The Ultimate Super-sized XXL Marriage Thread Plus

[Anomaly]

12 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

As I pointed out in Nihil's thread, a version of the Baltimore Catechism contained the admonition that we are not to attend weddings of Catholics who were married by non-Catholic ministers, nor should we even give gifts.

It seems the Church has re-thought that non-infallible policy and instructed to put a little more thought and effort into the decision and how to act on the decision.   Many Catholics don't read their own book.  

1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.

 

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"¹⁵⁸ The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

1651 Toward Christians who live in  this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:

They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.¹⁵⁹

 

 

[Gabriela]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

It seems the Church has re-thought that non-infallible policy and instructed to put a little more thought and effort into the decision and how to act on the decision.   Many Catholics don't read their own book.  

1665 The remarriage of persons divorced from a living, lawful spouse contravenes the plan and law of God as taught by Christ. They are not separated from the Church, but they cannot receive Eucharistic communion. They will lead Christian lives especially by educating their children in the faith.

 

1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"¹⁵⁸ The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

1651 Toward Christians who live in  this situation, and who often keep the faith and desire to bring up their children in a Christian manner, priests and the whole community must manifest an attentive solicitude, so that they do not consider themselves separated from the Church, in whose life they can and must participate as baptized persons:

They should be encouraged to listen to the Word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts for justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God's grace.¹⁵⁹

 

 

Where does it say we should attend their illicit weddings?

[Anomaly]

5 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Where does it say we should attend their illicit weddings?

 

5 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Where does it say we should attend their illicit weddings?

More importantly, where does it say not to?  Where does it say be an ass about it?   It certainly appears to consider them still a member of the church and encourage them to attend mass, etc.

Which has pretty much been the point of most of the Catholic posters herein. They have said its not a black or white issue and they should inform their conscience and speak with a priest, not just blindly follow the opinions of the wwwDOTlaymancatholicpolice at phatmass. To exercise a bit of caution in how and what they do.  I'm pretty sure not a single poster, Catholic or otherwise, said participation or attendance is no big deal in any circumstance in either of the threads.  

Its notable in the links to a real qualified Apolgist, it was mentioned that this is the most discussed topic.   Shutting down discussion with invectives doesn't seem conducive to learning and understanding.   I think the idea is to maybe meet them wher they are instead of drawing a line in the sand.   There is little doubt what the Catholic stance is on marriage         There is a lot of doubt if it's just about harsh rules or striving for positive ideals.  

Most people want to love and be loved in this world and this life.    Telling them it's simply against some esoteric rule is a shallow, ineffective, and self defeating strategy.    

 

[Gabriela]

5 hours ago, Anomaly said:

 

More importantly, where does it say not to?  Where does it say be an ass about it?   It certainly appears to consider them still a member of the church and encourage them to attend mass, etc.

Which has pretty much been the point of most of the Catholic posters herein. They have said its not a black or white issue and they should inform their conscience and speak with a priest, not just blindly follow the opinions of the wwwDOTlaymancatholicpolice at phatmass. To exercise a bit of caution in how and what they do.  I'm pretty sure not a single poster, Catholic or otherwise, said participation or attendance is no big deal in any circumstance in either of the threads.  

Its notable in the links to a real qualified Apolgist, it was mentioned that this is the most discussed topic.   Shutting down discussion with invectives doesn't seem conducive to learning and understanding.   I think the idea is to maybe meet them wher they are instead of drawing a line in the sand.   There is little doubt what the Catholic stance is on marriage         There is a lot of doubt if it's just about harsh rules or striving for positive ideals.  

Most people want to love and be loved in this world and this life.    Telling them it's simply against some esoteric rule is a shallow, ineffective, and self defeating strategy.    

 

You seem angry. You've just implied that several people in this thread and the other one on marriage, who have clearly stated they would not attend such a ceremony, are being "asses". If the catechism doesn't say to attend or not to attend, then how are they being "asses" for not attending but you are not being an "ass" for attending? That the catechism says they are still Catholics and should still attend Mass does not say anything about whether their weddings are licit and open to attendance by all Catholics. Those are completely separate issues.

I am one of the people who said the OP should consult her priest. So why are you lashing out at me?

Nobody said, in so many words, that attendance "is no big deal in any circumstance", but many people have suggested that what matters most is how people feel, and not what the Church teaches. Not everything the Church teaches is written in the catechism.

Who's shutting down discussion with invectives? People who call other posters "asses"?

It's a shame you see the Church as standing somewhere between a false dichotomy of "harsh rules" and "positive ideals". Cuz clearly She's got some of both. The Church is all about that both-and thing. Like, one and three; human and divine; all-love and all-justice; freedom in obedience; etc. And although dismissing rules you don't like as "harsh" and "esoteric" may make you feel better about what you do, it doesn't change what's allowed or even come off as rhetorically convincing. It just sounds like another anti-religionist bashing religion as "backwards" and "primitive" so they can do whatever they like.

At least we agree the OP should consult her priest. I hope we can also agree that you shouldn't post angry.

[Anomaly]

I'm pleased that we can agree that it's a consideration to choose whether to attend or not and that you're incorrect when stating they're all fake marriages and the Church explicitly forbids attendance in any circumstance.   You act as if I put lobster in your scrambled eggs. 

[Guest]

I did a search of the Baltimore Catechism as best I could.  I am not familiar with it as we never had it in Australia.  I read somewhere in it that Catholics were not allowed to attend mixed marriages, nor were those marrying a non Catholic allowed to be married in a Catholic Church???  Insofar as I know that no longer applies and hence the Baltimore Catechism seems to me to be out of touch with laws now applying in The Church - with that knowledge I gave up my search of the document. 

I entered a mixed marriage (now annulled) in a Catholic Church (no Nuptial Mass however allowed then or now) providing that my husband-to-be signed that he would allow our children to be brought up Catholics and not interfere in my Catholic Faith.  He signed the document - eventually.   Marriage now annulled (over 20yrs ago) - took 6 years for approval to come through and quite a process all in all, quite a process. 

My then SD (priest religious & theologian)advised that I seek annulment as he felt I had grounds and an annulment would leave me free to enter religious life or completely free in every way to make private vows.  I chose the latter although made the private vows before I applied and prior to the annulment coming through and then once it did privately made them for life after seeking advice from a priest who knew me well over many years on the matter. 

My Archbishop gave permission for a Home Mass to renew my life vows.  This too place on 14.8.14, Solemnity of The Assumption.  I have great devotion to Our Lady.

 

My question:  Is the Baltimore Catechism now out of touch with Church laws?

Edited June 21, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

I have quoted previously in this thread well renowned and well reputed Catholic apologists (one Catholic Answers apologist, the other from EWTN) who do state clearly that The Church does not forbid attending presumed invalid marriages (I have real problems at times with the quote feature on Phatmass and probably operator related) - that it is up to the person or persons considering attendance to ensure that they are rightly informed (ideally always indeed consult a priest) and make their own decision based on whatever they consider important and relevant including the virtues always........ Charity primarily at all times in all circumstances of course.  Big mea culpa there from me. 

The one or ones making any decision at all (either one way or the other) must always in all things also realise that they  are also at once accepting also full responsibility and accountability before and to God for any and all personal decisions..........including those related to Phatmass posting for one.  And of course the Good Lord knows when I or others have ready excuses (rationalising) in an attempt to legitimise and validate what was desired and decided to do anyway under any circumstances.

Some of the people can be fooled some of the time, and sometimes an awful lot of the people all all the time.  But never God some of time, all the time or at any time at all.

 

Quote

 

11hrs ago Gabriela said: "I hope we can also agree that you shouldn't post angry."

 

Precisely, Gabriela!  And when we descend to 'attacking' on a personal level especially rather than objectively commenting on points raised, nine times out of ten most all (me certainly) are angry on some level.  The other point that gave me pause for myself to stop and reflect upon on a personal level is that any sort of quite personal 'attack' - even verbally or in the written form - is a form of violence.

Edited June 21, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

This is where I felt that the Baltimore Catechism is now out of touch with what The Church teaches - and after reading the answer to Q. 1369 below, I felt that it might be out of touch in other places too and therefore personally decided for myself thatThe Baltimore Catechism was possibly not a reliable source at all personally for all matters Catholic :

Quote

 

http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson36.htm

Q. 1369. What restrictions does the Church place on the ceremonies of marriage when one of the persons is not a Catholic?

A. The Church places several restrictions on the ceremonies of marriage when one of the persons is not a Catholic. The marriage cannot take place in the church; the priest cannot wear his sacred vestments nor use holy water nor bless the ring nor the marriage itself. The Church places these restrictions to show her dislike for such marriages, commonly called mixed marriages.

 

 

Insofar as I am aware, mixed marriage can take place in a Catholic Church nowadays - no Nuptial Mass however.   I was certainly married to my non Catholic husband in a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest with due permissions. 

It is always helpful it seems to me for readers if one is stating something as Catholic teaching or any other source information to provide a source link.  Otherwise, comments can appear as personal opinion only and validly so in my book i.e. without any link and/or source information.

 I studied Modern and Ancient History and our tutor was hot on the latter - first term and some of second as well was fully occupied with identifying words and nouns, adjectives, phrases etc. likely to indicate direction of and type of bias of author - ( we are all always biased most often) as well as the importance of from where information was gleaned and to always provide source info including researching sites on the internet etc before taking info on board........which is why I am so hot on the point for myself too.  I had it all almost literally drilled into my brain and still appreciate the fact that it was.  That guy could have made 'toilet paper' I think absolutely fascinating!

Edited June 21, 2016 by BarbaraTherese

[Maggyie]

On June 19, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Gabriela said:

I just want to remind everyone:

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."

If the Church forbids participation/attendance, then it doesn't matter what it would do to the relationship. Christ's Truth must come first.

That being said, yesterday, after stepping away from these marriage threads for a while, I realized what was bothering me so much about them. When I was in Israel, I was surprised that people from different social classes and of very different political opinions were often close friends. There, if someone disapproves of another's lifestyle or behavior, one says it, and maybe they argue about it, but people respect others' rights to their principles and don't take personal offense. Americans find other people's principles personally offensive, and that's extremely selfish.

If I invited a Jew to my house for dinner and didn't know Jews don't eat pork, and the Jew refused to eat the pork chops I made for dinner, I wouldn't take personal offense. In fact, I have accidentally cooked chicken in wine for a Muslim, because I momentarily forgot about the alcohol thing, and we remained friends. Because I'm secure in my own principles and have no guilt or doubt about them, I don't take offense when other people disapprove of them. That's their belief, and if they act in accord with it, I have nothing but respect for their insistence upon living according to their principles.

So that's the real problem here: Any family member who would cut you off or even take personal offense because you are acting according to your principles is acting like a selfish child who's insecure about their own choices, behavior, lifestyle, etc. A mature person can handle others disagreeing with them, and has nothing but respect for others' living in accordance with their consciences. It's a tyrant who insists that everyone approve of their actions, or else anathema sit.

We know liberalism is like this: If you don't tolerate everything we do, then we will not tolerate you. It's pure hypocrisy. And in relationship with such persons, be they father, mother, wife, children, brothers, or sisters, it is better to "hate" them than to abandon one's own principles—even one's own Lord.

Again that's the thing. "If the Church forbids attendance" you would be right. But the Church doesn't forbid attendance. She. Just. Doesn't. 

[Anomaly]

I'm old and Catholic educated enough to have actually used and learned from the Baltimore Catechism in parochial school.   

It was considered more of a teaching aid then a compendium of Catholic teaching.   I remember ther were various versions as well.   It was over simplified aund not as in depth as the current Catechism.  I remember the current version was met with significant fanfare when I was in school and was considered a much more scholarly time than was appropriate for middle schoolers like me.  

In other words, it was a simplified instructive tool in comparison to what is now used.  Fundamental principles haven't changed, despite what retro-Trads cry about.  The current CCC explanations are much more robust and developed.  The old NC use is very apealing to "fundamentalist" Catholics pining for the good old days.   I think Jesuits would consider bring marshmallows to a book burning of the old Baltimore Catechism.  

Neither Catechism is an entirely infallible document.  

Edited June 21, 2016 by Anomaly

[Gabriela]

4 hours ago, Anomaly said:

I'm pleased that we can agree that it's a consideration to choose whether to attend or not and that you're incorrect when stating they're all fake marriages and the Church explicitly forbids attendance in any circumstance.   You act as if I put lobster in your scrambled eggs. 

Please quote where I said that the Church explicitly forbids attendance in any circumstance.

Also, please do put lobster in my scrambled eggs. With shrimp and calamari, too, if you'd be so kind.

[Sponsa-Christi]

The Church doesn't have an explicit policy on whether or not a Catholic can attend a wedding that is known to be invalid. Therefore, a faithful Catholic needs to discern the appropriate course of action depending on the specific circumstances of the situation. Many Catholics will conclude in conscience that they should NOT attend an invalid wedding, and this is praiseworthy insofar as they are following their consciences. 

I'm not condemning anyone who opts to attend and invalid wedding. But at the same time, in many (if not most cases), non-attendance can be the carefully discerned best response to the situation. It's completely legitimate to opt not to attending an invalid wedding for fear of cooperating in a sin, or conveying the message that the Church's marriage laws aren't really important. Just like we can't give a blanket condemnation of everyone who attends an invalid wedding, it's wrong to assume that those who in conscience decide not to attend an invalid wedding are doing so because they don't care about their family members and are out to arrogantly prove a point.  

Also, a Catholic who marries in a situation contrary to the Church's marriage laws does indeed have an invalid marriage (i.e., a "fake" marriage). No matter how strongly such a couple feels that their invalid marriage is "real," they could walk into a tribunal at any point and be told right away that they are free to remarry.

For some people in some subjective situations, it is true that a purely civil marriage might be a "first step" towards a more Christian life, or it might be the occasion of some preliminary growth in virtue. And in terms of determining the sinfulness of an invalid marriage situation, some couples may be more culpable than others. However, just because some invalid marriages are "better" than others does NOT mean that it's somehow okay to ignore the Church's laws on marriage. That's always going to be, objectively, a major problem.

[Anomaly]

Sponsa, 

Not all invalid marriages are fake.  Given the right circumstances, an invalid marriage (invalid per the Catholic Church), may be validated through a process called radical sanation.  Even if the marriage is sacramentaly invalid, there are stil moral and societal obligations. Not being 100% right does not make it 100% "fake".   The baptized Catholic cannot pretend any invalid marriage never existed, as if it was just a sexual relationship, and go to confession and marry a nice Catholic virgin the same day.  

I can understand the discomfort at being disagreed with by an exCatholic apostate Atheist, but that doesn't mean the eCaA is necessarily wrong. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

3 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Not all invalid marriages are fake.

Being married is like being pregnant---either you are, or you aren't. Admittedly, "fake" is an inflammatory word I wouldn't use in a pastoral conversation, but invalid marriages are by definition not "real" marriages in the Church's eyes (and I see "in the Church's eyes" as being the same as "objectively in reality.") 

6 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Given the right circumstances, an invalid marriage (invalid per the Catholic Church), may be validated through a process called radical sanation.

Retroactivly validating a marriage---which is basically what a sanation is---isn't the same thing as saying that an invalid marriage was somehow valid in the period of time before it was actually validated. If an invalid marriage could be valid at the same time it was initially invalid, then there wouldn't even be a need for sanations at all in the first place.

(This train of thought is making me think that instead of a cat in a box, Schrodinger should have had an invalid Catholic wedding! )

Also, situations where a radical sanation would be appropriate are very different from the kinds of situations we've been discussing in the recent wedding threads. Generally, a sanction is used when a wedding was only very technically invalid due to some accidental oversight---e.g., a couple is married by a visiting priest, and then ex post facto someone realizes that the pastor of the parish never gave the official delegation which is necessary for validity.

This is not the same kind of situation where a Catholic couple freely and knowingly choose to marry in a merely civil ceremony. In cases like that, correcting the situation is not simply a matter of filing paperwork, but would generally require a second, "real" wedding. 

19 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Even if the marriage is sacramentaly invalid, there are stil moral and societal obligations.

This is true. The Catholic Church would expect people to care for children that arose from a merely civil marriage (and possibly provide alimony for a civil spouse). However, holding people to natural human obligations that arise from their choices is not the same thing as saying that their invalid marriage actually had some degree of validity. 

As a parallel, the Church expects unwed mothers to be open to life and to care for their children, but this does NOT mean that the Church thinks that premarital sexual relations are sort of acceptable in some situations. 

22 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

The baptized Catholic cannot pretend any invalid marriage never existed, as if it was just a sexual relationship, and go to confession and marry a nice Catholic virgin the same day.  

Well, maybe not in the same day...but basically, yes, you more or less can do this.

Provided that all obligations of material support are met for any dependents that may have resulted from a civil union, a Catholic who was married invalid in a civil ceremony CAN essentially just walk away from the civil union. 

[Anomaly]

Sponsa, 

you are quite wrong again another radical sanation. Please visit the link

 

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/what-can-i-do-about-my-invalid-marriage