Judeo-Christian tradition?"
First, I want to make clear that I'm far from an expert on this subject. In order to make sure we're both on the same page, I'll quote from the two relevant sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
-------
"1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his [sic] Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."
-------
and
-------
"1281 Those who die for the faith, those who are catachumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his [sic] will, are saved even if they have not been baptized."
-------
Based on this, I would say that yes, it is possible -- I say again for emphasis, possible -- for our hypothetical Hindu friend to serve God without any knowledge of philosophy or Judeo-Christian Theology, in a way known to God, and under the inspiration of grace. But this possibility exists only so long as he does not know of the Gospel of Christ or of His Church.
"So, an Aztec priest offering up human sacrifices was not committing sins? That wasn't offensive to God? I'm not just quibbling here; I'm honestly trying to get this straight in my mind.
We know that God is infinitely merciful, loving, and just; so what's the status of a South Sea cannibal? What's the status of a Baal worshiper whose honest and sincere attempts to serve God as best as he knows how led him to cast his living infant into a fire in the idol's belly?"
Well, sin is defined as "an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience" (CCC 1849) and "an utterence, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law" (id.). Mortal sin requires "full knowledge and complete consent" (CCC 1859), but "no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man" (CCC 1860).
So, judging by this, I would have to say that no, the Aztec priests and child-sacrificing Baal worshippers are not invincibly ignorant, and are committing sinful acts. The cannibal, I'm not sure: is the act of eating human flesh contrary to the natural moral law? Obviously, killing a man for the purpose of eating him is probably sinful, but what about cannibalism itself? I couldn't tell you.
Human sacrifice fails on its face as far as qualifying for the baptism of desire goes. The Catechism is very specific (CCC 1281) that a person thus saved is acting under the inspiration of grace; God would never inspire one to do something so wicked as to sacrifice another human life to some false idol (be that idol Quetzalcoatl or Baal or "reproductive rights").
I should remind you that I'm not an expert on sin. I suppose I am on sinning, but not especially moreso than the average Rightist, conservative, Catholic citizen of the United States. I actually had a mediocre education in the Faith (at best), and it's quite possible that I'm wrong or otherwise mistaken.
"This would seem to imply that you think me invincibly ignorant. I'll admit to ignorance, but I think you're unnecessarily harsh in presuming my ignorance to be invincible."
No, I was being facetious. I didn't mean you specifically, but more as a general remark (in the sense of "y'all," one might say). I'm sorry, I should have clarified that, but rest assured, I didn't mean to suggest you to be invincibly ignorant.