B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Fr. is not wrong, you need to chaeck your facts.
- Status
S
Seatuck
Guest
You need to check your facts and be more respectful to a priest.
If you had a genuine intention of correcting facts then the least you could have done was provide us with some church document , teaching to back up your correction of a priest.
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
In defense of thomfra, it’s not always easy to tell which church authority to believe when they seem in conflict. It’s not hard to see why someone would believe an immediately present priest giving a verbal explanation over a technically-written and potential confusing church document (much less an online persona claiming to be a priest). For a great many centuries, that was all the average Catholic had access to anyway. And say what you will about heterodox practices today, today’s Catholic priests are much better educated than many of their predecessors in previous centuries.
J
Jean_Anthony
Guest
Just a note, everyone. CAF does not allow members to identify themselves as ordained persons unless they are. We make sure people are who they say they are if they claim to be any sort of representative of the Church.
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
Sure, I read the intro to the forums and I know that (Surely no one comes on here and posts without having read the rules?
). I even trust the claim. My comment was on the psychology of someone reading authoritative-sounding claims, not a challenge to any particular claim to hold authority.To avoid confusion, I’ll repost my comment without the above parenthetical remark:
“In defense of thomfra, it’s not always easy to tell which church authority to believe when they seem in conflict. It’s not hard to see why someone would believe an immediately present priest giving a verbal explanation over a technically-written and potential confusing church document. For a great many centuries, that was all the average Catholic had access to anyway. And say what you will about heterodox practices today, today’s Catholic priests are much better educated than many of their predecessors in previous centuries.”
I’m sure FrDavid96 is familiar with the problem. Perhaps he’d like to comment?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I suppose that depends upon which “problem” There are 2
- The problem of people using the word “Godparents” for people who cannot be in-fact Godparents. I think I’ve addressed that one.
- The problem of priests who are teaching their own opinions rather than the actual teaching of the Church, or who allow these misunderstandings to be perpetuated.
The problem is not so much with our priests as it is with our society. As a whole, we have become so accustomed to getting our information from unreliable sources, like the media and the internet, that we have lost touch with the value of the “primary source” That’s what happened with Vatican II. People read newspaper and magazine articles about the Council, but very few of them read the actual words of the Council. In practical terms, the “teaching of Vatican II” became not what the bishops said, but what the-newspapers-said-the-bishops-said.
Others here have posted the canon law on the matter–the original, “primary source.” Yet, some here have still denied what the primary source says, and instead have relied on what someone else says the primary source says. See the pattern? People in our society don’t even realize anymore that what “realy counts” is the actual canons and liturgical laws of the Church; because they see the “practice” in such disharmony with the “law” that they assume the law must be wrong, or irrelevant.
The canon quoted about baptismal sponsors is realy very straightforward. It might sound a little odd so someone who’s not familiar with reading canon law, but the plain meaning of the words shows through quite clearly if (and that’s an important IF) the person bothers to take the time to actually read it. The problem is that people can’t be bothered to read it. They feel that they don’t have to because they already know what it says (so-and-so said so and that’s good enough for me), AND they don’t want to read a whole paragraph because a short summation is more than sufficient according to the values of our society.
Crazy Diamond, you said that “it’s not always easy to tell which church authority to believe” Now, my intention here is not to jump on you for saying what you did, nor to jump on the first person who said that I was “wrong.” Why sould it be a question of which person to believe, instead of a question of which written source to consult? With the internet, we have the world at our fingertips. Anyone can search canon law and read for himself what the canons say. How many try to do this before posting “what the canons say”?
The real problem is that the person who said that someone else was wrong did not see a need to verify that information first, and only then to post something to the contrary. If a person says “you’re wrong, read canon XXXX” it would be different situation entirely. But in our society, we have lost our perspective. We no longer see a need to prove what we say, to research the actual facts before we engage in a debate about those facts. That’s what I see as the real problem.
You asked, so I answered. Thanks for taking the time to read it.
F
Frosty
Guest
Everything you wrote in your post # 45 is true. I, for one, thank you from the bottom of my heart for writing it, The part that I quoted ought to resonate with everyone who tries to answer questions or engage in a debate on this forum. One may believe that the answer they are about to give may be the correct one but when handing out advice concerning the faith of another individual, it doesn’t hurt to spend a bit of time checking out the official Church documents to be absolutely sure. It surely would result in less confusion!
T
thomfra
Guest
Yes, yes. But for all intensive purposes the other non-catholic, yet christian witness **is **a god parent.
The parents of the infant will recognise certain individuals as godparents regardless as to whether they are infact confirmed catholics. It most certainly does no harm.
Until god parents are “allocated” by the RCC this will not change.
The fact that you are hung up on point 1 and that you see it as “a problem” from your post shows that your focus is somewhat skewed to the legalistic. Which is not necessarily bad, dependant on what your role is.
Could you (in your proffessional capacity) elaborate on the experiences of the **victims **of this problem?
T
thomfra
Guest
K
kage_ar
Guest
BTW, the commonly used phrase is “for all intents and purposes” - not “intensive purposes”.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Thomfra,
It goes to the very purpose of Godparents. A Godparent is a sponsor. One who stands as a representative not only of the newly baptised, but also a representative of the Church TO the newly baptised. The sponsor is one who is welcoming a new member into the Church. If the sponsor is not a member of the Church in the first place, then this is not just legally “not allowed” but it is impossible.
Calling a non-Godparent a Godparent is simply to be dishonest about the situation. Ensuring that the child is raised in the faith is a PART of the responsibility of a Godparent, but it is not the ONLY responsibility. One cannot sponsor a new member into community if that sponsor is not first a member of that community.
Example from secular society. To join the Badger Lodge, one must be “sponsored” by an existing Badger. We see this all the time in fraternal organizations. Someone cannot approach the Badger Lodge and say “I’m an Otter, not a Badger, but still I present this candidate for membership in the Badger Lodge”
People may call this “legalistic” all they want. That doesn’t change the fact that it is true. Calling something “legalistic” does not legitimate violating the law. That’s another issue in our society. If we don’t like a law, we consider ourselves exempt from it and free to violate it all we want. It doesn’t work that way. Many people tend to forget that laws were put in place for a reason, and never bother with trying to learn what that reason might be.
In Catholic experience, all too often when Catholics encounter something in canon or liturgical law that they don’t like, rather than to try to understand the law they instead throw out words meant to win over the emotions of the hearer.
K
kage_ar
Guest
It is interesting how many people feel that one chooses a godparent as a title of love or special friendship - it is not a “this is who we like best and will be a buddy to my child” decision.
T
thomfra
Guest
Ha! yet another souless pedant.
We all know that when a word is missheard enough times, and repeated enough times it becomes, for lack of a better explanation “common parlance”. (excuse my spelling).
There are a number of such phrases and words in the English language. This is just the one you have chosen to make your personal hobby horse. I can give you few in Norwegian and German that you probably use incorrectly under the guise of “proper english”.
That notwithstanding it is increadibly poor form to correct somebodies english on a public forum. You’d better make sure you check everything correctly from now on. I’ll be watching.
On second thought, no. I can’t be bothered. I have better things to do.
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
Personally, I like “intensive purposes,” especially since we’re talking ecclesiological issues.kage_ar;4520664:
Ha! yet another souless pedant. …
K
kage_ar
Guest
As personal attacks are against the rules, I expect an apology.
BTW, words DO have meaning. The words “intensive” and “intents” have different meanings, by using the wrong word, one changes the meaning of the phrase.
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
That’s is the one I was talking about.
Hear, hear!
Or what the priest said the bishop said, which brings us back to the original problem.
Primary source, not hearsay. Got it.
Okay, so the primary source isn’t that tough to read with a bit of practice. It was meant to be understood. Got that part, too.
Again, the most important thing is the primary source, not culture, not hearsay, not typical practice that you’ve observed, not the soundbite, not the witticism - the primary source. Excellent.
Finally, the problem is we don’t have a culture of checking primary sources and basing opinion on them. I take it that’s something you’d like to change.
That was almost exactly what I wanted to hear you say. The one thing missing, in my estimation, is just saying that primary sources are meant to address specific things. You can’t just take any phrase out of a canon law or other source and run as fast and far with it as you want. Primary sources address the concerns they were meant to address; they can’t be used to justify some other practice people would really, really, really like to see become official.
Oh, that was excellent. Well worth reading. Undoubtedly I’ll be linking to that post often. Seriously, you should consider publishing that in a periodical for people who develop catechetical or seminary programs. It would only require a little fleshing out with other examples.
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
Some more specific commentary, since I ran up against the 6000 word limit…
My wife’s godfather was Orthodox. Her parents had to get special permission from their bishop. Perhaps some priests just figure “Orthodox today, Methodists tomorrow.” I don’t know if that’s the case, I just wondered.
)
kage_ar, do you think it would be a good idea to add geographical limits to the selection of godparents? I mean, should there be some way to ensure that the godparents have a reasonable chance of seeing the child more than once every five years or so?
And very nicely, too.
This is the one I was talking about, the general problem that covers #1. One more possibility, though… I’ve wondered if some priests are just letting these things go, figuring that they’re just allowing the tradition to develop? From what I’ve read, nonparent godparents originally were for adult converts only. Christian parents were expected to be the “godparents” of their own children for quite a few centuries. Perhaps some modern priests just figure the tradition continues to develop. Especially since the “separated brethren” aren’t just considered straight-out heretics anymore.
My wife’s godfather was Orthodox. Her parents had to get special permission from their bishop. Perhaps some priests just figure “Orthodox today, Methodists tomorrow.” I don’t know if that’s the case, I just wondered.
Although I also understand it can be a cultural problem, too. I’ve read that in the 1800’s in the US, Irish and Italian priests often had conflicts over application of canon laws. The Italians saw canon laws as an ideal toward which the whole Catholic community was working over time, not rules for how to handle specific pastoral cases. The Irish saw rules as rules, and you follow the rules in every individual case. We see that difference today in people talking about priests who are more “lawyerly” and those who are more “pastoral.” (I’m guessing I know what they say about you…
)Or what the priest said the bishop said, which brings us back to the original problem. If you, FrDavid96, could change three things about the way priests got trained what would they be? If you could change three things about catechesis, what would they be?
I thought this was a really interesting comment, since the only time I’ve actually seen godparents chosen who weren’t close relatives was for my own daughters. In those cases, we chose members of my wife’s parish who we thought had admirable spiritual lives and good reputations. Most of the time, I get the impression that godparent status is simply a way of complimenting a particular relative. It’s kind of rare that we see the godparents in church any other time (for that matter, we get plenty of folks who only show up for their baby’s baptism).
kage_ar, do you think it would be a good idea to add geographical limits to the selection of godparents? I mean, should there be some way to ensure that the godparents have a reasonable chance of seeing the child more than once every five years or so?
C
Crazy_Diamond
Guest
I agree with you, kage_ar, but I think “intensive purposes” kind of fits here, don’t you? At least, as far as what thomfra was trying to say.
Thomfra’s in the running for a Pullet Surprise. We need a CAF Pullet Surprise thread, I think…
K
kage_ar
Guest
Our son’s godparents are not blood relatives, 'course, we are converts
I have 7 godchildren now, and two more in process - none are related to me. Only one is the child of a cradle Catholic parent, the rest are a mess of converts, too…
Maybe it is more of a cradle Catholic thing, to limit godparents to family members
In our day, the world is small. Internet and free long distance have removed the barriers of distance. I would choose a godparent on the other side of the planet who is faithful and orthodox - who will pray for my child every day and give a holy example and solid advice over someone who is “fluffy” in their Catholicism and can come to the birthday parties.
- Status