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

[Basilios]

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.

There is no dogma that says that Catholics must raise their children Catholic.

Brother, with all respect, this is scandalous of you to say. Of course there’s no moral theology book which is going to say “Oh by the way you must bring your children up as Catholics”. It’s an obvious point. If we can’t raise our own flesh and blood as Catholics and evangelize them how can we evangelize the world? Was Our Lord leaving something out when he told us to convert the world? Did you mean everybody but your own kids? It’s not a dogma that has ever needed defining because it is one of the most self-evident truths. In fact, it would be mortally sinful to not bring your children up Catholic if you are Catholic. How on earth can a Catholic manage to bring their children up not-Catholic unless they had an absolutely malicious and violent hatred of their own child and/or God?

Canon Law is not something just way off the other end having nothing to do with doctrine or dogma. You should and do know that. It’s just plain wrong and scandalous for someone, especially in your position, to tell others that there is no moral obligation to raise their children as Catholics.

It’s a simple Gospel fact.

God Bless

 

[JReducation]

Brother, with all respect, this is scandalous of you to say. Of course there’s no moral theology book which is going to say “Oh by the way you must bring your children up as Catholics”. It’s an obvious point. If we can’t raise our own flesh and blood as Catholics and evangelize them how can we evangelize the world? Was Our Lord leaving something out when he told us to convert the world? Did you mean everybody but your own kids? It’s not a dogma that has ever needed defining because it is one of the most self-evident truths. In fact, it would be mortally sinful to not bring your children up Catholic if you are Catholic. How on earth can a Catholic manage to bring their children up not-Catholic unless they had an absolutely malicious and violent hatred of their own child and/or God?

Canon Law is not something just way off the other end having nothing to do with doctrine or dogma. You should and do know that. It’s just plain wrong and scandalous for someone, especially in your position, to tell others that there is no moral obligation to raise their children as Catholics.

It’s a simple Gospel fact.

God Bless

That’s not what I said. I said, the bishops are not speaking about a dogma. They are trying to clarify what Canon Law says and how it’s applied.

We need to stop reading beyond what bishops say… If they are speaking about Canon Law, we need to limit ourselves to thinking about Canon Law and try to think as a lawyer would think.

If this were a school of theology, many people on this thread would have flunked out. Everyone who has ever been through a school of theology knows that Canon Law is not even studied with theology. It is its own discipline. It has it’s own faculty. It has its own rules. It is studied separately by those who wish to study law. The separation is deliberate on the part of the Church. The Church does not want law and theology blended. They are difference sciences, each with their own rules and their own language. Law always refers back to theology, but it is not theolgy.

We’re blending in this thread, while the quote form the bishops is very clear that it’s a statement about law, not about anything else.

Why are people bringing into the discussion that which is not part of the discussion and which the Church herself does not include in discussions of law?

Observe how the Holy See is divided. There is a sacred congregation for everything except law. Why is that? Because law governs, it does not define. Theology defines. There is the Signatura for for matters of law, not a sacred congregation. Even the word “sacred” is not applied to law. It has never been applied to law. This is very deliberate. The law must be as cold and detached from emotions as possible in order to be objective.

We on this thread are far from being detached from emotions.

 

[Lucky7]

Originally Posted by cothrige

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’s question only requires a Yes or a No answer.

My answer is No. What’s yours?

 

[Lucky7]

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.

Please provide Church teaching on the bolded. I’m having trouble with this comment as I have never seen Church teaching that states this. Are you just reiterating the same thing we’ve been saying …that someone of another religion “can” be saved through God’s mercy? Or are you saying that someone of another religion is saved by virtue of their other religion?

I understnad your point wrt children because I think they, if anybody, would fall under the idea of “invincible ignorance”.

 

[Lucky7]

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.

OK, you’ve said it again here. I was Jewish and Christ came to me while Jewish. However, it wasn’t my Jewish religion that brought Christ to me. My former Jewish relgiion has nothing to do with my getting saved.

 

[Lucky7]

An interesting take on the old Baltimore Catechism

more at catholicity.elcore.net/SalvationOfNonCatholicsInBaltimoreCatechism.html

What about a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu (ie. the unbaptized)?

 

[Lucky7]

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.

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.

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.

You know, I’m just going to ditto all of this. I think some of what is being said in this thread is very troubling.

I think the connections with law and doctrine here remind me of the connections of law and doctrine with respect to allowing pro-abortion/gay marriage politicians to receive communion. How anyone can divorce the two is beyond me.

 

[Basilios]

That’s not what I said. I said, the bishops are not speaking about a dogma. They are trying to clarify what Canon Law says and how it’s applied.

Brother, you didn’t say that. You made a statement about the relationship between this particular Canon and moral theology/doctrine. Here it is:

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 was questioning this statement because it’s wrong.

We need to stop reading beyond what bishops say… If they are speaking about Canon Law, we need to limit ourselves to thinking about Canon Law and try to think as a lawyer would think.

Moral law > Canon law
I don’t need an LLB in Canon Law or an STL to know that. The whole point of this thread is that there is some naughty application of the Canon’s without due regard for God’s eternal law and the true pastoral sensitivity involved here.

If this were a school of theology, many people on this thread would have flunked out. Everyone who has ever been through a school of theology knows that Canon Law is not even studied with theology. It is its own discipline. It has it’s own faculty. It has its own rules. It is studied separately by those who wish to study law. The separation is deliberate on the part of the Church. The Church does not want law and theology blended. They are difference sciences, each with their own rules and their own language. Law always refers back to theology, but it is not theolgy.

We’re not in a school of theology, though, and we don’t need to be to discuss this. It’s easy to claim we’re all flunking moral theology and canon law but that’s just a red herring. And nor did anyone (at least, not myself) claim that canon law and moral theology are the same discipline. But they are related. To think otherwise makes no sense, because the sacred canons and canon law are merely rules derived from theological truths that govern the way we live in order to be good Christians. This paper discusses the relationship between theology and canon law, and it clearly notes that theology has the right of judgement over canon law. And that is precisely what is at issue in this discussion.

Observe how the Holy See is divided. There is a sacred congregation for everything except law. Why is that? Because law governs, it does not define. Theology defines. There is the Signatura for for matters of law, not a sacred congregation. Even the word “sacred” is not applied to law. It has never been applied to law. This is very deliberate. The law must be as cold and detached from emotions as possible in order to be objective. We on this thread are far from being detached from emotions.

Getting emotionally involved in something doesn’t make ones arguments, concerns or insights wrong or irrelevant. The canons are sacred, because they are the laws governing things set apart for God, governing how Christians live. Again, though, this isn’t really relevant to the issue.

My point was that you said something which, I must be honest, is offensive to pious ears - namely, that Catholic parents have no moral obligation to raise their kids as Catholics - and that this obligation is merely one deriving from canon law rather than moral law. My argument is that this canon itself derives from moral law and so is not optional, superfluous, accidental or whatever else one may want to call it. If I misread you there I apologize.

God Bless Brother

 

[Rich_C]

I was going to ask this. Because I don’t think this law applies to Kate…The Church has always been very careful how she applies canon law to royals. That’s what I’m saying.

Brother, could you just provide one example or citation to back this assertion? Just one?

I couldn’t find anything in the online canon law that mentions treating heads of state differently.

 

[Rich_C]

JREducation said: There is no dogma that says Catholics must raise their children Catholic.

I have to agree with this.

 

[Lucky7]

**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. **

Shouldn’t this be worded, “the best thing for all involved is for a Catholic not to marry a royal?”

Why isn’t the onus on the Catholic here?

 

[Lucky7]

And yet Catholics married to those in line to the British throne have kids that are raised Anglican…

If I am following the difference here (which I’m still not sure I am), it is that now the Bishop is relieving the Catholic party from their obligations. In the past, it seemed as if canon law still required it. If the Catholic party did not fulfill it (regardless of the reasons) the onus was on them. Now the Bishop/the Church is officially saying, forget that part of canon law…you no longer have an obligation.

If I’m understanding that correctly, then I am totally on board with the origianl posters who took issue with it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m not seeing how, especially today when the dealings of royal succession are far less important, a parent can be absolved of the obligation to raise their child in the Catholic faith due to ultimately silly and potentially soul-endangering (for the child, everyone recognizes the fact that it is just that much more difficult without access to the sacramental life of the Catholic Church) reasons.

Higher potential for salvation>royal succession politics.

How can it legitimately be argued that, today, an English royal cannot raise his child Catholic?

If we are dealing in fuzzy hypotheticals (what is possible) then that’s one thing ie if we’re talking about Henry VIII’s son who hypothetically wanted to convert to Catholicism with his own children but if he did Henry would have had them hung, okay, I see your point. I see the legitimate reason not to do it.

But if we are dealing in the real world (what is plausible or likely) then we have to place a whole new set of constraints on our thinking.

Ex: If Prince William wants to be Catholic and raise his kiddies Catholic, I think that’s a more compelling moral force today than saying “he’s a royal, ergo, ‘he tried.’” Kinda risks being turned into a cop out and the principle loses potency in really compelling situations.

 

[Diamantina]

Perhaps we should pray for the disestablishment of the Church of England, so that the British monarch would no longer be the head of the Church of England and the British monarch marry whoever he or she chooses (including a Catholic) and could be whatever faith he or she wanted to be – including Catholic.

Those of you who are British should work towards the disestablishment of the Church of England. After all, relatively few people in England attend Anglican services on a regular basis: more people in England attend Catholic Masses on a regular basis, or so I have read. Even secularists would be glad to have the Church of England be disestablished, I think.

 

[Santi2]

I remember when the British government began allowing royals to marry Catholics again. It was a year or two ago, right?

Rich, is Autumn Kelly the Catholic you are referring to? If so, she renounced her Catholic faith in order to marry Peter Philips (11th in the line to the succession and son of Princess Anne).

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by cothrige

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?

Cothrige’s question only requires a Yes or a No answer.

My answer is No. What’s yours?

Good for you! But I’m not on trial and I’m not at court. There is no such requirement for me to answer “yes” or “no” by you or anyone else. My answer to your question remains:

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.

 

[LilyM]

I’m not seeing how, especially today when the dealings of royal succession are far less important, a parent can be absolved of the obligation to raise their child in the Catholic faith due to ultimately silly and potentially soul-endangering (for the child, everyone recognizes the fact that it is just that much more difficult without access to the sacramental life of the Catholic Church) reasons.

Higher potential for salvation>royal succession politics.

How can it legitimately be argued that, today, an English royal cannot raise his child Catholic?

If we are dealing in fuzzy hypotheticals (what is possible) then that’s one thing ie if we’re talking about Henry VIII’s son who hypothetically wanted to convert to Catholicism with his own children but if he did Henry would have had them hung, okay, I see your point. I see the legitimate reason not to do it.

But if we are dealing in the real world (what is plausible or likely) then we have to place a whole new set of constraints on our thinking.

Ex: If Prince William wants to be Catholic and raise his kiddies Catholic, I think that’s a more compelling moral force today than saying “he’s a royal, ergo, ‘he tried.’” Kinda risks being turned into a cop out and the principle loses potency in really compelling situations.

I don’t think it’s a matter

 

[LilyM]

I’m not seeing how, especially today when the dealings of royal succession are far less important, a parent can be absolved of the obligation to raise their child in the Catholic faith due to ultimately silly and potentially soul-endangering (for the child, everyone recognizes the fact that it is just that much more difficult without access to the sacramental life of the Catholic Church) reasons.

Higher potential for salvation>royal succession politics.

How can it legitimately be argued that, today, an English royal cannot raise his child Catholic?

If we are dealing in fuzzy hypotheticals (what is possible) then that’s one thing ie if we’re talking about Henry VIII’s son who hypothetically wanted to convert to Catholicism with his own children but if he did Henry would have had them hung, okay, I see your point. I see the legitimate reason not to do it.

But if we are dealing in the real world (what is plausible or likely) then we have to place a whole new set of constraints on our thinking.

Ex: If Prince William wants to be Catholic and raise his kiddies Catholic, I think that’s a more compelling moral force today than saying “he’s a royal, ergo, ‘he tried.’” Kinda risks being turned into a cop out and the principle loses potency in really compelling situations.

I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that it’s a matter of the heir to the throne of Britain being Catholic. As things stand the heir would automatically cease to be heir upon becoming Catholic. This cannot and will not change while the monarch is head of the Church of England.

I don’t think the Church is saying that it would be OK for William or anyone to renounce Catholicism for the sake of the throne.

But they are saying - which is true - that it IS OK to marry where

 

[LilyM]

I’m not seeing how, especially today when the dealings of royal succession are far less important, a parent can be absolved of the obligation to raise their child in the Catholic faith due to ultimately silly and potentially soul-endangering (for the child, everyone recognizes the fact that it is just that much more difficult without access to the sacramental life of the Catholic Church) reasons.

Higher potential for salvation>royal succession politics.

How can it legitimately be argued that, today, an English royal cannot raise his child Catholic?

If we are dealing in fuzzy hypotheticals (what is possible) then that’s one thing ie if we’re talking about Henry VIII’s son who hypothetically wanted to convert to Catholicism with his own children but if he did Henry would have had them hung, okay, I see your point. I see the legitimate reason not to do it.

But if we are dealing in the real world (what is plausible or likely) then we have to place a whole new set of constraints on our thinking.

Ex: If Prince William wants to be Catholic and raise his kiddies Catholic, I think that’s a more compelling moral force today than saying “he’s a royal, ergo, ‘he tried.’” Kinda risks being turned into a cop out and the principle loses potency in really compelling situations.

I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that it’s a matter of the heir to the throne of Britain being Catholic. As things stand the heir would automatically cease to be heir upon becoming Catholic. This cannot and will not change while the monarch is head of the Church of England.

I don’t think the Church is saying that it would be OK for William or anyone to renounce Catholicism for the sake of the throne.

All they are saying - which is true - is that one is free to marry where one chooses (as long as both parties are free) EVEN IF one chooses someone of another faith, and even if one chooses someone who is likely to frustrate one’s attempts to raise the children Catholic.

Remember the Church recognises marriages of other faiths, between faiths and even possibly between atheists, as valid - every bit as much so as a Catholic marriage, although possibly not sacramental. The essence of marriage is God joining the couple together, which He does for mixed and non-Catholic couples as well, not so much the raising of Catholic babies.

History is full of stories of non-Catholic women who married Catholic men. St Monica is a prominent example. She certainly would have known going into her marriage that her chances of securing Catholic baptism or upbringing for her children was slim (non-existent as it turned out). She did not go against the will of her husband in this regard, simply prayed for him and them. It took decades but her prayers were rewarded.

And wisely the Church, which has no authority over non-Catholics, does not require anything - not a darn thing - of a non-Catholic who marries a Catholic except that they are aware that the Catholic is obliged to try to raise the kids Catholic. It does not require the consent of the non-Catholic to raising the kids so.

It does not even require that the non-Catholic put no obstruction in the way of the Catholic, although as a prudential matter a priest may think again about marrying a couple who are so disparate in their religion.

 

[devoutchristian]

No one can give a person permission to sin.