I merely respond to what others are saying. Ipev is making the case that the ongoing habitual sins were ipso facto evidence of a conscious decision to live like that.
I am saying only that he is not the judge of who has faith and who does not.
If you don't agree, and think that it is our job to decide who is a "reprobate" then continue to take his side.
Do you believe that a young man, "Father" Shanley for example, would have no shame and would state publicly that sex with boys was ok? Would claim that the child is the seducer? Do you think such a man would be protected by the RCC for many years?
Nobody is talking specific cases. I am talking in general terms as he was. I am not defending any specific person. what I am saying is that habitual sin, even heinous sin, is not ipso facto evidence that a person has no faith. It's a heck of a good indicator but it is not infallible.
SD