Catholics Marry, Just Not at Church

[Maggyie]

That's the thing. People in these invalid marriages are NOT non-Catholics. They are baptized Catholics living in a state of mortal sin!

Sin does not make one a non Catholic. An invalid marriage does not make one a non-Catholic. Baptism is permanent and can not be undone even if the parties dearly wish it so. It is virtually impossible to "leave" the Catholic Church from a sacramental perspective, and as a matter of fact, there used to be a canonical form for leaving, but it was abolished.

Catholic marriages can not be considered invalid unless a decree of nullity is sought and obtained. We are REQUIRED to presume validity of the marriage unless it is proven otherwise by a tribunal. That's right - REQUIRED.

"Well their marriage is invalid for XYZ canonical reasons, so of course I can assume it must also be invalid for ABC reasons, too, that's just how these people are." < -- Nope. You can't assume. That's also circular reasoning and not exactly a Catholic attitude. You can't assume they are too immature to contract validly, aren't open to life, don't intend a lifetime bond, are being coerced, or any of that. 

The fact that one or both members of the couple are viscious sinners who would give up their religion when crossed has NO impact on their ability to contract effectively. The reasons for invalidating a marriage are few. We are talking about a canonical requirement that does not go to the heart of the marriage bond. It's similar to the requirement for 2 witnesses - an important thing to have but does it impact the couple's ability to truly contract a marriage? Not in the most meaningful sense, only in a legal sense. 

The church will never be able to receive the vows of 2 people who don't intend a life long commitment or who aren't open to children (speaking from personal experience, you aren't required to be open to, or stay open to adoption either by the way. Openness refers to accepting biological children that spring from the act of consummation and repetition of that act. It's about the nature of sex, not parenting). 

However she can certainly accept the vows of 2 people at the mall or at a bar without any witnesses, if she chose to allow that. 

[little2add]

 So when the Catholic not married   In a church  couple  want to baptize their baby  With that be wrong according to Canon law

 

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

 

 So when the Catholic not married   In a church  couple  want to baptize their baby  With that be wrong according to Canon law

 

 

 

In order for a child to be baptised in ordinary circumstances there must be a well founded hope that he will be raised in the Faith.

[little2add]

 

In order for a child to be baptised in ordinary circumstances there must be a well founded hope that he will be raised in the Faith.

Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

 

Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

Take it up with the Church. Basic stuff, bro.

[little2add]

 

nothing really to take up, is there?

[Nihil Obstat]

 

nothing really to take up, is there?

Should not be. Not sure what your issue is.

 

 

Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:

1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.

[hotpink]

Let's be real here.  In MOST of the cases those who aren't getting married in the church were not catechized.  Most of their parents abdicated their role in religious education long ago.  When I first was interested in the church I tried to speak to people my age who said they were Catholic in class.  They really didn't know anything.

I also tried to volunteer at a youth group.  I didn't teach but I was learning alot.  They had a month where they did quite a few important topics in the church.  Transubstantiation, weekly mass required, no sex before marriage,   Really simple stuff.  Parents called an emergency meeting with the priest for teaching their post confirmation teens (10th, 11th and 12th graders) because these were "wacky" ideas that "no one believed".    The priest did emergency catacetis that night and really handled the situation with grace.

The impression it gave me, looking at the few dozen adults, was that they truly didn't know, nor had ever been catechized themselves.  Some mentioned that they would be leaving for X parish across town where the priest openly contradicted church teachings.  The Bishop did nothing.

I don't think that we can entirely put the blame on my generation.  I don't think that it's the fault of most 20-30 something's that they were never taught and got married in a non sacramental way.  Heck, most of them can't even name the sacraments after 12 lame duck years of CCE where they learned that Jesus loved them but zero about doctrine.

As someone from the outside, I also don't think priests who are baptizing "hoping" the parents return to the church are doing the best job, either.  They are just continuing to perpetuate the cycle that someone with enough clout, money and squeaky wheel can get whatever they want out of the Church.  It is reasonable for Priests to require Baptism classes, for instance, that last atleast a few months and cover basic teachings.

I once heard a priest say there is no greater burden than the gift of baptism on a soul that is not taught to love the Church.  One of my co-worker's is a C&E catholic and her older son was Baptized.  She also put him in CCE and he received his first communion.  According to her he cried every Sunday for months because he wanted to go to church and she wanted to sleep in.  She found it really funny.  Eventually his passion wained, but I think that there is some damage to the relationship between them.  He no longer asked for cuddles and would often cry in the weeks after Christmas and Easter even years later.  His younger brother (who was never baptized) never seemed to feel this way even though he had the same exposure to Church.  I've always wondered if this passion was truly a gift from God that wound up being a curse to this poor little boy.

[little2add]

 

As someone from the outside, I also don't think priests who are baptizing "hoping" the parents return to the church are doing the best job, either.  They are just continuing to perpetuate the cycle that someone with enough clout, money and squeaky wheel can get whatever they want out of the Church.  It is reasonable for Priests to require Baptism classes, for instance, that last atleast a few months and cover basic teachings.

.

it is reasonable and prudent for a priest to ask that.  

[hotpink]

For those who seem to be flip flopping, help me as a non-Catholic understand---

If a priest met the couple and said that a couple needed 6 months of prep before a Baptism and the couple said "no" then the priest would be free not to Baptize the baby?   I choose this because the daycare at my office takes parental appointments 6 months before a child can be allowed in the daycare.  Typically this is when a woman is about 4-5 months pregnant and allows children to join at 8-12 weeks...so if you're planning daycare one can reasonably assume you'd be looking for spiritual things, too.

But maybe 6 months is too much for the completely unchurched?  Should it be 4?  2 weeks?

At what point is a priest free to say no?  Several people on here seem to believe that no matter what children should be "suffered unto Christ" while others say that the rules of the CCC matter more.  At what point can a priest just use his own judgment?  I would say classes satisfy the CCC requirements but it appears some here would say even if parents failed to attend the child still should be Baptized.

[little2add]

For those who seem to be flip flopping, help me as a non-Catholic understand---

If a priest met the couple and said that a couple needed 6 months of prep before a Baptism and the couple said "no" then the priest would be free not to Baptize the baby?   I choose this because the daycare at my office takes parental appointments 6 months before a child can be allowed in the daycare.  Typically this is when a woman is about 4-5 months pregnant and allows children to join at 8-12 weeks...so if you're planning daycare one can reasonably assume you'd be looking for spiritual things, too.

But maybe 6 months is too much for the completely unchurched?  Should it be 4?  2 weeks?

At what point is a priest free to say no?  Several people on here seem to believe that no matter what children should be "suffered unto Christ" while others say that the rules of the CCC matter more.  At what point can a priest just use his own judgment?  I would say classes satisfy the CCC requirements but it appears some here would say even if parents failed to attend the child still should be Baptized.

i would bs surprised if any priest said no, even without naming godparents.  

 

[Maggyie]

I def think there should be minimum requirements for baptism. Just that we shouldn't punish the child if the parents are in an irregular situation. Just the fact they are attempting to present the child can be interpreted as a promoting of the Holy Spirit, given that they themselves aren't in good standing, it's a sign they want something different for their child. 

The CCC is intentionally vague to allow for different situations to be evaluated individually. But it would be wrong to baptize a child who is likely going to be taught to be hostile to Christianity for instance. Not fair to the child. 

[hotpink]

I def think there should be minimum requirements for baptism. Just that we shouldn't punish the child if the parents are in an irregular situation. Just the fact they are attempting to present the child can be interpreted as a promoting of the Holy Spirit, given that they themselves aren't in good standing, it's a sign they want something different for their child. 

The CCC is intentionally vague to allow for different situations to be evaluated individually. But it would be wrong to baptize a child who is likely going to be taught to be hostile to Christianity for instance. Not fair to the child. 

All of Christanity, or just the Catholic values?  Lets say that the couple was christian but liked the tradition of infant baptism.  However, they didn't believe in transubstantiation, they wanted women clergy, homosexual marriage, contraception soley for the prevention of children (not for med reasons) and to be able to eat freely during Mass or any other numerous things which may sects Christianity allows but Catholics do not.  I feel like this scenerio is very likely since most "Catholics" seem to think all of that is OK anyway according to polls and such.

[Lilllabettt]

The CCC is intentionally vague to allow for different situations to be evaluated individually. But it would be wrong to baptize a child who is likely going to be taught to be hostile to Christianity for instance. Not fair to the child. 

Nope.

The person baptizing must have a "well founded hope" the child will be brought up in the faith.  The requirement is a positive one. The celebrant must have a well founded hope a child WILL be taught the faith, not the absence of a suspicion that they will "likely" be taught to hate the faith.

A child that is not deliberately instructed will soak up the culture of the day - a culture which happens to be openly hostile to Christianity.

[Maggyie]

Nope.

The person baptizing must have a "well founded hope" the child will be brought up in the faith.  The requirement is a positive one. The celebrant must have a well founded hope a child WILL be taught the faith, not the absence of a suspicion that they will "likely" be taught to hate the faith.

A child that is not deliberately instructed will soak up the culture of the day - a culture which happens to be openly hostile to Christianity.

that's not what I said.... How would you define well founded hope since the catechism rather deliberately doesn't?

Edited September 14, 2015 by Maggyie