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

[MarysLittleFlower]

15 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.

I'll just give you an article that describes the teaching on grace written by a very knowledgeable priest. Its better than us self interpreting St Augustine and St Thomas. http://www.thesumma.info/reality/reality50.php

Fideism is thinking faith is unreasonable. Trusting that the faith is reasonable though WE don't understand it yet is not fideism. 

You seem to.hold on to your view on your sisters marriage even if it means an excommunication. I hope not because that is placing your view over working out your salvation. Are you sure you want to do that? Is holding on to your view that THAT important?

Doesn't the Church know better? Remember self will was the fall. Maybe for you this is motivated by hurt over your sister but this is going to help neither her nor you. Believing that she is married contrary to Church teaching would not change her situation and it would place you at odds with the Church who is the Body of Christ.

Seek God and His Kingdom and all other things would be added. If we seek other things we would lose them and risk our souls. Is it worth it? 

Your big difficulty seemed to be that you think you have to see your sister as a prostitute. It was explained by several people that this is not the case because in addition to an act there is personal culpability, unknown to us, and affected by amount of knowledge etc. Willfully choosing to be a prostitite is not the same as thinking you're married when you're not even though both acts objectively are sex without marriage. Your sisters culpability we should all leave to God. Its not like there are two extremes - either you think she's married, or you think she's like a prostitute. The middle ground is acknowledging that Catholics need Catholic marriage but also acknowledging that she thinks she's married and doesn't want fornication. The Calvinist part is what is keeping her from the Sacrament, not a desire for fornication, so for her to fix the situation and have a valid marriage, she would need to deal with the choice she made to be Protestant. This is where we treat our family members with patience and love and just invite them to the beauty of the Mass, the Real Presence, etc. Jesus longs to give Himself in the Holy Eucharist. Are we willing to suffer and hope with Him for those we love? Isn't that a better solution than anger at the Church, which doesn't make up the truth, but gives it?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Consider how you said that you are not proud rather tired of submitting to whatever the Church wants. But submission of our will is humility. I understand you are probably really suffering mentally from all this. I would recommend to you to go to Adoration and open your soul to Christ and ask for grace to love the Church AND your sister. Then make an appointment with a good priest and talk to him. You are trying to rely on yourself for the understanding and we often need help, nothing bad in that. Ask God for the grace to trust His Church and ask a priest for advice and information. That is what I would suggest. Hopefully someone has an answer about the question on canon law, I don't because I'm not knowledgeable in canon law. However I'm certain the doctrines didn't change. It sounds like a change in practice rather and if it was changed there must have been a reason. Maybe someone here knows. 

17 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I was quite careful in not saying that we can attain grace. I said that grace is attainable, i.e. can be attained. It comes from God. Not arbitrarily; according to perfect justice.
The Church has been set up on earth in order to guide us, to follow God's will for us. That is all there is, and it is all we need. Trust in God, trust in the Church, and surrender yourself to Him.

Do you mean that we can ask for it, and it comes from God, but He decides in perfect justice and wisdom? I gave a link to Kevin describing grace in detail - its a complex topic I find. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Also just to clarify something about culpability and ignorance. As we know invincible ignorance decreases culpability and Catholics have a responsibility to learn about their faith and form + follow their conscience based on that. We still can't determine how 'vincible' your sister's ignorance is and the amount of it. Marrying in a Protestant community though a Catholic, is related to a choice to leave the Church rather than simple ignorance of form, and even ignorance of form can be vincible because of our responsibility. But the reason we don't use that to determine a persons culpability is because we don't know the interior. That's why I said we leave that to God.

But the reason we can still say that its not the same as being a prostitute, is because the motivation is the Protestantism, not a desire for fornication. That doesn't make a person married or remove fornication. But hopefully its obvious that a prostitute doesn't have a motive for marriage and doesn't think she's married while a person like Kevin's sister does. In the worst case scenario, IF a person is vincibly ignorant and refuses Church rules knowingly and willfully, they would also have more knowledge that their marriage is invalid... That would make it all more serious but the motive is still about faith in the Church, I think, rather than loose morals. People in this situation don't have loose morals, they lack faith in the Church. While a prostitute is selling her body. Both are sex outside of marriage but with different motives and that's why they're not the same and that's why it doesn't mean the Protestant has no morals. If they would be guilty of sex outside of marriage it would be for the reason of them leaving the Church and rejecting Catholic marriage, not for the same reason as those who don't want to control their desires. But with specific people we leave the judgement to God and just pray and hope for them! 

Leaving the Church is not something less serious though. Again I am not speaking of personal culpability of Kevin's sister, but generally. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. As for how we treat loved ones who have left the Church,  we treat them as God does, not supporting the sin but loving the person. Truth AND Mercy. 

Edited November 26, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Kevin]

4 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

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. 

I refuse to accept such an insane teaching, especially one that can just be arbitrarily changed. I wrote to a Canon Lawyer and he told me "One of the many reasons I think canonical form needs to be dropped, but, yes, they cannot form even a natural marriage under these facts." So yes, it isn't even a natural marriage, but someone who specializes in canon law says he thinks it ought to be changed (which also means that it CAN be changed).

[MarysLittleFlower]

5 minutes ago, Kevin said:

I refuse to accept such an insane teaching, especially one that can just be arbitrarily changed. I wrote to a Canon Lawyer and he told me "One of the many reasons I think canonical form needs to be dropped, but, yes, they cannot form even a natural marriage under these facts." So yes, it isn't even a natural marriage, but someone who specializes in canon law says he thinks it ought to be changed (which also means that it CAN be changed).

If you think it's insane it doesn't mean it's insane. Neither does someone thinking that it ought to change, mean that it ought to (that is up to the Church, not an individual canon lawyer) - and it doesn't necessarily mean that it can be changed, either. Even if it could be, doesn't mean that it's best to change it.

Have you considered that the Church has reasons for this rule and that it either can't be changed, or that it's there for a purpose?

I think that calling a Church rule "insane" is very problematic to say the least. If the Church made this rule there must be important reasons. Remember also what the Church binds on earth, is bound in Heaven. It has spiritual authority.

[Kevin]

4 hours ago, CatherineM said:

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. 

Now you're accusing me of trolling? I am absolutely acting as a normal person would. Imagine if you had struggled with faith all your life---do you want to see the stack of books from the library from Duns, Aquinas and Augustine I checked out because I was trying to figure out to reconcile the Trinity to Divine Simplicity---and every time, no matter how much you didn't understand, you accepted whatever the Church said no matter how difficult it was to believe in it, because otherwise you would be left without hope. Then imagine your faith has basically been hanging by a thread for years, but you've managed to get by. And then you discover that the Church requires you not to recognize the marriage of your family member---and not only this but just six years ago, this wouldn't have been the case.

And then, when that person expresses his anger and frustration, instead of sympathizing or admitting the Church's ruling on the matter (because it might not even be a teaching so much as a matter of discipline) at least SEEMS pretty bizarre, all you got was told that you have to obey the Church and how bad it would be if you left.

I was just like you. I remember reading on CAF about a women who had basically been born intersex, with a chromosome of XXY, who the Church denies the right to marry in spite of the fact that neither party is impotent (and fertility is not a requirement or marriage), and the Church basically refuses to explain why. If they answer is, because you're really a man, she could accept that, but no, the Church just says nothing, explains nothing. And I when I saw this, I looked the other way because it wasn't happening to me. But now, it is happening to me---I am apparently required to deny my sister is married in the same way I would deny a homosexual is married because she was married in the wrong year. And now that its happening to me, I can't look away. So of course I'm angry.

6 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

If you think it's insane it doesn't mean it's insane. Neither does someone thinking that it ought to change, mean that it ought to (that is up to the Church, not an individual canon lawyer) - and it doesn't necessarily mean that it can be changed, either. Even if it could be, doesn't mean that it's best to change it.

Have you considered that the Church has reasons for this rule and that it either can't be changed, or that it's there for a purpose?

I think that calling a Church rule "insane" is very problematic to say the least. If the Church made this rule there must be important reasons. Remember also what the Church binds on earth, is bound in Heaven. It has spiritual authority.

It's not even a rule. It's basically a policy, because it can change. What is bound in heaven shouldn't change. Even the canon lawyer, who is by no means a liberal, thinks the policy of demanding the canonical form for all Catholics should be changed.

You're wasting your energy though. I've written the canon lawyer back and asked him if one is required to agree with the ruling, because if I am I will leave the Church no matter what you say.

3 hours ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Your big difficulty seemed to be that you think you have to see your sister as a prostitute. It was explained by several people that this is not the case because in addition to an act there is personal culpability, unknown to us, and affected by amount of knowledge etc. Willfully choosing to be a prostitite is not the same as thinking you're married when you're not even though both acts objectively are sex without marriage. Your sisters culpability we should all leave to God. Its not like there are two extremes - either you think she's married, or you think she's like a prostitute. The middle ground is acknowledging that Catholics need Catholic marriage but also acknowledging that she thinks she's married and doesn't want fornication. The Calvinist part is what is keeping her from the Sacrament, not a desire for fornication, so for her to fix the situation and have a valid marriage, she would need to deal with the choice she made to be Protestant. This is where we treat our family members with patience and love and just invite them to the beauty of the Mass, the Real Presence, etc. Jesus longs to give Himself in the Holy Eucharist. Are we willing to suffer and hope with Him for those we love? Isn't that a better solution than anger at the Church, which doesn't make up the truth, but gives it?

It has absolutely nothing to do with her being a literal prostitute, it has to do with the idea I am required to view her as not only a heretic but unchaste. The people who recommend forcing such people into separate room are in fact entirely within reason, given the Church's position.

"The Calvinist part is what is keeping her from the Sacrament, not a desire for fornication, so for her to fix the situation and have a valid marriage, she would need to deal with the choice she made to be Protestant. "

No, it is the fact that she was Baptized a Catholic and didn't marry between 1983 and 2009 that is keeping her from even a natural marriage, not merely a sacrament. If it was just the fact of Calvinism, we wouldn't recognize Protestant marriages period.

"Are we willing to suffer and hope with Him for those we love? Isn't that a better solution than anger at the Church, which doesn't make up the truth, but gives it?"

And apparently changes its mind on what the "truth" is from time to time, as if the truth could change.

[Gabriela]

4 hours ago, CatherineM said:

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. 

I think he may suspect that Kevin is a troll, which I also suspect because of who Kevin has chosen to respond and not to respond to. Also, the OP—which is the user's very first post on Phatmass—is pretty over the top, even throwing in the Feenyites. Sure, it could just be a guy who's really, really upset, and I'm open to that and praying for the guy just in case. But trolls often fake like they're really upset just to ensure they get attention. They also often use real names instead of made-up ones to give the impression they are "real". I could go on. My point is: I think Nihil is just being cautious.

As for Maryland and Virginia: Okay, I was wrong about that. Still, in my mind, they're named for our lady, even if only "through" other women. So "it's true to me."  (Srsly: Thanks for the history lesson, ladies!)

Edited November 26, 2015 by Gabriela

[MarysLittleFlower]

Kevin, do you think that we are writing here to you trying to sin an online argument so that we can feel good about yourselves. If you leave the Church "whatever I say" you will only be hurting yourself. We would grieve as your brothers and sisters in Christ. You sound very angry and I tried to give you advice before to take this to prayer, because making decisions when we're angry like this is not a good idea.

It sounds like you've been struggling with Church teachings for a while, based on what you said about the Holy Trinity. But it's true that the Holy Trinity doesn't contradict Divine Simplicity, and it's also true that NO ONE fully understands the Holy Trinity. I think though faith and reason are not against each other, there are things that are revealed that are beyond reason. We may never understand them on earth. Do you see how this doesn't mean they are bizarre? You maybe wanted people here to acknowledge that the Church teaching is "bizarre" because you feel it is bizarre, but for example I do not think it is. It doesn't mean we don't sympathize with the difficulty you're facing. We can help you and sympathize with you without critiquing the Church too.

A lot of people here have struggled with faith. I'm a convert and I had to change basically all my beliefs and lifestyle to become Catholic. I've lost friendships over this. Often I felt very confused and didn't know what to think. But it doesn't mean the Church is wrong. I'm glad now that I'm Catholic and I wouldn't leave, because of the Eucharist. I'd rather change ANY of my opinions than leave the truth that Jesus gave and the Holy Eucharist.

Again I don't know at what level this teaching is at. I'd ask my priest maybe. But - you see what I mean, is that canon law is something that we are bound to even if it can change... we are still bound, the Church still "binds" it just by authority.

[Ice_nine]

meh, he could be a troll I guess. It would be one of the more bizarre attempts at trolling I"ve seen, but possible I guess. I haven't read the thread word for word but his attitude strikes me as how I think sometimes when I look at some things the church teaches and I'm like "holy carp this doesn't make any sense how am I going to believe this and how much of a feeble-minded sheep I am if I have to assent to something I think at first glance is crazy." It goes against almost every fiber of my being and my pride and arrogance, which there is plenty of to go around. I usually come around or just kind of shrug my shoulders and try not to dwell n the particular issue that vexes me.

So I don't know. I think people are probably investing too much effort into responding to him because, troll or not, he doesn't seem open to hearing some things right now.

Kevin, if you're not a troll and just a genuine dude, why don't you let this subject drop for a bit and hang around elsewhere in the phorum? The issue doesn't seem like it's going to resolve itself anytime soon. Might as well give it a break if you can.

[MarysLittleFlower]

The reason the Church has this rule is for the sake of souls, it's not just to demonstrate power. The reason I think for the rule is that baptized Catholics belong to the Church as to a body and their marriage needs to be recognized by the Church. Protestant communities are not "other churches". They are not churches, they are groups that split off from the Church, and any graces they have come from the Catholic Church in fact. So the Church needs to recognize and bless a marriage of a Catholic. This is why it's invalid.

[Kevin]

9 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

Kevin, do you think that we are writing here to you trying to sin an online argument so that we can feel good about yourselves. If you leave the  We may never understand them on earth. Do you see how this doesn't mean they are bizarre? You maybe wanted people here to acknowledge that the Church teaching is "bizarre" because you feel it is bizarre, but for example I do not think it is. It doesn't mean we don't sympathize with the difficulty you're facing. We can help you and sympathize with you without critiquing the Church too.

A lot of people here have struggled with faith. I'm a convert and I had to change basically all my beliefs and lifestyle to become Catholic. I've lost friendships over this. Often I felt very confused and didn't know what to think. But it doesn't mean the Church is wrong. I'm glad now that I'm Catholic and I wouldn't leave, because of the Eucharist. I'd rather change ANY of my opinions than leave the truth that Jesus gave and the Holy Eucharist.

Again I don't know at what level this teaching is at. I'd ask my priest maybe. But - you see what I mean, is that canon law is something that we are bound to even if it can change... we are still bound, the Church still "binds" it just by authority.

The issue of Divine Simplicity is and a ruling over the canonical validity of a marriage are two different things. The fact that you can't fully understand one doesn't mean you shouldn't be able understand the other.

If all you want to do is repeat "Obey" and expect me to listen, instead, why don't you explain how, if this the ruling is in fact something infallible, it changed.

If you're able to blindly follow whatever the Church says even if it not only destroys your relationships, but you have no idea how the reasoning behind the matters that destroyed those relationships makes sense, then good for you, but I can't do it.

"I'd rather change ANY of my opinions than leave the truth that Jesus gave and the Holy Eucharist."

So you would change your opinion on abortion? If not, that is obviously not a true statement, because it excludes at least "some" opinions.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Kevin

[MarysLittleFlower]

Kevin: "It has absolutely nothing to do with her being a literal prostitute, it has to do with the idea I am required to view her as not only a heretic but unchaste."

My point is that the unchastity part is without intent of unchastity, rather with - whatever your sister has, I don't know, in leaving the Church. It could be in ignorance for all I know. It doesn't mean 'judging' your sister's heart.

I know you disagree with the Church on this but imagine the Church is right. (as I believe it is). Even if it means that a certain family member or friend is in sin - why does it mean that we should turn away from the Church? I honestly don't understand that. If someone is not accepting the truth, and believing a heresy, and that leads them into something else, that IS sad but the Church tells us to love them and pray for them. I just don't understand how it's the Church's fault. As for the change you keep talking about with the rule - again I have to investigate that, but there could have been something going on that was problematic, if it changed.

 

[Kevin]

4 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

meh, he could be a troll I guess. It would be one of the more bizarre attempts at trolling I"ve seen, but possible I guess. I haven't read the thread word for word but his attitude strikes me as how I think sometimes when I look at some things the church teaches and I'm like "holy carp this doesn't make any sense how am I going to believe this and how much of a feeble-minded sheep I am if I have to assent to something I think at first glance is crazy." It goes against almost every fiber of my being and my pride and arrogance, which there is plenty of to go around. I usually come around or just kind of shrug my shoulders and try not to dwell n the particular issue that vexes me.

So I don't know. I think people are probably investing too much effort into responding to him because, troll or not, he doesn't seem open to hearing some things right now.

Kevin, if you're not a troll and just a genuine dude, why don't you let this subject drop for a bit and hang around elsewhere in the phorum? The issue doesn't seem like it's going to resolve itself anytime soon. Might as well give it a break if you can.

Because people keep responding. I was willing to let it go (at least on this forum), but people kept on going at it.

I am not a troll. Here is my blog if you don't believe me.

[Ice_nine]

Just now, Kevin said:

Because people keep responding. I was willing to let it go (at least on this forum), but people kept on going at it.

I am not a troll. Here is my blog if you don't believe me.

ok then my unsolicited advice is to take a break from the topic. You seem like you're reaching your limit.

[Kevin]

7 minutes ago, MarysLittleFlower said:

The reason the Church has this rule is for the sake of souls, it's not just to demonstrate power. The reason I think for the rule is that baptized Catholics belong to the Church as to a body and their marriage needs to be recognized by the Church. Protestant communities are not "other churches". They are not churches, they are groups that split off from the Church, and any graces they have come from the Catholic Church in fact. So the Church needs to recognize and bless a marriage of a Catholic. This is why it's invalid.

Then why was it acceptable to make an act of defection to be freed of the obligation of form in marriage? You're reasoning is all about Protestantism, but an act of defection could be made by someone who had become an atheist or a Muslim.

2 minutes ago, Ice_nine said:

ok then my unsolicited advice is to take a break from the topic. You seem like you're reaching your limit.

Since you seem to be the moderator, if you want that you should probably just close the thread, because otherwise people are going to keep responding and I'm going to have a hard time ignoring it.