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

[cothrige]

I believe that many in this thread seem to be missing some basic points in this situation. It is, of course, true that people can only do what is possible in trying to meet their obligations in the faith, however, it is incorrect to imply that the raising of children is somehow separate from the rest of their lives. All of our choices must reflect the Gospel and our faith, and we cannot willfully put ourselves in a position in which we know that we will no longer be able to act appropriately as Catholic parents.

Raising our children under oppression is one thing, but choosing to live in oppression to raise our children is another. Royal marriages today are not arranged, and the relevant one to this discussion actually involves a commoner, so historical examples are not applicable. Since when does this board interpret Catholic teachings as if we were still living in a medieval society? Why do so now? Queen Elizabeth hardly held a gun to Kate Middleton’s head and forced her to marry. If a woman, or a man, enters knowingly into a marriage in which they are fully aware that they will not have a choice regarding their children’s faith then they have already acted contrary to the teaching of the Church. Their marriage is valid I don’t doubt, and they may even have been told by a bishop that this was okay, but that doesn’t change the fundamental facts involved. They knew their children would not be Catholic, and they were okay with that because they would get to be queen.

 

[Rence]

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.

No, I don’t probably mean to say anything of the sort. No, I didn’t fail to make my point. My point was made. In addition, I have addressed this many times and with quotes from the Catechism. Catholics are not the only ones who will be saved. And one can be saved even though they aren’t Catholic:

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.

 

[jwinch2]

An interesting take on the old Baltimore Catechism

more at catholicity.elcore.net/SalvationOfNonCatholicsInBaltimoreCatechism.html

That’s one of the more clear teachings on this topic I have come across. Thanks for sharing that.

 

[Rence]

I believe that many in this thread seem to be missing some basic points in this situation. It is, of course, true that people can only do what is possible in trying to meet their obligations in the faith, however, it is incorrect to imply that the raising of children is somehow separate from the rest of their lives. All of our choices must reflect the Gospel and our faith, and we cannot willfully put ourselves in a position in which we know that we will no longer be able to act appropriately as Catholic parents.

Raising our children under oppression is one thing, but choosing to live in oppression to raise our children is another. Royal marriages today are not arranged, and the relevant one to this discussion actually involves a commoner, so historical examples are not applicable. Since when does this board interpret Catholic teachings as if we were still living in a medieval society? Why do so now? Queen Elizabeth hardly held a gun to Kate Middleton’s head and forced her to marry. If a woman, or a man, enters knowingly into a marriage in which they are fully aware that they will not have a choice regarding their children’s faith then they have already acted contrary to the teaching of the Church. Their marriage is valid I don’t doubt, and they may even have been told by a bishop that this was okay, but that doesn’t change the fundamental facts involved. They knew their children would not be Catholic, and they were okay with that because they would get to be queen.

Kate is not Catholic. She is Anglican. In addition, we do not know which marriages are arranged and which ones aren’t. Still further, the Church has decided to treat these situations differently and that’s the perogative of the Church.

 

[cothrige]

No, I don’t probably mean to say anything of the sort.

Sorry, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

No, I didn’t fail to make my point. My point was made. In addition, I have addressed this many times and with quotes from the Catechism. Catholics are not the only ones who will be saved. And one can be saved even though they aren’t Catholic:

Well, I don’t follow that reasoning at all since the comment the other poster made was “the only sure chance of gettting to Heaven is by being Catholic.” Saying one thing is the only sure way is not the same as saying it is the only possible way, just as the Church saying it is possible for a Protestant to be saved is not the same as saying it is equally possible.

So, let me ask you point blank. Do you believe that there are other ways which are equally sure to lead to salvation as the Catholic faith and belonging to the Church?

 

[Rence]

So, let me ask you point blank. Do you believe that there are other ways which are equally sure to lead to salvation as the Catholic faith and belonging to the Church?

I believe that those who know God via another religion to which they are dedicated, devout and faithful, through no fault of their own, can be saved. That’s what I believe. Catholics don’t get a free ticket to Paradise just for being Catholic. They have to work at it like everyone else.

 

[cothrige]

Kate is not Catholic. She is Anglican. In addition, we do not know which marriages are arranged and which ones aren’t. Still further, the Church has decided to treat these situations differently and that’s the perogative of the Church.

I had read up the thread the suggestion that she was, or at least I understood it that way. But, that reallly doesn’t change anything as modern royal marriages are in fact not arranged, and we all know that to be true. No bishops in England are actually under the misapprehension that the royal family is forcing people to marry them. Lastly, I have seen no evidence that Holy Mother Church has decided any such thing here. If that were so then there would be no doubt on this issue, and there is clearly a very large amount of doubt from well informed Catholics. The reality is that Catholics can smell something wrong with the suggestion that one can, in good conscience, choose to have children under conditions which they will have to deprive them of the true faith so long as they have exchanged their souls for earthly crowns. I don’t believe this suggestion, whether it is applied to royalty or not, and have seen nothing to actually demonstrate that the Church has ever believed such a novel idea to be true. If duress excused us from living out the faith then there would never have been any martyrs, and the Church would certainly not have raised cults to celebrate them.

 

[Rence]

Lastly, I have seen no evidence that Holy Mother Church has decided any such thing here. If that were so then there would be no doubt on this issue, and there is clearly a very large amount of doubt from well informed Catholics. The reality is that Catholics can smell something wrong with the suggestion that one can, in good conscience, choose to have children under conditions which they will have to deprive them of the true faith so long as they have exchanged their souls for earthly crowns. I don’t believe this suggestion, whether it is applied to royalty or not, and have seen nothing to actually demonstrate that the Church has ever believed such a novel idea to be true. If duress excused us from living out the faith then there would never have been any martyrs, and the Church would certainly not have raised cults to celebrate them.

One doesn’t need to see that Holy Mother Church has decided either way in these matters. It really won’t make a difference either way in the life of the average Catholic. One can get upset about the notion of royalty being treated “differently”, or they can move on with their lives as if it doesn’t matter (because it doesn’t), or they can not believe it at all. One can have whatever opinion they want about what others decide. But in the end, only the Church matters. What we know is that a Bishop was quoted in response to some law changes in England, and some people are upset about it, and others aren’t. Brother JR has already explained that not only is what was said in the article is true, but that it has been true for centuries. Like he said in another post, do your homework and you can find it yourself…or not. One can take it or leave it. But really…does it matter? These things don’t matter to the average layperson…unless there is royalty among us here on CAF

 

[cothrige]

I believe that those who know God via another religion to which they are dedicated, devout and faithful, through no fault of their own, can be saved. That’s what I believe. Catholics don’t get a free ticket to Paradise just for being Catholic. They have to work at it like everyone else.

No, that is not an answer. Can be saved does not mean just as able to be saved as Catholics, but it also doesn’t deny it. I have no problem with the concept that non-Catholics who are invincibly ignorant of the Church can be saved, but that doesn’t mean they are as likely to be saved as those living within the Body of Christ. I am asking for a straight answer without nuance. Do you believe that there are other faiths which are as sure a means of salvation as that of the Catholic Church?

And, by the way, I don’t know why you keep talking about how salvation is not automatic for Catholics. Who has said this? Nobody thinks that, and if they did they wouldn’t be on this board trying to change your mind about something would they? We would all already be saved and all discussion of this kind would be entirely superfluous.

 

[Rence]

No, that is not an answer.

That was my answer. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it’s not an answer. It simply means you don’t like the answer.

 

[cothrige]

One doesn’t need to see that Holy Mother Church has decided either way in these matters. It really won’t make a difference either way in the life of the average Catholic. One can get upset about the notion of royalty being treated “differently”, or they can move on with their lives as if it doesn’t matter (because it doesn’t), or they can not believe it at all.

I see no reason to believe that the Church treats royals differently. If they did, or if that were a principle of the faith, then Henry VIII would have had his annulment. No, if the Church offers some dispensation to a royal it is because of the conditions which apply. If the Church says they cannot be expected to raise their children in the faith because of the conditions which exist, then those same conditions in a non-royal would have the same effect. We all know that to be so. With God there is neither Greek, nor Jew. Hundreds of years ago there were marriages in royal families which were in fact made under duress and these marriages did produce children. Certainly all would agree that these people are required just as all are to try to raise their children Catholic, but obviously they are under a severe handicap which is beyond their control. But, so are people living in communist countries, and they are also only expected to do their best under the conditions. Royalty does not enter into it. And, choosing a marriage which you know going in will require your children to be denied the faith, but which gives you the crown of England, is hardly the same thing as these at all. You cannot trade your children’s souls for power. Such a suggestion is just ridiculous.

Brother JR has already explained that not only is what was said in the article is true, but that it has been true for centuries.

I must disagree here. Brother JR has stated that this is so, and that is not an explanation. I have stated that this is not so, and that is of equal value on the face of it. I am not interested in homework assignments from message boards. If somebody wants to make a point they are free to do so, but there is no Cathedra at Catholic Answers and authority rests only on those who can support their conclusions. This issue is relevant and pertinent to all Catholics because the Church does not have one standard for royalty and another for peasants, as I have said above. You can do your homework and read the Gospels to see this is so. And, by the way, because this is so this discussion is not just relevant to royals, but bears directly on what it means to be a Catholic parent and to have a fully formed Catholic conscience.

 

[cothrige]

That was my answer. Just because you don’t like the answer doesn’t mean it’s not an answer. It simply means you don’t like the answer.

Please understand I am not trying to be argumentative, but I really am trying to read your posts with proper understanding. However, given the imprecise response I first replied to, and the implications it had, together with the agove vague answer, I can only believe you did intend to suggest that there are other faiths equally certain to lead to salvation as that of the Catholic Church. Am I right in understanding this is what you intend to say?

 

[Francoist]

Yes, people can be saved outside the Church… but it is much harder and it is only through the Church in the first place. No, Catholics are not guaranteed of being saved, but it is so much easier with the Sacraments… and membership in the Church and the reception of the Sacraments are the “ordinary” means of salvation.

It strikes me as ludicrous to claim that one is at no particular advantage in their struggle for salvation in being raised Catholic or belonging to the Church. In fact, it’s not only ludicrous, it’s flatly heretical.

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t like this. This is why mixed religion marriages usually produce atheist kids.

 

[JReducation]

Kate is not Catholic. She is Anglican. In addition, we do not know which marriages are arranged and which ones aren’t. Still further, the Church has decided to treat these situations differently and that’s the perogative of the Church.

I was going to ask this. Because I don’t think this law applies to Kate. It’s from here forward.

I must disagree here. Brother JR has stated that this is so, and that is not an explanation. I have stated that this is not so, and that is of equal value on the face of it. I am not interested in homework assignments from message boards. If somebody wants to make a point they are free to do so, but there is no Cathedra at Catholic Answers and authority rests only on those who can support their conclusions. This issue is relevant and pertinent to all Catholics because the Church does not have one standard for royalty and another for peasants, as I have said above. You can do your homework and read the Gospels to see this is so. And, by the way, because this is so this discussion is not just relevant to royals, but bears directly on what it means to be a Catholic parent and to have a fully formed Catholic conscience.

I don’t think you understood what I’m saying. We’re not talking about the Gospel. The bishops are not posing a dogmatic point or even a moral point. They are addressing a point of canon law. It is Canon Law that requires that Catholics raise their children Catholic, not the Gospel nor moral theology.

The Church has always been very careful how she applies canon law to royals. That’s what I’m saying.

I fail to see how people have turned this into a doctrinal issue. It was never a doctrinal issue. There is no dogma that says that Catholics must raise their children Catholic.

We may be getting confused here with the rite of Baptism where the parent commits to raise his child in the faith. But if the child is not baptized in the Catholic Church, there is no promise to do so. The only thing binding the parent is canon law. But canon law has a tradition of its own. That’s what I’m pointing to. There is a tradition where canonical penalties are not applied to those who cannot fulfill the law, as long as they would have done so if they could. This tradition has always been used in dealing with royalty, because their situations have been very complicated throughout history.

Let’s not make this what it’s not. It’s not dogma. There is no dogma being discussed by these bishop. They’re talking about canon law. Bishops can dispense with certain canons as long as they are not reserved to the Apostolic See.

 

[Melchior_1]

Anyone else find this hilariously ironic that we are talking about a Catholic marrying into the Church of England?

At least this discussion is more civil than someone having their head chopped off.

 

[LilyM]

I see no reason to believe that the Church treats royals differently. If they did, or if that were a principle of the faith, then Henry VIII would have had his annulment. No, if the Church offers some dispensation to a royal it is because of the conditions which apply. If the Church says they cannot be expected to raise their children in the faith because of the conditions which exist, then those same conditions in a non-royal would have the same effect. We all know that to be so. With God there is neither Greek, nor Jew. Hundreds of years ago there were marriages in royal families which were in fact made under duress and these marriages did produce children. Certainly all would agree that these people are required just as all are to try to raise their children Catholic, but obviously they are under a severe handicap which is beyond their control. But, so are people living in communist countries, and they are also only expected to do their best under the conditions. Royalty does not enter into it. And, choosing a marriage which you know going in will require your children to be denied the faith, but which gives you the crown of England, is hardly the same thing as these at all. You cannot trade your children’s souls for power. Such a suggestion is just ridiculous.

I must disagree here. Brother JR has stated that this is so, and that is not an explanation. I have stated that this is not so, and that is of equal value on the face of it. I am not interested in homework assignments from message boards. If somebody wants to make a point they are free to do so, but there is no Cathedra at Catholic Answers and authority rests only on those who can support their conclusions. This issue is relevant and pertinent to all Catholics because the Church does not have one standard for royalty and another for peasants, as I have said above. You can do your homework and read the Gospels to see this is so. And, by the way, because this is so this discussion is not just relevant to royals, but bears directly on what it means to be a Catholic parent and to have a fully formed Catholic conscience.

Henry VIII failed in his quest to get an annulment partly because he challenged the authority of the Pope to allow (grant a dispensation permitting) his marriage to Katherine in the first place. Which made it a different league entirely to an ordinary annulment. He was in fact presuming to correct the Church by claiming, contrary to Church teaching, that his marriage to his brother’s widow was an impediment under natural law which could not be dispensed from.

If he’d gone the standard route of marrying her without a Papal dispensation and then seeking an annulment he would’ve had better chances of succeeding. Of course we cannot dismiss the little political matter of the Pope being a prisoner of Catherine’s nephew at the time the request was made, and therefore not wanting to further antagonise matters by allowing Henry to put her aside. Such matters of Church discipline (and the law on annulments is not all dogma) are occasionally flavoured by worldly considerations.

I hope you are not presuming to suggest that Kate married Prince William for the sake of power? That verges on the sin of detraction. The sad situation of Diana showed how little power such a marriage actually gives to the woman involved, so I think Kate’s motives are genuine.

It has never been Church teaching that a Catholic may not marry whom he or she freely chooses, provided both are free to marry. St Paul speaks of how believers can sanctify their unbelieving spouses, so it is sad indeed to see aspersions cast on such marriages as if they are not true marriages or inevitably doomed to failure.

 

[JReducation]

Anyone else find this hilariously ironic that we are talking about a Catholic marrying into the Church of England?

At least this discussion is more civil than someone having their head chopped off.

Hey, WAIT A MINUTE!

I would have been among the first in line. The Anglicans chased friars and monks through the woods.

I’m no longer enjoying this conversation. :nope:

 

[cothrige]

I hope you are not presuming to suggest that Kate married Prince William for the sake of power?

No, certainly not. I cannot speak to her conscience. I am simply pointing out the inherent problem with seeing this as a royal specific issue. A Catholic looking to enter such a marriage does so willingly and therefore the choice would obviously be between the crown or the future faith of their children. That is what is actually being proposed in setting this forth as a royal issue rather than one applicable to any Catholic operating under specific circumstances.

 

[cothrige]

It is Canon Law that requires that Catholics raise their children Catholic, not the Gospel nor moral theology. . .
There is no dogma that says that Catholics must raise their children Catholic.

I have to disagree with this. There are surely canons involved, but we cannot divorce this question from dogma. The Great Commission is not just canon law. Evangelization is not just a canon. We are called to evangelize our children and be their teachers in the faith not just because it is a law, but because we are compelled by our faith. If we believe what we say we do about the Lord, His Church and all the faith, then we could never in good conscience do less than all possible to raise our children in the truth. And we could never intentionally take on a condition in life which we knew would preclude our ability to do that. Parents’ love for their children is greater than that for themselves, and what kind of Catholic would leave the Church so that they could marry a particular person? And yet they would put their children in that state for the same? And all because it is not dogmatic to believe in the true faith, but rather only according to the law. No, I just don’t see that at all.

But if the child is not baptized in the Catholic Church, there is no promise to do so.

However, what you are leaving out is that in this situation the reason there was not a Catholic baptism (meaning one with the Catholic liturgy and the relevant promises, and not that there is more than one baptism) is because the Catholic parent intentionally decided to enter into a marriage in which they knew they would not be able to provide Catholic sacraments to their children. That really doesn’t actually offer a cause for an exception. If a woman chooses to marry a Muslim man, having already been told that he would forbid the children be raised as anything but Muslim, she cannot later pretend that she had no choice in the situation. She chose when she married. Her children’s life outside the Church and in a false religion is on her conscience all the same.

There is a tradition where canonical penalties are not applied to those who cannot fulfill the law, as long as they would have done so if they could. This tradition has always been used in dealing with royalty, because their situations have been very complicated throughout history.

I do not disagree with your first statement, but I can’t see any connection to questions of social class. Any condition in which a person is unable, by no fault of themselves, to fulfill the law the penalties are not applied. If you are actually trapped in an avalanche on Sunday and cannot attend Mass you are excused from the requirement under the law. You don’t have to be a royal, but just truly impeded. And the problem in this proposed situation is that there is no impediment at all, but rather a very deliberate choice by the hypothetical Catholic parent to marry in such a way as to prevent any hope of raising any children in the Church.

But (and this is where we see the dogmatic implications of this situation) we are told, because they are going to be royal children then there is no evil in raising them outside of the faith. That means that being an earthly king has as much value as does the faith itself. Just consider the impact and meaning of that for a moment, and let it sink in. We are not talking legal things here, but deeper truths about the Church, faith and salvation. This suggestion really, really bothers me. If I can be dispensed from raising my children Catholic because they will instead be rich and powerful then the Church is a lie, and all that she proclaims is null and void. Salvation is a sceptre.