L
Lucky7
Guest
See the real choice was to avoid the issue altogether before kids: Catholics shouldn’t marry future Anglican kings.
- Status
J
jwinch2
Guest
And as for the idea that these things can be changed in their understanding over time:
First Vatican Council:
First Vatican Council:
First Vatican Council:
J
jwinch2
Guest
That’s one way of looking at it.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Again, “can” be saved (which is what the Catechism states) does not equal “will”. You talk as if non-catholics going to heaven is a rule rather than an exception…which is incorrect and misleading.We’re not going around in circles here too much are we?You can cling to your quotes written during a time when there were no Christian denominations, and I’ll go ahead and stick with the Catechism, because it’s a sure norm for Catholic teaching and designed to give us a better understanding of the Faith. I’m sure if we do our best, we’ll get where we need to be in the end
L
LilyM
Guest
I see no such requirements in the Canon you quoted. I see a requirement for the Catholic spouse to promise and the non-Catholic spouse merely to be made aware of that promise. The non-Catholic can be fully aware and still not agree or consent one iota. That lack of agreement or consent will not in itself affect the validity of the marriage.
Of course the non-Catholic spouse, while neither agreeing nor consenting to raise the children Catholic, may make it impossible in a practical sense for the Catholic spouse to fulfil their duties.
P
ProVobis
Guest
That’s just it. We don’t know. People who LEAVE the Church or become excommunicated do it usually through their own choice. Their chances of salvation are probably slim, unless they repent at the last minute. Those who are born into whatever denomination their parents or friends bring them into may not know that the Catholic faith is the one true religion. They might have heard about it but I wouldn’t want to judge whether they KNOW it to be true.
L
Lucky7
Guest
And my argument is that I don’t think they have even heard about it. So if they haven’t even heard about it…
E
Esrb99
Guest
But again-I don’t know how much that ignorance works in westernized culture anymore. For one, a higher percentage of non-catholic denominations and other pagan & religious backgrounds say it is permissible to have an abortion, engage in premarital acts, or a myriad of things that are against natural law-the law written on man’s heart. Even if these people are truly unaware of the status of the Catholic faith, they still may be raised to believe that these acts are fine and in accordance with God’s laws in their belief system.
However as I understand it, they would still be held accountable in such a case as these issues are not merely over divine revelation, but over natural law. So if their faith is teaching them things contrary to the law written on their hearts and they persist in error, where does that leave them? They may even know that the Catholic faith is against contraception etc. but feel that it’s okay. As I understand, this would fall under the guise of rejecting the natural law, and rendering one incapable of qualifying as someone who is ‘inculpably ignorant’
J
JReducation
Guest
When it comes to monarchs and dignitaries, the Church has always dealt with them differently, because she can’t always apply canon law to them. This goes back for centuries. It’s not new.
What is new here is that for the first time in centuries, the English Parliament is allowing royals to marry outside of the Church of England. The Catholic bishops have had to pull out some old, but very traditional pastoral practices that had fallen into disuse, because monarchies of this type have almost disappeared. I guess this would also apply if a Jordanian royal were to marry a Catholic, which I highly doubt. But let’s say so, just for the sake of hypothesis. The Church would not bind the Catholic under canon law to that which he cannot do, because civil law prohibits it.
In the case of the UK, civil law does not prohibit that the princess be Catholic; however, the prohibition is implied in the law. The law is very clear that the heir to the throne must be Anglican. It may as well come out and say that the heir to the throne may not be raised Catholic.
The difference between UK and Jordan is that Jordan is very transparent in its laws. The monarch must be Muslim. The UK is less transparent, but the end is the same. The heir to the throne must belong to the state religion or forfeit his right. The Church is also very concerned about the young heir here. She does not put children in such positions that are beyond their control and which impose an incredible amount of pressure on them. Royal children don’t grow up like other kids who are oblivious to the world of the adults. These kids are programmed from the time they are born. In the case of the UK, you could potentially have a royal Catholic parent raising a child Catholic and the royal Anglican parent programming his or her child to be monarch and the head of the Anglican Church. What happens to this kid’s childhood? How fair is this to this child?
The Catholic Church is not in the business of placing kids in such difficult positions. They can always become Catholic later and voluntarily abdicate. It has happened. Queen Elizabeth’s sister became a Catholic. I may be mistaken, but isn’t Princess Anne also a Catholic? Once they do so, they are no longer in the line of succession, no matter how remote. But they are adults making a choice, not children caught between two powerful forces.
M
Mariem2
Guest
I think you are mistaken on both counts.
I’m ashamed of what appears to be prevarication on the part of the hierarchy of our Church on this. I don’t see a whole lot of difference between this and the days when the Church appeared to dish out annulments like confetti to the rich whilst the poor were left to stew.
F
Francoist
Guest
What would be a really difficult position for the children of the royal couple is for them to be burning in Hell some day. I’d hate for the Church or anybody else to put them in that position.
J
JReducation
Guest
I think everyone is overreacting here. I may have not been clear enough.
For centuries, the Church has made all kinds of exceptions to law when the cases involve monarchs and heads of state. Is that clearer?
I don’t have to show you folks, because you can find them in any history book. I’m not about to do high school homework for people. That’s a waste of my time and your own. You probably studied this in world history.
This is a matter of canon law, not a matter of doctrine. What the bishops are saying is that canon law cannot be applied fairly to people whose choices are limited by forces out of their control. This is logical. The Church has never applied canonical penalties to people who have been in situations where they did the best they could, but could do no more.
The issue of raising children Catholic is only the latest of many canonical issues where the Church has taken a pastoral position different from the law in the books when royalty has been concerned. The most common one has been marriage between first degree cousins. Many monarchs were cousins. Much of Europe’s royalty is related by blood. If I’m not mistaken, Philip and Elizabeth are related. The Church let it go, even though Canon Law said that first and second cousins could not marry. The Church does not have to apply canonical penalties when she believes that the best interest of the people involved would not be served or when the individuals involved have reached the limits of their control.
One has to look at both parents, not just the Catholic parent. In this case, the Anglican parent is also under a great deal of pressure. In the end, you have a child in the middle of a pressure cooker.
**The best thing for all involved is for a royal not to marry a Catholic, especially one who is in the direct line of succession. **
There are three things in life that are equally fickle, the weather, children and love. It happens that people of different faiths fall in love. What has often happened is that the Catholic ends up converting in order to marry, because these civil laws, not just in the UK, tend to be very strict and inflexible.
The pastoral question is whether one just let’s the Catholic convert to avoid a problem or whether one accepts that there is only so much that the Catholic can do and leave the rest to the mercy of God’s grace.
If I’m reading this statement correctly, the bishops are not saying that this is ideal. They’re saying that this is possible given the situation. They’re looking for the highest possible good. The operative word here is “possible”. There is always perfect good, but it may not be possible in this situation. Rather than the bishops jumping up and down over something that they cannot control, they can find a response that is legal.
As I said, this is not the first time in Church history where the Church has had to find legal responses to difficult situations concerning royalty. Those responses are not ideal, but they were the best that the Church could offer at the time.
Let’s look at another example among royals. Church law has always said that men and women must enter freely into marriage for validity. Yet, the Church always held that arranged marriages for the royalty were valid. Canon law made the exception for royalty, because it was the best pastoral choice at the time. To declare these marriages null and void was not going to stop arranged marriages. People were betrothed as early as age 5 and married by age 16. This was the case of Catherine of Aragon and Prince Arthur of England. She was betrothed to Arthur at age 3. They were married when Arthur was 15 only two weeks after meeting each other. They had never met. If this were among common folk, this marriage would be annulled in a heartbeat. Because this was a duty of state, the Church rightly assumed that the marriage was valid, because the children were “programmed” to do their duty for the realm. In time, the couple usually grew close.
The point that I’m making is twofold.
a) Canonical penalties cannot be applied to those who cannot comply with the law.
b) The Church recognizes that these children are under an incredible amount of pressure from the time that they are infants. She does not want to put them under more pressure if she can help it.
This is not an easy thing for the bishops of England. It’s easy for us who are across the Atlantic to criticize them. How many here would want their job?
We need to ask ourselves if we’re not too swift in our judgment and condemnation.
J
JReducation
Guest
God does not send children to hell for something that is out of their control.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s actually an exaggeration that people have spread about. Don’t buy into it.
It is true that many wealthy people have received decrees of nullity. It is also very true that many wealthy people have entered into invalid marriages, more than among the working class.
M
Mariem2
Guest
Spare me the platitudes.
I suppose this is a monarchist version of taking the soup, and some English archbishop says it’s ok. There were a few English archbishops who were ok with Henry V111 marrying Anne Boleyn but they were excommunicated. From where I’m sitting, this is the Catholic Church genuflecting to the British parliament for the sake of a circumstance that most likely will never happen. Looks great in Westminster where it won’t bring a single person into the Catholic faith, but it will leave many thousands of Catholics wondering why our Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic for everyone except those in line for the British throne. What hypocrisy.
Once again, I feel I’m Catholic despite the hierarchy rather than with their help and guidance. Sometimes, our faith would be better served if they were to try biting their tongues.
F
Francoist
Guest
Surely it is better for one’s salvation to be raised in the Catholic Faith than in some false religion.
C
cothrige
Guest
There are major problems with this post. You probably mean to state that just by being Catholic one is not guaranteed salvation, but I think you fail to make your point altogether and end up implying something much, much different. The fact is that while being called a Catholic won’t necessarily guarantee you are saved, the Catholic faith itself is a sure means of being saved. And it is the only one. If you believe, truly believe, the Catholic faith and live according to that faith, you will be saved. Any failure is not due to an inadequacy in the faith or what the Church teaches, but in us. But, you don’t address this and instead make a rather curt response which leave one with the impression that what you are saying is that there are other faiths equally capable of saving as that of the Church, and this is entirely untrue.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is no denying that the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists in the Catholic Church. At the same time, we can’t deny that Christ also uses non-Catholic religions to save. It is not as if he totally abandons these people, especially the children.
J
JReducation
Guest
Be very careful. He’s not excluding salvation. He’s speaking about finding Christ.
However, we must not forget St. Augustine. Christ finds us, even though we may not see him. For this reason the Church teaches that Christ does use non-Catholic religions to save.
As I said above, the fullness of Christ’s Church subsists only in the Catholic Church. However, that is not to say that those outside of the Catholic Church because they were not born into the Catholic Church are deprived of salvation. God’s mercy is not handcuffed. The Holy Father has also said this many times over, as have every pope before him. The Church cannot restrict God’s mercy.
We can only say what has been revealed to us. But we cannot predict what is to happen beyond what has been revealed to us. God has not revealed to us what happens to those who are born outside of the Church other than to tell us that his mercy is infinite and that it tames his justice.
P
ProVobis
Guest
An interesting take on the old Baltimore Catechism
more at catholicity.elcore.net/SalvationOfNonCatholicsInBaltimoreCatechism.html
- Status