R
rgende
Guest
Here’s the background, then the question. A few months ago, I engaged in a Bible study group at my parish, led by one of our deacons. Our study
was Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians. During an unusally extended discussion (this deacon was far more interested in getting the session completed on schedule, than he was getting us all some serious and knowledgeable food for thought), we worked thru the
question of the whether or not it was acceptable to attend a non Catholic religious ceremony ie a wedding, and then into the Church’s teaching on whether or not a non Catholic had a chance of achieving eternal life in Heaven. After some serious prodding, he finally gave a “no” to both questions. I thought then and there, that this deacon had no right to be in any position of influence in our Parish. Several weeks later, the issue of attendance at a non Catholic religious ceremony was addressed in our Diocese newspaper. The answer was unequivicably opposite from the deacon’s answer. Question #1 is, who was right? Question #2 is, assuming that the deacon was wrong on both counts, why is the deacon still a deacon, or, for that matter, even a Catholic. Or, if the Church actually teaches this nonsense, please give me one suitable reason why I should not recuse myself from Catholicism? Ron from Illinois
was Paul’s 1st Letter to the Corinthians. During an unusally extended discussion (this deacon was far more interested in getting the session completed on schedule, than he was getting us all some serious and knowledgeable food for thought), we worked thru the
question of the whether or not it was acceptable to attend a non Catholic religious ceremony ie a wedding, and then into the Church’s teaching on whether or not a non Catholic had a chance of achieving eternal life in Heaven. After some serious prodding, he finally gave a “no” to both questions. I thought then and there, that this deacon had no right to be in any position of influence in our Parish. Several weeks later, the issue of attendance at a non Catholic religious ceremony was addressed in our Diocese newspaper. The answer was unequivicably opposite from the deacon’s answer. Question #1 is, who was right? Question #2 is, assuming that the deacon was wrong on both counts, why is the deacon still a deacon, or, for that matter, even a Catholic. Or, if the Church actually teaches this nonsense, please give me one suitable reason why I should not recuse myself from Catholicism? Ron from Illinois