At what point is a baptized CINO or non-practicing individual no longer Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter vluvski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vluvski

Guest
DH’s best friend has decided he won’t marry in the Church be cause he ‘has some issues’ and feels it would be ‘dishonest’ to have a Catholic ceremony.

At what point is this friend no longer really Catholic and thus not obligated to have a Catholic ceremony? In other words, is this friend’s claim that he thinks it would be ‘dishonest’ sufficient to excuse himself from proper form and still have a valid marriage?
 
To my knowledge, a baptized Catholic is still obligated to have a Catholic wedding.

There is something in Canon Law about leaving the church by “formal act” such as being baptized or married in another denomination, but the only thing I know about that is that if you do that you can never be ordained as a priest, should you return to the Church again.

This would probably be a good thing to ask a canon lawyer or one of the apologists on this forum.
 
From what I understand, they must leave by formal act, and that formal act has been outlined.

They have to defect in writing to the Bishop and the Bishop has to have responded/recognized that defection. After that formal process, one is released from the Holy Mother Church.
 
I think I read here on the AAA forum that one now has to submit a formal resignation to one’s bishop in order to depart formally from the Church.Otherwise, he is still bound to marry in the Church. Might want to run a search on that to be sure. If this friend is at all concerned with having a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church, he has to decide which side of the fence he wants to be on. Though… if he “has some issues” regarding what the Church thinks, it seems doubtful that he would care whether or not the Church thinks his marriage is valid.
 
he doesn’t care, apparently. I care, and my husband cares, because DH has been asked to be a groomsman. Frankly I don’t even want to go, let alone have my husband be part of it.
 
vluvski said:
he doesn’t care, apparently. I care, and my husband cares, because DH has been asked to be a groomsman. Frankly I don’t even want to go, let alone have my husband be part of it.
Click to expand...
Whether or not you may attend appears to be a pastoral decision, not a stance formally taken by the Church. You’re probably already planning on it, but I’d really recommend a chat with your pastor on the subject.
 
vluvski said:
DH’s best friend has decided he won’t marry in the Church be cause he ‘has some issues’ and feels it would be ‘dishonest’ to have a Catholic ceremony.

At what point is this friend no longer really Catholic and thus not obligated to have a Catholic ceremony? In other words, is this friend’s claim that he thinks it would be ‘dishonest’ sufficient to excuse himself from proper form and still have a valid marriage?
Click to expand...
No it is not sufficient.

It is actually very difficult to be considered “not” Catholic once one is baptized as a Catholic. There are Canon Law procedures, however, if he were actually serious about formally rejecting the faith.
 
Thanks for the info, I’ve got what I need now. I won’t be attending the ceremony, and I’ll give this info to DH to make his own decision, even though I think he already has. 😦
 
This is a good question. I thought the same thing that you apear to think, V. I thought that by certain acts we are excommunicated, like having an abortion, etc. I know priests can.
 
1ke said:
No it is not sufficient.

It is actually very difficult to be considered “not” Catholic once one is baptized as a Catholic. There are Canon Law procedures, however, if he were actually serious about formally rejecting the faith.
Click to expand...
What happens if the person doesn’t go to church and doesn’t know the majority of the teachings? What happens if they don’t have some of the same beliefs, like they are pro choice and use artificial birth control? Are they still considered catholic? Another I read on another catholic board that if a person doesn’t practice, they aren’t considered catholic. Anyone know?
 
Can you really un-Catholicize someone? I can never become un-baptized. Even if you are excommunicated, you essentially are still Catholic. You’re just a denounced Catholic who is in trouble if they don’t change their attitude.

I know we Catholics don’t like to use the term denominations to describe us, but if we say that someone can be de-Catholicized, we are kind of shooting that argument in the foot.
 
kage_ar said:
Here is a link to an official document re: formal defection:

clsa.org/content/files/USCCB_memo_2006_0405.pdf
Click to expand...
This sort of prooves my point. The Church will go to great lengths to mark that you declare to leave the Church, but in reality: number 7 trumps all the other processes:
It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.
Click to expand...
In other words, you can leave the Church, but the Church will never leave you.
 
Mirdath said:
I know this wasn’t quite the point of the thread… but you mean I have to file paperwork to be officially apostate? What’s with that?
Click to expand...
It means that acts of apostacy, heresy, schism, etc. are not enough to remove the indelible mark of being a Catholic. Despite all these things, without formal defection delivered in writing to a Bishop, one baptized/confirmed Catholic is Catholic unto death.

What a beautiful teaching that the bond to the Church is greater than our acts, thoughts and deeds, and so long as one doesn’t formally defect, one is always included in the prayers of the faithful.
 
Let’s just say that if you are an apostate and are condemned to Hell, God won’t look in a Catholic register to make sure you are an apostate.

I love my faith, cuz it makes sense. But please, for the love of Jesus that died for your sins, get rid of the beurocratic nonsense. The time that could be spent keeping track of who has left the faith could be spent praying for them to come back to the faith.
 
Orionthehunter said:
What a beautiful teaching that the bond to the Church is greater than our acts, thoughts and deeds, and so long as one doesn’t formally defect, one is always included in the prayers of the faithful.
Click to expand...
I would hope that the prayers of the faithful would include everyone, not just practicing Catholics.

I realize that religion has a deeper bond with the individual than can be outwardly displayed by such things as showing up and tithing, but it’s a little ridiculous that the depth of that bond is reflected also by its breaking being reminiscent of trying to cancel a magazine subscription.
40.png
pprimeau1976:
Let’s just say that if you are an apostate and are condemned to Hell, God won’t look in a Catholic register to make sure you are an apostate.
Click to expand...
Heresy, apostasy, and schism can all be committed without meeting the requirements for mortal sin; and in any case, condemnation is reserved to God and God alone. I agree with you on the bureaucratic mess though 😉
 
Mirdath said:
I would hope that the prayers of the faithful would include everyone, not just practicing Catholics.

I realize that religion has a deeper bond with the individual than can be outwardly displayed by such things as showing up and tithing, but it’s a little ridiculous that the depth of that bond is reflected also by its breaking being reminiscent of trying to cancel a magazine subscription.

Heresy, apostasy, and schism can all be committed without meeting the requirements for mortal sin; and in any case, condemnation is reserved to God and God alone. I agree with you on the bureaucratic mess though 😉
Click to expand...
It reminds me of what John XIII once said to a journalist. Someone asked him “How many people work in the Vatican.” His answer was simply…half.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top