Are all baptized Catholics permanently bound by Canon Law?

[ConstantineTG]

Yes, but there are some things, like driving through a red light, which is only bad because it was made a law. People could have just as easily said that green was going to be the colour that we all have to stop at. In which case driving through a green light would be wrong. It is wrong to claim that there is no need to be aware of laws or try to follow them.

No, driving through a red light is bad because you could kill somebody. If we see something as good or bad just because it is about following the letter of the law, then that is nothing more than phariseeism. Jesus has condemned those who follow the law for the sake of the law.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hi ConstantineTG, thank you for taking part in this thread.

So it is impossible, in this definition of “practicing Catholic” for a practicing Catholic to remain in mortal sin while intending to go to Confession (more from fear of hell than love of God), and cease receiving the Eucharist at his or her mass attendances until his or her confession may be heard? I think we need to add nuance to this definition.

I am still convinced from what I have heard earlier in this thread:

**All persons baptized as Catholics, whether they are in constant mortal sin, excommunicated, apostate, or heretics, are always bound by Canon Law. **

A person who has been baptized Catholic but doubts their faith, ignores the Sacraments and Church teaching does not have a valid marriage in ordinary circumstances unless they follow proper Canonical form (which itself makes exceptions for extraordinary circumstances).

Unfortunately some parishes would consider one a practicing Catholic because one drops an envelope every Sunday with their name on it. I don’t do that, I just drop one every month with a bigger amount. And how does that say if I’m a good Catholic or not?

Yes, by Latin definition, one can be in mortal sin and be a practicing Catholic. I should have elaborated more. But I mean, what is the point of going to Church always if we don’t sincerely pray, fast, go to Confession, and receive Communion? If we are in church every Sunday just to have our spiritual time cards punched in, are we really practicing Catholic? Am I really “at work” right now while I am posting this at CAF?

 

[Birdmanman]

Unfortunately some parishes would consider one a practicing Catholic because one drops an envelope every Sunday with their name on it. I don’t do that, I just drop one every month with a bigger amount. And how does that say if I’m a good Catholic or not?

Yes, by Latin definition, one can be in mortal sin and be a practicing Catholic. I should have elaborated more. But I mean, what is the point of going to Church always if we don’t sincerely pray, fast, go to Confession, and receive Communion? If we are in church every Sunday just to have our spiritual time cards punched in, are we really practicing Catholic? Am I really “at work” right now while I am posting this at CAF?

I guess I wouldn’t consider someone who doesn’t believe The Catholic Faith, even if they had been baptized Catholic, to be a ‘practicing Catholic’. Regardless, the issue of this thread is to deal with when Canon law applies to baptized Catholics, which in some circumstances (marriage) affects the validity of an attempt at administering that sacrament. The answer we have so far, and which I have not at all seen effectively contradicted, is:
All baptized Catholics, whether or not they are practicing Catholics or consider themselves Catholic, are always bound by Canon Law.

That doesn’t mean we should go yelling at a non-practicing Catholic about following Code so-and-so of Canon Law, we should be trying to convert him and have him return to his faith, probably through other methods (prayer…talking to them about their issues with The Church…etc.)

(In this post I am speaking of Latin Rite only; I don’t know much about Eastern Rite).

 

[thewanderer]

No, driving through a red light is bad because you could kill somebody. If we see something as good or bad just because it is about following the letter of the law, then that is nothing more than phariseeism. Jesus has condemned those who follow the law for the sake of the law.

Yes, its bad because you could kill someone, but if the law hadn’t decided that you must stop at red lights and had instead decided that you should stop at green lights and go at red lights then there would be nothing wrong with driving through red lights, in fact, it would be good to drive through red lights.

 

[thewanderer]

The larger point might be illustrated as follows: if your mother for instance, regularly rolls through stop signs, do you remind her once and forget about it, of do you keep on reminding her unti an intractable dispute develops which threatens the relationship, and maybe even briing her to feel as if she’s not part of the family,

Probably a poor analogy but it can be seen that evangelization and pastoral care can require a lot more than knowing your canons, whether you’re a priest or a parent with a child who doesn’t share your faith.

Yes, there is definately more to it than knowing canons. Its not like we are supposed to beat people over the head with Canon Law.

 

[runningdude]

No they are not. If they are not practicing Catholics then they are not bound by Canon Law. But if they do return to the Church then the law will be applied to them.

Non-practicing Catholic are indeed bound by Canon law. The requirements may not personally matter to the individual, but they still have an obligation to fulfill their duties under the law.

 

[runningdude]

There are no Canons that are against the Gospel. So if we live according to the Gospel, why even worry about the Canons? Like I said, it was never meant to be something for the laity. I’ve been reading on Church history a lot lately and it is obvious that Canons were written for the bishops. But our sue-happy North American mentality today is making us want to be conscious of the law and be paranoid by it. Not a good way to live a Christian life. Remember, the law was made for man, not man for the law.

This thread is mostly speaking about the context of marriage. In the Gospel, specifically the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke of lawful and unlawful marriages.
Matthew 5:31-32:

Teaching about Divorce.

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a bill of divorce.’ But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

NAB

It is a Gospel duty to understand the law, the Church law, in relation to marriage.

(Divorcing an unlawful marriage would be called an annulment today)