Seriously considering leaving the church because of position on sister's marriage

[Ice_nine]

29 minutes ago, veritasluxmea said:

Yes

good 2 know

[little2add]

New England was not the only destination sought by those fleeing religious persecution. In 1632, CECELIUS CALVERT, known as LORD BALTIMORE, was granted possession of all land lying between the POTOMAC RIVER and the CHESAPEAKE BAY. Lord Baltimore saw this as an opportunity to grant religious freedom to the Catholics who remained in Anglican England. Although outright violence was more a part of the 1500s than the 1600s, Catholics were still a persecuted minority in the seventeenth century. For example, Catholics were not even permitted to be legally married by a Catholic priest. Baltimore thought that his New World possession could serve as a refuge. At the same time, he hoped to turn a financial profit from the venture.

 

[Gabriela]

Yup. Did anyone ever notice "Mary-land" and "Virgin-ia"?

Edited November 26, 2015 by Gabriela

[CatherineM]

Virginia was named after Elizabeth I, nicknamed the virgin queen, but a devoted Protestant. 

[tinytherese]

7 hours ago, Kevin said:

No, it isn't according to justice, because that would imply "merit" had anything to do with it. The  However, I'm a Molinist on the issue anyway, but it doesn't surprise me that someone whose only argument is "Obey the Church because you have to" falls back on on the Augustinian position. In fact, it was only Augustine who embraced predestination in the way he did, so I shouldn't have even associated such a view with that of the Church.

However, the main point: I refuse to follow the Church just because it says it is the Church. If the Church teaches something that makes no sense to me and I embrace it, that would be Fidesim anyway.

This last part is not the case, hence the problem. Even if you renounce Catholicism, you are apparently still bound to marry in the Catholic form or you are guilty not only of heresy, but fornication. Oh, unless you got married between 1983 and 2009 and filed a formal defection. That made it okay, apparently.

I sent an email to a Canon lawyer. In the end, I will probably not leave the Church anyway, but neither will I acknowledge that my sister is not really married. So I may just excommunicate myself latae sententiae whether I like it or not.

A church is not like a family in one sense: a man who disbelieves one article of the faith, disbelieves them all. It's true that leaving the Church would not change the Church, but just as you've pointed out, the issue is not with the Church, but with me: if the Church requires me to believe something I cannot accept, I will be outside the Church regardless of whether I stop going to Mass or calling myself a Catholic.

Actually, if someone writes to their bishop saying that they no longer believe in the Catholic faith, then they are regarded as officially no longer Catholic and are no longer required to follow Catholic form for a wedding. It's legal documented proof. Verbal acknowledgement or hearsay isn't as strong as getting it in writing.

Edited November 26, 2015 by tinytherese

[Nihil Obstat]

1 hour ago, tinytherese said:

Actually, if someone writes to their bishop saying that they no longer believe in the Catholic faith, then they are regarded as officially no longer Catholic and are no longer required to follow Catholic form for a wedding. It's legal documented proof. Verbal acknowledgement or hearsay isn't as strong as getting it in writing.

This sounds incorrect to me. Do you have a reference for it?

[Kevin]

48 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

This sounds incorrect to me. Do you have a reference for it?

As a matter of fact, from 1983 to 2009 this was exactly the case as specified in Canon 1117, but it was changed. So the infallible (and apparently not just infallible in matters of the faith, but in all the minutia of interpreting Canon Law) Church who by some people's reasoning we are bound to not only follow, but follow without question no matter what the Church tells us, actually changed its mind about this issue. So for a whole 16 years, we didn't consider certain people who had converted away from the Church and gotten married not only heretics but fornicators whose weddings we were probably morally obliged not to attend.

9 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

As I said before, there is too much anger and too much pride. Take care and keep watch. I have nothing left to say.

You have no idea what does or does not influence my decisions. It has absolutely nothing to do with pride. I am sick of simply embracing whatever the Church says because the Church says it. Furthermore, the fact that decision on handing this matter in terms of formal defections was changed shows me the rulings in this matter are probably not even meant to be infallible.

Of course, there are some people who even today believe that the Church teaches Geocentrism and Catholics are bound to accept it on pain of heresy. Here is a little chestnut from someone at a rad trad forum run by a fellow at CAF (though this comment is not his):

"I believe in science when it agrees with the Bible, and I don't believe in it when it disagrees with the Bible. If science says the Earth is billions of years old, then it contradicts the Biblical genealogies, and so it cannot be believed. If science were to "prove" heliocentrism, I would still not believe it, because it contradicts the Bible."

Rejecting this sort of thinking isn't pride, it's common sense.

 

Edited November 26, 2015 by Kevin

[Nihil Obstat]

56 minutes ago, Kevin said:

As a matter of fact, from 1983 to 2009 this was exactly the case as specified in Canon 1117, but it was changed. So the infallible (and apparently not just infallible in matters of the faith, but in all the minutia of interpreting Canon Law) Church who by some people's reasoning we are bound to not only follow, but follow without question no matter what the Church tells us, actually changed its mind about this issue. So for a whole 16 years, we didn't consider certain people who had converted away from the Church and gotten married not only heretics but fornicators whose weddings we were probably morally obliged not to attend.

 

I am fully aware that it was the case. I do not think it is the case now in a recognized canonical sense. Your legitimate concerns aside, you are starting to come off as more than a little annoying.

[Ice_nine]

1 hour ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I am fully aware that it was the case. I do not think it is the case now in a recognized canonical sense. Your legitimate concerns aside, you are starting to come off as more than a little annoying.

That's not really fair. He's struggling to come to grips with something and to assent to the faith. Trying to reconcile what he feels is true with what he's told is true. Sometimes that's hard and people get emotionable. You can't bludgeon him into believing what he should.

What is it that you find annoying?

[Guest]

How does that happen if the Church is infallible? What is Kevin leaving out? Or what's the rebuttal to what he is saying about Canon 1117?

Edited November 26, 2015 by Guest

[MarysLittleFlower]

17 hours ago, Kevin said:

" The Church would ask to not give support to the marriage but this could be done in gentle ways"

That's impossible because I do support the marriage. Not supporting it is the same as saying she is a fornicator. I don't support her decision to be a Calvinist, not the fact of her being married.

"It doesn't make up what the truth is, it merely communicates it to us from God."

So the Truth changed from 1983 to 2009 when Canon 1117 allowed for formal defection?

"You sound very upset and I suggest you just take a step back, remember what brought you to the Church and trust that it teaches the truth."

By the Church's own definition, I was brought into the Church against my will when I was an infant.

"In the end Protestantism isn't historical Christianity, they have changed a lot. As St Peter said, where else would we go, Christ has the words of eternal life. He gave this to the Church. Its not an insult to say that someone did not follow the teachings and pray for their return. That is not unloving. I used to be Protestant and had many errors, and my friend prayed a lot for me and I converted to Catholicism. Would it have been loving if my friend refused to help me and saw it as an insult that the Church sees Protestantism as heresy? Love is doing what is best for the person s soul and salvation."

Anything you say about Protestantism and heresy is completely irrelevant. The Church apparently teaches that a marriage between two unbaptized atheists or Buddhists is natural and valid, but my sisters isn't natural and isn't even a marriage. You can play around with semantics all you like, but it boils down to the same thing. I pray for my sister to come back to the Church, but apparently the Church thinks I should also pray for an end to her non-marriage because when she has sex with her husband she is fornicating and committing a mortal sin.

You're still not seeing what I mean Kevin. Yes the act of having sex outside of marriage is fornication. But it doesn't mean that the Church equates your sisters situation to a prostitute or a person of loose morals regarding the intent.  We can say the act is wrong but your sister may be ignorant of that. It doesn't make her married or the act ok but a prostitute willfully fornicates for money while your sister is ignorant and wishes to be married. If she came back to the Church it wouldnt be too hard to receive the Sacrament. 

If you believe the marriage is valid then you are not following the Church teaching. We have a responsibility to learn about the Church's teaching and to understand it. You are debating us all here instead of coming with an open mind to learn more about the Church teaching. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

17 hours ago, Kevin said:

I only wish that a letter from the Bishop would be enough, but that was revoked after 2009.

The issue that I have is that while my sister may have become a Calvinist and that may make her a heretic, I can't accept that she is guilty of any sexual impurity because of a technicality.

Does it make sense to say that the sexual impurity is likely done in ignorance. That doesn't make it a marriage or make it objectively ok but do you see how culpability can be affected by knowledge and intent and that's why the Church doesn't equate everyone to a prostitute. There are people who willingly choose fornication and others may be more ignorant, see we leave the part about their *hearts* to God. It only talks of actions. The action is wrong but ignorance and lack of intent can change personal culpability. The Church would just like for your sister to come back to the Sacraments which would be a gift not a punishment. Your sister chose to leave the Church. The chastity aspect is likely in ignorance. But the Protestant part was chosen directly. Maybe she never knew much about the Church, I'm not going to comment on her interior process of coming to that. Loving our friends and family involves caring for their soul. It can mean suffering seeing their mistakes. Suffering with love not anger at them. But not anger at the truth either.

Instead of anger at the Church for holding Catholics up to a higher standard than others, it would help your sister more to pray for her and concentrate on your own faith and relationship with God. If you leave the Church that would help neither you or your sister. It would be two Catholics leaving the Church rather than one. It would separate you from the Sacraments and take you outside of grace. For what? It wouldn't help your sister and more than that, we have an obligation to put God first. That means obedience to His Church . what the Church binds on earth is bound in Heaven. It has that authority. Willfully holding on to a view that your sister is married when the Church says otherwise, is already sowing distrust and disagreement with the Church and now a temptation to more. The Church is not your enemy, it is Christ's Body and God works through it to bring you salvation. It is not a mere human institution or something separate from God. In obedience to the Church we obey God too. I'm saying this not to win some argument but because it would be very unfortunate if you left the Church. Think of how Our Lord suffered to save us.and ask Him and Our Lady for grace to help you.  

If Pope Benedict changed that rule - I don't know much about it, but there must have been a reason for it. Maybe there were problems. 

[CatherineM]

3 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

That's not really fair. He's struggling to come to grips with something and to assent to the faith. Trying to reconcile what he feels is true with what he's told is true. Sometimes that's hard and people get emotionable. You can't bludgeon him into believing what he should.

What is it that you find annoying?

I suspect Nihil finds it annoying because he seems to be looking for reasons to contest rather than looking for reasons to let go. If you truly love your siblings and love the Church, you'd want to grasp onto solutions, not fight for reasons to take issue.  He's not reacting as a normal person would, therefore most of us have begun to wonder if he is trolling. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

16 hours ago, Kevin said:

On what do you base the assertion that the only guide is the Church? Particularly when the Church seems to say different things at different times.

And as I pointed out, apparently God's will changed on this issue since Canon 1117 was changed in 2009. It's exactly this sort of dismissive "Just listen to what the Church says and don't ask questions" that I can't stand.

Oh, and according to Aquinas and Augustine and a bunch of other theologians, Grace isn't even something you can "attain", God simply arbitrarily doles it out to whoever he wishes for reasons nobody can say anything about. So whether or not I have the grace to pray is entirely up to God's arbitrary (or, excuse me "inscrutable", as if there was a difference) will to give me grace or not.

Kevin I'm going to be honest with you. You are reading Church documents, thinking you understand them and then getting upset. Have you considered that you are misunderstanding them because they are complex? Seminary takes 7 years for a reason.

If you study the topic about grace more you would see that our free will doesn't contradict teachings on grace. Asking for a grace is already cooperation and God doesn't reject giving a grace for salvation if asked for. You are reading documents while being unaware of other documents that add other points that clarify the issue. I'm still learning myself but I tried to research the teachings on grace from Fr Garrigou Lagrange and he's very clear and helpful. I'd recommend that instead of relying on our own interpretation. Church teachings are complex. They require other Church teachings to understand them. If we simply trust the Church and learn that would help us much. We can go to knowledgeable priests to help us understand the topic who have studied the ideas. 

Its the same with your sister. Yes Catholics are bound to marry in the Church. But - we don't judge the culpability because ignorance affects culpability for sin. Neither are you asked to angrily preach to your sister. Even in not supporting the marriage we can be gentle and humble. Its sad to see some sort of separation of mercy and truth. Sometimes people give up truth for mercy but mercy is based on truth. Other times people give up mercy for truth which is wrong too. The truth part is the Church teaching on marriage, the obligations Catholics have to form their conscience with the Church, to stay in the Church and marry there. The mercy part is still treating people who left the Church with patience and not trying to determine their personal culpability. A person may be more ignorant, or not, we can leave that ip to God. We can still treat others with love while not giving support in our actions for what they do. In fact it is not loving them to encourage sin. But we arent asked to preach at them. The specifics of how to act best can be discussed with a good priest. 

[little2add]

10 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Yup. Did anyone ever notice "Mary-land" and "Virgin-ia"?

Henrietta Maria was brought up and educated as a Roman Catholic. News that Charles was going to marry a Roman Catholic did not go down well in England, Wales and Scotland. However, the marriage went ahead. Both were married by proxy on May 11th, 1625 while they married in person on June 13th, 1626 at St. Augustine’s Church in Canterbury. However, the coronation service of Charles was an Anglican one and as a result Henrietta Maria could not be crowned as queen.

Maryland, named after England's Catholic queen HENRIETTA MARIA, was first settled in 1634. Unlike the religious experiments to the North, economic opportunity was the draw for many Maryland colonists. Consequently, most immigrants did not cross the Atlantic in family units but as individuals. The first inhabitants were a mixture of country gentlemen (mostly Catholic) and workers and artisans (mostly Protestant). This mixture would surely doom the Catholic experiment. Invariably, there are more poor than aristocrats in any given society, and the Catholics soon found themselves in the minority.

Edited November 26, 2015 by little2add