Catholic royals won't have to raise kids Catholic [CNAU]

[Basilios]

I think we all have a problem with something or another that the Church teaches.

This isn’t anywhere near a Church teaching. It’s a prudential call by a Bishop.

Remember, if it’s God’s will that a child be Catholic, he/she will be later.

That’s testing God. So next time I meet someone who wants to be Catholic I should give them a reason not to be and then say “Well, if God wants him Catholic he’ll become Catholic”. God wills that every single human being on earth becomes Catholic. We just need to do our part and allow that to happen by not getting in the way.

Still a parent isn’t going to take their birthright from them, nor a country’s potential heir.

A royal heir but not an adopted son of God? If I had been denied my Catholic heritage in the name of a kingdom I would burn my throne for someone taking away from me the true faith and Church of Jesus Christ,

 

[Rence]

Ave Marie, Brother.

Brother, can you show me sources for this claim please? From my (rather limited) knowledge of history, where this has been the case it has always been a scandal.

Nobody is putting a gun to people’s heads here forcing marriage.

The tradition is an old one and earthly princes didn’t always have a choice when they married, especially women born in royalty. They married the man chosen for them, and they had no recourse. Today, there is more freedom, but we really don’t know how much freedom their is to choose a spouse - again, especially for the women. The teaching was made for everyone. And one doesn’t have to be disowned by their family. That’s not a requirement of the Church. That’s a situation out of their control. You have no idea what family dynamics are in place in families of monarchs. Perhaps the Church might be wiser than those of us who aren’t privy to those family dynamics?

. Either way, it’s allowing the child to have small to little chance of salvation.

That’s not true according to Church teaching. Remember, those who don’t know Him, no fault of their own, can still be saved. And it’s not like the child wouldn’t know Him. He/she would have truth, just not the fullness of it. You don’t have to be Catholic to be saved.

 

[Rence]

This isn’t anywhere near a Church teaching. It’s a prudential call by a Bishop.

Not according to Brother JR… and it’s been this way for centuries.

That’s testing God. So next time I meet someone who wants to be Catholic I should give them a reason not to be and then say “Well, if God wants him Catholic he’ll become Catholic”.

That’s not the same thing.

A royal heir but not an adopted son of God? If I had been denied my Catholic heritage in the name of a kingdom I would burn my throne for someone taking away from me the true faith and Church of Jesus Christ,

Ok, well that’s you But you talk big for someone not in another person’s shoes.

 

[ProVobis]

In essence, assuming Brother JR’s interpretation is correct, they are being told by Catholic bishops that it is OK to choose an earthly kingdom over the Heavenly kingdom for their children.

Call me crazy, but I still have a problem with that.

I do too. But look at the downside. The Catholic partner might be pressured to convert to Anglicanism if the bishops push too hard on this. The Anglicans still have the numbers over Catholics in the U.K. right now. It is probably more important to preserve the ecumenical spirit in all this (much better than it was 200 years ago) and not worry about converting the U.K. to Catholicism.

 

[Basilios]

The tradition is an old one and earthly princes didn’t always have a choice when they married, especially women born in royalty. They married the man chosen for them, and they had no recourse. Today, there is more freedom, but we really don’t know how much freedom their is to choose a spouse - again, especially for the women. The teaching was made for everyone. And one doesn’t have to be disowned by their family. That’s not a requirement of the Church. That’s a situation out of their control. You have no idea what family dynamics are in place in families of monarchs. Perhaps the Church might be wiser than those of us who aren’t privy to those family dynamics?

It’s not a teaching, it’s a discipline and in this case a prudential call. You still didn’t answer my question that I asked Br JR. You just told me almost exactly what I said, that there isn’t a gun to the head.

That’s not true according to Church teaching. Remember, those who don’t know Him, no fault of their own, can still be saved.

No, those who through no fault of their own, who live by the law on their hearts, are excused from the sin against the first commandment. Nothing more. Those who through no fault of their own cannot ever come to a knowledge of God have a possibility of being saved if they are otherwise living very moral lives. But this is a red herring, since it doesn’t apply to this case.

You don’t have to be Catholic to be saved.

Yes you do. That is Church teaching, 100% doctrine that every Catholic must believe.

 

[Basilios]

Not according to Brother JR… and it’s been this way for centuries.

I think you’re misreading Brothers’ post. And if he were saying what you say he is saying, that doesn’t make it true.

That’s not the same thing.

Testing God is testing God whichever way you want to try twist it!

But you talk big for someone not in another person’s shoes.

Of course I do. I talk as one who can do all things in Him Who strengthens me. Do you have a problem with people who talk big because they see that the faith is big? That salvation is big? I’m not pretending to be a saint, and who knows what I would feel in this situation. But what I would feel is different to what I would hopefully do. And if I were wavering, I would expect and hope that the moral authorities would give me the courage to do the thing most pleasing to God rather than myself and my wants and needs.

 

[Rich_C]

This is a real issue that a Catholic royal has to face and one that is out of his or her control. The royal has no voice over Parliament. The pastoral approach involves understanding the predicament of the royal parent and finding a way to apply canon law fairly. The fairest thing to do is to follow tradition. The Church does not penalize those who through no fault of their own cannot comply with the law.

The problem with your argument is that the Catholic *does *have a choice. It’s just unfair.

They have to choose between giving their child rule of a little island in Europe or a decent shot at salvation. It stinks that they have to choose but the only option for a good Catholic in their situation is to hand down the Faith, not the royal succession. Even this peasant understands that.

 

[Rence]

It’s not a teaching, it’s a discipline and in this case a prudential call. You still didn’t answer my question that I asked Br JR. You just told me almost exactly what I said, that there isn’t a gun to the head.

I did answer your question. You just didn’t like the answer. YOU are not faced with these individuals problems. Thankfully they have a Church heirarchy to look to for answers to help them, rather than laypeople.

No, those who through no fault of their own, who live by the law on their hearts, are excused from the sin against the first commandment. Nothing more. Those who through no fault of their own cannot ever come to a knowledge of God have a possibility of being saved if they are otherwise living very moral lives. But this is a red herring, since it doesn’t apply to this case.

Quote:
You don’t have to be Catholic to be saved.

No, you don’t. You do not have to be Catholic to be saved. Someone who completely disregards what’s is written in black and white in the catechism is impossible to reason with

 

[Rich_C]

I hear people saying the Church has always allowed this, but no evidence. Sorry, but I don’t believe everything I read on the Internet.

We all know the rule. If there is really a big exception for royals, I’d like to see some historical examples or a line from Canon Law.

 

[Rence]

Of course I do. I talk as one who can do all things in Him Who strengthens me. Do you have a problem with people who talk big because they see that the faith is big? That salvation is big? I’m not pretending to be a saint, and who knows what I would feel in this situation. But what I would feel is different to what I would hopefully do. And if I were wavering, I would expect and hope that the moral authorities would give me the courage to do the thing most pleasing to God rather than myself and my wants and needs.

In the past, and who knows to the extent in present days, women born into royalty did not have a choice when a spouse was chosen for them without risking complete ruin. I realize that’s no big deal to you. But other people’s problems are no less than your own. It just shows how you are very willing to disregard another persons pain. To disregard the welfare of another person is just unconscienable. Maybe that’s why the Church is more understanding where you are not. So I’ll go with what they say on this one You don’t have to take that plate in the cafe. Just like everyone else. And don’t get me wrong this isn’t a criticism: everyone has a problem with something the Church says at one time or another. Just admit you have a problem with their dealings of it and move on. You’ll never be faced with this problem in your life. Say a prayer for those who will.

 

[Rich_C]

I did answer your question. You just didn’t like the answer. YOU are not faced with these individuals problems. Thankfully they have a Church heirarchy to look to for answers to help them, rather than laypeople.

No, you don’t. You do not have to be Catholic to be saved. Someone who completely disregards what’s is written in black and white in the catechism is impossible to reason with

Not raising your children in the Faith is normally grounds for damnation, however. If there is exception, you ought to be able to provide a few examples or something official from a pope, right?

 

[Rence]

Not raising your children in the Faith is normally grounds for damnation, however. If there is exception, you ought to be able to provide a few examples or something official from a pope, right?

Didn’t Brother JR arleady do that?

 

[Basilios]

I did answer your question. You just didn’t like the answer. YOU are not faced with these individuals problems. Thankfully they have a Church heirarchy to look to for answers to help them, rather than laypeople.

I asked the question not to you, that was my point. You didn’t answer the question either. You provided nothing in terms of what I asked for. Forgive me for saying it, but it’s not as if the heirarchy have been stellar in terms of their doctrinal and moral orthodoxy in the past few years, so I do have some reservations when it comes to important matters of the faith particularly when it comes to dispensing someone from the moral requirement they have to raise their children Catholic.

In the past how many years, we’ve seen hundreds of scandals being allowed under the guise of “pastoral sensitivity”.

No, you don’t. You do not have to be Catholic to be saved.

Yes you do. To say otherwise is heresy.

Someone who completely disregards what’s is written in black and white in the catechism is impossible to reason with

Can you show me where in the Catechism it says that you do not have to be Catholic to be saved? My Catechism doesn’t say the same thing, nor does my understanding of the Church’s dogma as expressed in the following quotes:

“The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved.”
-Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD)

“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
-Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302 AD)

“The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her… No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”
-Pope Eugene IV, ex cathedra, Council of Florence, Cantate Domino (1441 AD)

 

[Rich_C]

Didn’t Brother JR arleady do that?

No, he just said “we’ve always done this.”

Was that what convinced you?

 

[Rence]

Can you show me where in the Catechism it says that you do not have to be Catholic to be saved? My Catechism doesn’t say the same thing,

Yes, your Catechism does. You just either haven’t read it or are disregarding it:

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

 

[Rence]

No, he just said “we’ve always done this.”

Was that what convinced you?

It’s because that’s what was taught to me in Catholic high school. I’ve always known this. It’s a part of history. How can you not kmow this? British monarchs in line for the throne can’t be Catholic. This is not a hidden secret. It’s common knowledge. A Catholic who marries a British monarch who is in line with the throne can’t raise any kids Catholic because those kids will be in line for the throne. The Queen/King is the Head of the Church of England and must be Anglican.

 

[Rich_C]

It’s because that’s what was taught to me in Catholic high school. I’ve always known this. It’s a part of history. How can you not kmow this? British monarchs in line for the throne can’t be Catholic. This is not a hidden secret. It’s common knowledge. A Catholic who marries a British monarch who is in line with the thrown can’t raise any kids Catholic because those kids will be in line for the throne. The Queen/King is the Head of the Church of England and must be Anglican.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize all you are trying to say is that British law doesn’t allow a Catholic to take the throne. That’s just a fact, nothing to debate.

I thought you were saying that the Church is okay with Catholics raising their children outside the Faith. That’s what I was arguing against.

 

[Jimmygill88]

One rule for the rich another for the rest of us. Typical

 

[Jimmygill88]

It’s because that’s what was taught to me in Catholic high school. I’ve always known this. It’s a part of history. How can you not kmow this? British monarchs in line for the throne can’t be Catholic. This is not a hidden secret. It’s common knowledge. A Catholic who marries a British monarch who is in line with the throne can’t raise any kids Catholic because those kids will be in line for the throne. The Queen/King is the Head of the Church of England and must be Anglican.

They can renounce their right to the throne. Prince Michael did when he married a catholic. It isn’t compulsory

 

[Rence]

I’m sorry, I didn’t realize all you are trying to say is that British law doesn’t allow a Catholic to take the throne. That’s just a fact, nothing to debate.

I thought you were saying that the Church is okay with Catholics raising their children outside the Faith. That’s what I was arguing against.

I was agreeing with Brother JR. The Church understands if someone’s hands are tied by a situation beyond their control.