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

[Rence]

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

They don’t always get a choice. If they have a choice, and only God knows if they do or not, they will be held accountable for their choice.

 

[Basilios]

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

I’m sorry, but you still haven’t shown me where the Catechism says that you do not have to be Catholic to be saved. What you quoted shows the principle of invincible ignorance being explained (rather succinctly and poorly but nevermind). You seem to be implying that invincible ignorance can save you. Which again, is untrue. If you are saved you are saved because you are Catholic - even if due to circumstances that are invincible you are not a visible part of the Church but otherwise would be. There is not a single person in Heaven who on earth was not a Catholic.

Look at those papal quotes and tell me I am wrong?

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.

This. I thought that he was arguing that the Church is okay with Catholic monarchs not raising their children as Catholics - which this latest piece of news seems to confirm, which is terribly sad.

 

[LilyM]

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.

Excuse me. - a Catholic married to a non-Catholic who may or may not have their own ideas about the raising of said child is obliged merely to try to raise their child Catholic. This will be extremely difficult in any event for someone married to the head of another faith!

It’s not like they’re obligated to kidnap the child from the palace in the dead of night and drag them before a Catholic priest to be baptised or given the other Catholic sacraments against the wishes of the other parent or anything. And it’s not like that child who is in line to be head of the COE will not be given their Anglican sacraments or brought up Anglican to the exclusion of all else.

I don’t think it’s a matter of worrying about the child losing their place in the succession, rather a bowing to the basically inevitable fact that the child of such a marriage would end up being raised Anglican anyway.

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?

 

[Rich_C]

Excuse me. - a Catholic married to a non-Catholic who may or may not have their own ideas about the raising of said child is obliged merely to try to raise their child Catholic.

Excuse me, clearly we agree.

 

[april32010]

This is not a situation where someone is truly unable to comply with Church law. In a scenario where someone was going to be killed, a family member hurt, their kids taken away from them, etc. that would be true. And to be fair, given the history in the UK, that might have been the case at one time. This however, is a situation where if someone is being told that it is OK to not raise their kids in the truth Church, where they will have valid sacraments and a true priesthood, so that they can be in line for some sort of earthly office. 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.

you can call me coo coo for coco puffs,:whackadoo: 'cause i see no way that this can be called acceptable

 

[Rence]

I’m sorry, but you still haven’t shown me where the Catechism says that you do not have to be Catholic to be saved.

I’m sorry but you just read it. Just read it. Not my fault you are still denying what you are reading. It’s right there in black and white for you and the world to see. Sorry but you’re wrong. It’s just as it was written. Read it again.

What you quoted shows the principle of invincible ignorance being explained (rather succinctly and poorly but nevermind).

Yeah, I know. You would have written it much better than the Pope and his writers I gotcha on that one.

You seem to be implying that invincible ignorance can save you. Which again, is untrue. If you are saved you are saved because you are Catholic - even if due to circumstances that are invincible you are not a visible part of the Church but otherwise would be. There is not a single person in Heaven who on earth was not a Catholic.

That is the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.

Look at those papal quotes and tell me I am wrong?

You are wrongly interpreting those papal quotes. You will need a spiritual advisor or a priest to help you sort that out. Those papal quotes were written in a time period where there were no other denominations. There were only Catholics, Jews and Muslims, and those who were wanting to break off from the Church, ie Luther. Today, people are born into these other sects and are devoted to their teachings, just like you are devoted to the Church and its teachings. They are following Christ the best way they know how. The writings in the Catechism explain this evolution of our cultures. Today there are 100s of Christian sects. No, not only Catholics are going to heaven. It’s not just going to be you, the Pope and Jesus partying up there. Others will be there loving God too.

 

[april32010]

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

no ones hands are tied ,and this is not out of her control

 

[Rence]

Excuse me, clearly we agree.

I think we all agree that we’re obliged to try. Someone married to a British Monarch has their hands tied. That kid will be raised Anglican.

It’s not just with monarchs. If a person presented their child to a priest for Baptism, against the wishes of the other parent, and the priest knows that the child will not be raised Catholic, that priest is not supposed to Baptise that child. Why? because there is no commitment to raise the child Catholic. Likewise, someone married to a British monarch knows that there will be no raising that child Catholic.

 

[Rence]

no ones hands are tied ,and this is not out of her control

So says you. I totally get it too. Another person’s welfare is none of your concern. I get it. Someone born into royalty with a choice of either 1) marry this person as was planned since before you were born or 2) get out into the world with nothing and with nobody doesn’t have much of a choice. The Church understands and really that’s all that matters. The Catholic married to the monarch will listen to their priest and bishop, not laypersons on the internet.

 

[Rich_C]

I think we all agree that we’re obliged to try. Someone married to a British Monarch has their hands tied. That kid will be raised Anglican.

You just contradicted yourself, though.

If we’re *all *obliged to try, then no Catholic could just accept that “that kid will be raised Anglican.”

No Catechism I ever read on this issue expressed any exceptions to trying.

You and Br JR assert this exception for heads of state exists. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Rence]

You just contradicted yourself, though.

If we’re *all *obliged to try, then no Catholic could just accept that “that kid will be raised Anglican.”

No Catechism I ever read on this issue expressed any exceptions to trying.

You and Br JR assert this exception for heads of state exists. The burden of proof is on you.

There is no burden on my to have to prove anything. Do your own research. If you’re patient I’m sure Brother JR will come back and explain it to you in a way you can understand. There was nothing contradictory in what I said, so obviously you’re not getting what I’m saying. Being obligated to try doesn’t mean breaking the law, or kidnapping, or anything like that. A Catholic married to a British monarch is NOT ALLOWED to raise a child borne of that marriage Catholic because according to law, that child has to be Anglican. What part of that do you not get? If it’s not allowed, the Catholic’s hands are tied.

 

[HollyDolly]

:newidea:Let me make a hypothecial remark here. Let’s say you have Prince George of England who marries Isabella, of the royal family of Spain.Or Maybe he marries Maria Theresa of the hapsburgs. Both women are catholic.
And let say they have 4 or 5 children. What could be done is raise the two eldest children a boy and a gilr as anglican,and the others can be raised catholic.After all,the other two children would have to die before the ones remaining could take up the throne.
And yes,there still is anti catholic feeling in Britian in certain areas.
However,the Anglican church of which Queen Elizabeth 2 is head really needs to clean up it’s act.I think the present Church of England would give old Henry the Eight fits.

 

[Rence]

:newidea:Let me make a hypothecial remark here. Let’s say you have Prince George of England who marries Isabella, of the royal family of Spain.Or Maybe he marries Maria Theresa of the hapsburgs. Both women are catholic.
And let say they have 4 or 5 children. What could be done is raise the two eldest children a boy and a gilr as anglican,and the others can be raised catholic.After all,the other two children would have to die before the ones remaining could take up the throne.

It can’t be allowed. Death was never kind to any monarchy. Those in line for the throne have to be Anglican, so all the kids would be Anglican.

 

[Lucky7]

I think this is the critical portion of this article:

“In this context the Catholic Church expects Catholic spouses to sincerely undertake to do all that they can to raise children in the Catholic Church,” he continued. “Where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law.”

It sounds to me that this canon law relates to royals and non-royals alike. It would be nice to get the actual words of the canon though.

As for the dogma of outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, yes, there is that little caveat of “those through no fault of their own” and “invincible ignorance”; however, in this day and age and especially in countries like ours and England, I think it’s pretty hard not to hear/know about the Catholic CHurch. Of course, the Catholic Church needs to do a better job of not letting people think it doesn’t matter what religion you are, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

 

[Rence]

I think this is the critical portion of this article:

“In this context the Catholic Church expects Catholic spouses to sincerely undertake to do all that they can to raise children in the Catholic Church,” he continued. “Where it has not been possible for the child of a mixed marriage to be brought up as a Catholic, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of canon law.”

It sounds to me that this canon law relates to royals and non-royals alike. It would be nice to get the actual words of the canon though.

It does apply no non-royals.

As for the dogma of outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, yes, there is that little caveat of “those through no fault of their own” and “invincible ignorance”; however, in this day and age and especially in countries like ours and England, I think it’s pretty hard not to hear/know about the Catholic CHurch. Of course, the Catholic Church needs to do a better job of not letting people think it doesn’t matter what religion you are, but that’s a whole other can of worms.

The Church understands that people devout and loyal to the religion in which they are born are not likely to just drop everything and believe a Catholic’s word and convert. Everyone’s heard of the Church, that doesn’t mean they “know” the Church. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been that devout. Just like we are devout and loyal to the Church, it’s not likely we would convert to another religion just because someone is attempting to evangelize us. Non-Catholics are really no different than we are in that regard. It’s not reasonable to assume another person will just drop everything and convert to CAtholicism when they are, in fact, dedicated to the religion they already are.

 

[Rich_C]

There is no burden on my to have to prove anything. Do your own research. If you’re patient I’m sure Brother JR will come back and explain it to you in a way you can understand. There was nothing contradictory in what I said, so obviously you’re not getting what I’m saying. Being obligated to try doesn’t mean breaking the law, or kidnapping, or anything like that. A Catholic married to a British monarch is NOT ALLOWED to raise a child borne of that marriage Catholic because according to law, that child has to be Anglican. What part of that do you not get? If it’s not allowed, the Catholic’s hands are tied.

My understanding is that Catholic offspring of the British monarch are disbarred from the line of succession. To my knowledge the law didn’t make it illegal for them to be raised Catholic. It just meant any child so raised could not be king/queen. However, I could be wrong. This is not an I’ve studied in great depth.

I will research that.

But the Church’s teaching is pretty clear and that’s what I do know.

The logical conclusion of your argument, is that the Church would consent to die out anywhere that Catholicism was declared illegal, but as we know the Church has resisted government before in its defense, in England for one.

 

[Lucky7]

The Church understands that people devout and loyal to the religion in which they are born are not likely to just drop everything and believe a Catholic’s word and convert. Everyone’s heard of the Church, that doesn’t mean they “know” the Church. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been that devout. Just like we are devout and loyal to the Church, it’s not likely we would convert to another religion just because someone is attempting to evangelize us. Non-Catholics are really no different than we are in that regard. It’s not reasonable to assume another person will just drop everything and convert to CAtholicism when they are, in fact, dedicated to the religion they already are.

Oh I get this, but it’s up to the Church heirarchy (and us) to make it clear that the only sure chance of gettting to Heaven is by being Catholic. I don’t think we do a good job of that (although one of the Pope’s latest homilies about not finding Jesus outside of Mother Church makes me hopeful).

 

[Rence]

Oh I get this, but it’s up to the Church heirarchy (and us) to make it clear that the only sure chance of gettting to Heaven is by being Catholic. I don’t think we do a good job of that (although one of the Pope’s latest homilies about not finding Jesus outside of Mother Church makes me hopeful).

The hierarchy of the Church does not make it clear because it’s not true.

 

[Lucky7]

The hierarchy of the Church does not make it clear because it’s not true.

You are wrong. It may be possible to get to Heaven some other way due to ignorance (what we just talked about). The only sure way of getting to Heaven is by being Catholic (of course a Catholic in a state of grace at time of death).

Yes, it’s a tough dogma to accept but it is the teaching of the RCC.

Trust me, I have family members who are Jewish. They don’t have a such a great shot at heaven. I don’t like that fact, but it is a fact.

 

[Rence]

My understanding is that Catholic offspring of the British monarch are disbarred from the line of succession. To my knowledge the law didn’t make it illegal for them to be raised Catholic. It just meant any child so raised could not be king/queen. However, I could be wrong. This is not an I’ve studied in great depth.

I will research that.

Yes research it. Yes, Catholics are disbarred from the monarchy. But it doesn’t end there. Think about it for a minute or two: If the Anglican parent insists that the child be raised Anglican (and given that the child is in line for the throne) and makes it clear that the child and his/her guardians will raise the child Anglican (becuase the purpose of the monarchy getting married is to have heirs), the Catholic parent has no recourse, and remember, the law will side with the Anglican/Monarch parent. The marriage is in the court of the monarch, who is Anglican.

The logical conclusion of your argument, is that the Church would consent to die out anywhere that Catholicism was declared illegal, but as we know the Church has resisted government before in its defense, in England for one.

That’s not a logical conclusion to my arguement because we’re not talking about making Catholicism illegal in any way, shape or form. We’re talking about the law that states that the monarch of the British throne (and Head of the Church of England) must be Anglican.