Can I be a best man at a non-Catholic wedding?

  • Thread starter Thread starter robdaddyf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sharmin said:
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree then. I appreciate your taking the time to spell out your viewpoint, though I don’t agree with it. I think both scenarios are not good for the child (the parents living apart, although in love verses the parents living together in adultery) but I believe the parents living together is the ‘lesser of two evils’ so to speak.

Thanks for the civil & friendly debate, though!
Click to expand...
So, your opinion is that a constant state of sin is better than not having a constant state of sin.

Eternal life needs to be the goal, not convenience.
 
Rascalking said:
The difference between adutlery and murder is, um-vast.

Should we apply the same punishment to adultery as we do to murder and theft?

Just asking here.
Click to expand...
God does. God is justice. God is love. God is truth.
 
sharmin said:
I believe it is a lesser sin.
Click to expand...
Impossible. One is virtuous, one is a mortal sin. The parents of one child living apart so they DO NOT commit adultery with each other— THAT is virtuous and will bring great grace.

You have no right to assign the title of “sin” to that.
 
agapewolf said:
Impossible. One is virtuous, one is a mortal sin. The parents of one child living apart so they DO NOT commit adultery with each other— THAT is virtuous and will bring great grace.

You have no right to assign the title of “sin” to that.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness. What happend to our civil debate?

I believe it is a sin to harm a child when you don’t have to. I believe, therefore, that it is sinful to not allow a child an intact home when it is possible to do so. I understand that you don’t believe the same as me, and I am fine with that. I 'm sorry if my belief upsets you.
 
sharmin said:
Oh my goodness. What happend to our civil debate?

I believe it is a sin to harm a child when you don’t have to. I believe, therefore, that it is sinful to not allow a child an intact home when it is possible to do so. I understand that you don’t believe the same as me, and I am fine with that. I 'm sorry if my belief upsets you.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say anything uncivil, and don’t imply I have feelings that I don’t.

You are harming the child greater by having them live in a house where grave spiritual warfare and adultery are happening. You cannot attach the title of sin to a virtuous act.

One is sinful, the other is not.
 
agapewolf said:
My twisted idea of marriage? THen you call Jesus’ idea of marriage twisted. One may not divorce and remarry. It is adultery! It doesn’t matter if they are Catholic or not.
Click to expand...
Jesus, if in fact he ever existed, would probably have a stroke if he could see how you twisted his idea of marriage where this family is concerned.
kage_ar said:
The law of God in regard to morality, adultery, marriage, sex, applies to every human person. Non-Catholics don’t get a “commit adultery free” card.
Click to expand...
You two can bleat all day long about how the Catholic concept of marriage also applies to non-Catholics. It doesn’t make it so.
 
agapewolf said:
I didn’t say anything uncivil, and don’t imply I have feelings that I don’t.
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn’t mean to imply you said anything uncivil. I guess I read a ‘tone’ in there of anger. Must have been wrong…I apologize. 🙂
agapewolf said:
You are harming the child greater by having them live in a house where grave spiritual warfare and adultery are happening. You cannot attach the title of sin to a virtuous act.

One is sinful, the other is not.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to go back and forth with you. You have said this, and I disagree. To go in circles would be silly.

But thanks for the interesting debate.
 
rick43235 said:
Jesus, if in fact he ever existed, would probably have a stroke if he could see how you twisted his idea of marriage where this family is concerned.

.
Click to expand...
Hey man, come on-the existence of Jesus (which is accepted fact by everyone but historians who are delusional) has NOTHING to do with this discussion.
 
rick43235 said:
Jesus, if in fact he ever existed, would probably have a stroke if he could see how you twisted his idea of marriage where this family is concerned.
.
Click to expand...
How lovely for you to put your own twists to Christ. I’m reading the sciptures pretty clearly here, its not a “Catholic” interpretation…Just because protestants don’t enforce it, doesn’t make it any more right.

It is very clear that Jesus said one may not divorce and remarry. I have twisted absolutely postiively nothing.
 
sharmin said:
Oh my goodness. What happend to our civil debate?

I believe it is a sin to harm a child when you don’t have to. I believe, therefore, that it is sinful to not allow a child an intact home when it is possible to do so. I understand that you don’t believe the same as me, and I am fine with that. I 'm sorry if my belief upsets you.
Click to expand...
And the child was denied an intact home when the parents committed adultery, had sex with someone they are not married to.

Now, the parents seek forgiveness from God and the child must live with the consequences of the sin.
 
kage_ar said:
Explain?
Click to expand...
Sure. I’ll do my best.

King David had an affair and then had the other man killed. God still let him keep his kingdom. Yes, he had to do a penance-but it does matter.

God does not view all sins the same way. We do, through our own human prism.

If it even needs to be said, I think adultery is a mortal sin. But it is lesser sin than murder.
 
Rascalking said:
Sure. I’ll do my best.

King David had an affair and then had the other man killed. God still let him keep his kingdom. Yes, he had to do a penance-but it does matter.

God does not view all sins the same way. We do, through our own human prism.

If it even needs to be said, I think adultery is a mortal sin. But it is lesser sin than murder.
Click to expand...
The fact that God forgave David for a mortal sin does not lessen the sin, it means that God is merciful.

Death in a state of mortal sin sends you to hell. Hell is hell, no matter what got you there.
 
From the EWTN article linked above:
The Church does not explicitly forbid Catholics to attend presumptively-invalid weddings for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...
One of those reasons…may be because invalid marriages are not pressed from the same cookie cutter. Circumstances vary from couple to couple. Some couples may be honestly ignorant that their marriage will be presumed invalid by the Catholic Church. Others may be doing the best they can under the circumstances to do the responsible thing (e.g., marrying to provide a family for an expected child). Still others may know full well their obligations and not care, or may be thumbing their nose at traditional morality (e.g., a couple who is marrying after having committed adultery and abandoned previous spouses). If one couple is doing the best they can, there may be just reason to attend their marriage; and, at the same time, refusing to attend the marriage of a couple who knows full well that their actions are considered outside the bounds of traditional morality but does not care.
Click to expand...
As for the different answers you’ve seen on the issue:** Many orthodox Catholics (including priests and religious) presume that the Church does explicitly forbid Catholics to attend such marriages. They are simply mistaken. Others, unfortunately, do not distinguish Church teaching from their own personal opinion on the issue and give their personal opinion as binding on the consciences of others.** We can only hope that they too are sincerely mistaken.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.
 
rick43235 said:
From the EWTN article linked above:

Emphasis mine.
Click to expand...
The thing is, this passage is referring to whether or not you should attend such a wedding. It is not talking about being one of the official witnesses. Remember, there is a distinction between a guest observer and the role of official witness that a someone in the wedding party takes on.

Also, the first line that you bolded says, "…may be because invalid marriages are not pressed from the same cookie cutter". Right here, it is stating that these marriages are invalid. The question being discussed is the prudence of attending as a guest, not whether or not the wedding is a good thing. All of the following factors that might mitigate the level of guilt of the couple do not make the marriage any more valid, and this article never claims it. So while the couple may not be as guilty of mortal sin because they don’t know/understand what they’re doing is wrong, they are still committing just as serious sin. In the same way, our compassion towards their attempts to do “the right thing” should be there - more so, if their attempts are honest. This is what I believe your bolded sections are discussing. Still, their sins are no less serious. It is a very unfortunate situation indeed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top