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

[Lucky7]

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.

Unless you correct me then, I will take this response (all of it…your refusal to reply with a simple yes or no and the part you repeated for the third time) to mean that you think that a Jew, for example, has an equal shot at being saved as a Catholic.

 

[cothrige]

Catholics don’t get a free ticket to Paradise just for being Catholic. They have to work at it like everyone else.

At whom is this above point aimed? Several people here, myself included, are debating that it is very important to work at the faith, including the necessity of seeing to it that your own children are prepared to work at it as you do. That doesn’t sound like people thinking they all have any “free tickets” to anything to me. Therefore, I must wonder who exactly you think believes in these “free tickets?”

 

[GWright]

The head monarch, whatever gender they are, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Scotland.

Just a slight clarification - the King or Queen is only the head of the (Anglican) Church of England, not the (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland.

When residing in Scotland, the Monarch does attend the Church of Scotland, however the Monarch is considered to be an ordinary member of that denomination.

This is, of course, a rather incoherent situation, as the Anglican and Presbyterian beliefs are like chalk and cheese (at least traditionally).

(Indeed, the Presbyterians deposed the Episcopal Anglicans as the official Church of Scotland, after the reformation, as they felt Anglicanism was “too close to Catholicism”.)

 

[LilyM]

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.

Rookie mistake - I of course meant CATHOLIC women marrying NON-CATHOLIC men. Brother JR mentioned a concession to royalty, but I would not thinkmitnwas exclusive to them merely because they were royals, but because royals had a much much smaller pool of p

 

[LilyM]

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.

Rookie mistake - I of course meant CATHOLIC women marrying NON-CATHOLIC men. Brother JR mentioned a concession to royalty, but I would not think it is so described merely because they were royals, but because royals had a much much smaller pool of potential marriage partners and so a much much higher chance of ending up marrying non-Catholics and potentially conflicting with them about how to raise children.

 

[jwinch2]

There are some positions being posted on this thread which I am having a hard time getting my head around in relation to the Church’s role in salvation.

Either the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ and has the authority to bind and loose, or she is not. Either the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, and the Eucharist have power or they do not. There is no gray area in any of these ideas.

If she is the true Church, then this must be important in some way. If the sacraments do have power, then there must be some reason we have been given them. What reason could there be other than to help us in the achievement the Heavenly Kingdom? If someone born into a Protestant denomination which believes in once saved always saved can get to Heaven just as readily as a Catholic, then the Church and the Sacraments are not really helping us at all. On the contrary, if that is true, then the sacraments and the Church are more akin to a yoke around our neck.

If kids raised outside of the Church have an equal chance at salvation as do kids raised inside of the Church, then evangelizing someone is actually pretty meaningless, and we should probably stop it right away. If people can leave the Church and still have an equal chance of salvation as those who stay inside, then we Catholics are all pretty much wasting our time with things like Confession and reception of the Eucharist.

If parents can make the decision to not raise their kids Catholic merely so that they will be in line for a position of temporal power and prestige, with exactly zero ramifications regarding the immortal soul of the parents or the children, then what exactly are we doing here in the first place?

Yet Christ did give us the Church and He did give us the Sacraments. This makes no sense other than view it through the lens of the classical interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus as passed on from the Church Fathers, to today. I fail to see how one can be Catholic and believe anything else.

Peace of Christ,

 

[LilyM]

There are some positions being posted on this thread which I am having a hard time getting my head around in relation to the Church’s role in salvation.

Either the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ and has the authority to bind and loose, or she is not. Either the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Confession, and the Eucharist have power or they do not. There is no gray area in any of these ideas.

If she is the true Church, then this must be important in some way. If the sacraments do have power, then there must be some reason we have been given them. What reason could there be other than to help us in the achievement the Heavenly Kingdom? If someone born into a Protestant denomination which believes in once saved always saved can get to Heaven just as readily as a Catholic, then the Church and the Sacraments are not really helping us at all. On the contrary, if that is true, then the sacraments and the Church are more akin to a yoke around our neck.

If kids raised outside of the Church have an equal chance at salvation as do kids raised inside of the Church, then evangelizing someone is actually pretty meaningless, and we should probably stop it right away. If people can leave the Church and still have an equal chance of salvation as those who stay inside, then we Catholics are all pretty much wasting our time with things like Confession and reception of the Eucharist.

Yet Christ did give us the Church and He did give us the Sacraments. This makes no sense other than view it through the lens of the classical interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus as passed on from the Church Fathers, to today. I fail to see how one can be Catholic and believe anything else.

As much as EENS may be true, the Church cannot force either the sacraments or any other Catholic belief or practice upon anyone who is over the age of reason. That is why forced conversion of peoples comquered by Catholic monarchs was condemned. The Church - Christ - only saves those who embrace willingly rather than through coercion or compulsion.

You know, even more than this, that the sacraments should be refused in some circumstances - communion to those who are in manifest public sin and non-Catholics, marriage to those who lack understanding of the obligations of marriage, absolution to the unrepentant. And - baptism where there is no hope of the child being raised a catholic.

Just as the Church does not force non-Catholics to be baptised in order to marry Catholics, it similarly does not force upon any non-Catholic any obligation to baptise or allow the baptism of their child, nor any obligation in regards raising or allowing to be raised their child in the Catholic faith.

You know that baptism of desire is available in cases where physical baptism
Is impossible. You know that perfect contrition saves where sacramental confession is impossible. You know that Sunday attendance at Eucharist is not required where grave reason exists to make attendance impossible.

As important as the sacraments are they are not the be-all and end-all. More particularly, when put in an impossible situation (eg being in a marriage where one’s spouse and child are in line to be head of a different faith and hence one has zero to Buckley’s chance of successfully raising them Catholic) they are not even required!

 

[jwinch2]

As much as EENS may be true, the Church cannot force either the sacraments or any other Catholic belief or practice upon anyone who is over the age of reason. That is why forced conversion of peoples comquered by Catholic monarchs was condemned. The Church - Christ - only saves those who embrace willingly rather than through coercion or compulsion.

At not time did I say anything or even suggest anything about forced conversions. This is a complete straw-man argument.

You know, even more than this, that the sacraments should be refused in some circumstances - communion to those who are in manifest public sin and non-Catholics, marriage to those who lack understanding of the obligations of marriage, absolution to the unrepentant. And - baptism where there is no hope of the child being raised a catholic.

Perhaps, but this does not in anyway diminish their importance.

Just as the Church does not force non-Catholics to be baptized in order to marry Catholics, it similarly does not force upon any non-Catholic any obligation to baptize or allow the baptism of their child, nor any obligation in regards raising or allowing to be raised their child in the Catholic faith.

Again with the straw-man argument. As noted above, I didn’t say a thing about forced baptism.

You know that baptism of desire is available in cases where physical baptism
Is impossible. You know that perfect contrition saves where sacramental confession is impossible. You know that Sunday attendance at Eucharist is not required where grave reason exists to make attendance impossible.

Yes, and those are all extreme situations which most certainly do not fall into the norm and which have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

As important as the sacraments are they are not the be-all and end-all.

That’s interesting. I was under the impression that the Eucharist was the source and summit of our Faith. I’m pretty sure I remember reading that somewhere…

More particularly, when put in an impossible situation (eg being in a marriage where one’s spouse and child are in line to be head of a different faith and hence one has zero to Buckley’s chance of successfully raising them Catholic) they are not even required!

On this we must flat out disagree. The suggestion that choosing a false church for one’s children so that they can achieve some sort of earthly position of authority, and in so doing depriving them of a valid priesthood and the sacraments, will not have ramifications for the soul of the child or the parent does not make sense. Unless of course belonging to the true Church of God is ultimately meaningless.

 

[Holly3278]

Slow down folks. I think that some people may have read the article too quickly. Look at what he said.
**
“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.”

This is not new. This has been a long standing tradition in Church law. You cannot be penalized for something that is not possible for you to do.

It has long been a practice of the Catholic Church to recognize that in the cases of royals there are complications that are often beyond the control of the couple, such complications can include national laws and/or customs. Certainly custom and law is the case in the UK. The monarch must be Anglican. In that case, the Catholic parent has no legal recourse. If his child is Catholic, he forfeits the throne.

The problem here is that the article is quoting the Msgr and His Lordship. The writer is inserting comments in between. Unless one reads very carefully, one misses who said what. I had to go back and read it with a highlighter. I highlighted what the Msgr said in order to separate it from the rest of the text.

They’re not giving a blanket permission for people not to raise their children Catholic. What they’re doing is answering a question. My guess is that the question is quite concrete. Given that a royal can marry a Catholic and given that the monarch must be the head of the Church of England, what happens if one parent is Catholic? Does the child have to be Catholic? If that’s the case, then the child would forfeit the throne, because neither civil law nor ecclesial law allows for a Catholic to be the head of the Church of England. The other option would be for the law to change and separate the monarch from the head of the Anglican Church. That’s not likely to happen anytime soon.

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.

They’re not making up new laws. They simply explaining the legal tradition of the Church. It’'s not their fault that the writer of the article chopped up everyone’s statements so that it’s hard to sort out who’s speaking.

Thank you for explaining this Brother JR. I was very confused after reading the article. That said, I see nothing wrong with this approach.

 

[Rence]

Unless you correct me then, I will take this response (all of it…your refusal to reply with a simple yes or no and the part you repeated for the third time) to mean that you think that a Jew, for example, has an equal shot at being saved as a Catholic.

That would depend on the Jew or Catholic in question. There are certainly many Jews will be saved before many Catholics, let alone have an ‘equal shot’.

 

[Rence]

At whom is this above point aimed?

Whoever thinks Catholics will be saved, without any other variables, before another person – just because they’re Catholic and another person is a non-Catholic.

 

[LilyM]

At not time did I say anything or even suggest anything about forced conversions. This is a complete straw-man argument.

Perhaps, but this does not in anyway diminish their importance.

Again with the straw-man argument. As noted above, I didn’t say a thing about forced baptism.

Yes, and those are all extreme situations which most certainly do not fall into the norm and which have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

That’s interesting. I was under the impression that the Eucharist was the source and summit of our Faith. I’m pretty sure I remember reading that somewhere…

On this we must flat out disagree. The suggestion that choosing a false church for one’s children so that they can achieve some sort of earthly position of authority, and in so doing depriving them of a valid priesthood and the sacraments, will not have ramifications for the soul of the child or the parent does not make sense. Unless of course belonging to the true Church of God is ultimately meaningless.

Parents do not really choose a church for their child. The many people who convert or fall away from the faith of their parents - or find faith after being raised raised atheist - gives ample testimony to that. The numerous members of the British royal family who have converted to Catholicism, or married Catholocs despite the penalties - are even better proof . I don’t recall any of the current crop being children of religiously mixed marriages, mind you.

I still don’t get what your proposed course of action is. Should St Monica have not married her pagan husband since she knew he would not agree to their children being baptised. Would he have been more likely to convert if she had refused or insisted on the point? Would we have had Augustine at all? The unbelieving can be sanctified by believing parents and spouses, as St Paul says, without an absolute requirement that children be raised Catholic.

Since Catholic baptism and catechesis of children is such a super-critical point to you (although by all accounts not to the Magisterium), then should we not have wandering bands of priests (or perhaps laypeople) dragging every child they come across off the street into the nearest Catholic Church for forced conditional (at least) baptism and catechism classes? It is, by your logic, the surest way to get them to heaven is it not?

But such has never been Church policy, and for good reason. Faith is ultimately a gift from God, and not all the Canonical obligation nor childhood teaching in the world can make a child accept that gift.

 

[cothrige]

Whoever thinks Catholics will be saved, without any other variables, before another person – just because they’re Catholic and another person is a non-Catholic.

I have to tell you I don’t even understand this above. But, I certainly don’t believe and never posted that heaven, so to speak, has a seating capacity and therefore people are going to cut in line to be saved “before” others. Frankly, I don’t even understand the imagery you are using at all. I was just curious as to whether you thought the Anglican church, for instance, does as much for their faithful in terms of finding salvation as does the Catholic Church. Obviously, reading as much out of this and other posts as I can, they do. Heck, I should revert as it was much easier over there, and they had incense and communion rails. I gave up so much to become Catholic, and posts like these makes me wonder why I did it.

 

[JReducation]

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.

CCC 819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

For me it was my Jewish faith that led me to Catholicism. Catholicism is the logical fulfillment of the story of Israel. As Pope Francis recently said, “Without Judaism, Catholicism makes no sense.” Pope Benedict said it differently, but the same idea. “Christianity is grafted onto Judaism.” In other words, the roots of the Christian Church are in Judaism. Mother Miriam, also a convert from Judaism, once said, “There is nothing in Catholicism that is not Jewish.” St. Edith Stein would often say that she had drifted away from Judaism into agnosticism/atheism until she discovered Catholicism. Upon discovering Catholicism, Judaism came alive for her, because they are not two separate religions as much as Catholicism is the fulfillment of the Covenant with Israel.

I always like to us the flower and the stem to help people understand how I see the relationship between the two peoples: Jewish and Catholic.

Judaism has everything to do with salvation, because the Messiah had to come from Judaism. Judaism plays an indispensable role in salvation history. We cannot separate Jesus from his people. This is also a belief of the Catholic Church.

 

[jwinch2]

Parents do not really choose a church for their child. The many people who convert or fall away from the faith of their parents - or find faith after being raised raised atheist - gives ample testimony to that. The numerous members of the British royal family who have converted to Catholicism, or married Catholocs despite the penalties - are even better proof . I don’t recall any of the current crop being children of religiously mixed marriages, mind you.

Canon 1136: Parents have the most grave obligation and the primary right to do all in their power to ensure their children’s physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing.
Canon 226 § 2: Since they have given life to their children, parents have a most grave obligation and possess the right to educate them. Therefore, it is for Christian parents particularly to take care of the Christian education of their children according to the doctrine handed on by the Church.

I still don’t get what your proposed course of action is. Should St Monica have not married her pagan husband since she knew he would not agree to their children being baptised. Would he have been more likely to convert if she had refused or insisted on the point? Would we have had Augustine at all? The unbelieving can be sanctified by believing parents and spouses, as St Paul says, without an absolute requirement that children be raised Catholic.

My proposed course of action is for parents to consider their child’s immortal soul ahead of their station in life. My proposed course of action is for Catholics to stop suggesting that being Catholic is not important for attaining Heaven or that kids would be just as well off in a Church without valid sacraments. Radical opinions for a Catholic, I know.

Since Catholic baptism and catechesis of children is such a super-critical point to you (although by all accounts not to the Magisterium), then should we not have wandering bands of priests (or perhaps laypeople) dragging every child they come across off the street into the nearest Catholic Church for forced conditional (at least) baptism and catechism classes? It is, by your logic, the surest way to get them to heaven is it not?

That is the second time you have implied that I believe in forced conversion or reception of the sacraments. Please do not do so again.

But such has never been Church policy, and for good reason. Faith is ultimately a gift from God, and not all the Canonical obligation nor childhood teaching in the world can make a child accept that gift.

No, of course we do not force, and no of course we cannot make a child accept anything. However, we can and should do the best we can to ensure the child is given the best opportunity to make the proper choice when that time comes. As Blessed John Paul II said:
“Authentic freedom is the power to do what we ought to do; the power to choose the good, the true, and the beautiful.”
Well, if we do our jobs properly, we give the child a better chance to do as they ought, and freely cooperate with God’s grace. The sacraments, good catechesis, etc. can and do all facilitate this process.

 

[LilyM]

Canon 1136: Parents have the most grave obligation and the primary right to do all in their power to ensure their children’s physical, social, cultural, moral and religious upbringing.
Canon 226 § 2: Since they have given life to their children, parents have a most grave obligation and possess the right to educate them. Therefore, it is for Christian parents particularly to take care of the Christian education of their children according to the doctrine handed on by the Church.

My proposed course of action is for parents to consider their child’s immortal soul ahead of their station in life. My proposed course of action is for Catholics to stop suggesting that being Catholic is not important for attaining Heaven or that kids would be just as well off in a Church without valid sacraments. Radical opinions for a Catholic, I know.

I am suggesting neither - I am suggesting, as the Magisterium does, that the impossible is not required. And in situations where a Catholic marries a non-Catholic who is vastly more powerful and influential (a la St Monica - and that much is certainly true also of Kate Middleton) that it probably is as a matter of practice impossible to obtain either Catholic sacraments or a meaningful Catholic upbringing beyond what the parent themselves can teach and do.

I note you haven’t actually addressed the St Monica example although I have brought it up several times. She asked her husband if she could baptise Augustine as a youngster. The husband refused. She accepted the refusal and did not interfere in the father’s wishes for his upbringing, although continuing to pray and set a good example for both of them. You are making her out to be a neglectful mother and verging on a sinner as well.

Do you imagine that if Kate made the same request as Monica she would somehow magically get a different answer or something? She certainly would not. She would get a swift boot up the rear and the British courts would intervene if necessary to ensure, as the law requires, that the heir to the Governorship of the Church of England would, until they were of age, be brought up Anglican and nothing else.

Remember we are talking about a country that has an established Church, without real equality between its adherents and those of other faiths. Furthermore it would be as nonsensical as insisting an Anglican school hire a Catholic priest as its chaplain to arrange things any other way.

That is the second time you have implied that I believe in forced conversion or reception of the sacraments. Please do not do so again.

Forcing a non-Catholic to agree to raise raise their children, or allow them to be raised, Catholic, or having the child so baptised and instructed behind their back and against theor wishes, or whatever other action you have in mind as a remedy for the situation (and you still haven’t told us what exactly you would do if you were Monica or Kate) is every bit as bad as forcing that non-Catholic to be baptised themselves. That is why the Church does no such thing and makes no such requirement.

No, of course we do not force, and no of course we cannot make a child accept anything. However, we can and should do the best we can to ensure the child is given the best opportunity to make the proper choice when that time comes. As Blessed John Paul II said:
“Authentic freedom is the power to do what we ought to do; the power to choose the good, the true, and the beautiful.”
Well, if we do our jobs properly, we give the child a better chance to do as they ought, and freely cooperate with God’s grace. The sacraments, good catechesis, etc. can and do all facilitate this process.

Of course - as they do for the rest of us. Still we are not required by Canon Law or anything else to make our children confess every week or attend Mass every day - even those who are well able - regardless of the fact that they would benefit immensely from doing so.

The Church is not in the business of using the stick of Canonical requirement to push parents towards the good in that way. To try runs the risk of that ‘authentic freedom’ being nothing but formal lip service for a lot of Catholics.

 

[Phemie]

I invite you to read articles 143-151 of ***DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM ***for what the Church teaches on mixed-marriages.

Article 151 is pertinent to this discussion:

1. **In carrying out this duty of transmitting the Catholic faith to the children, the Catholic parent will do so with respect for the religious freedom and conscience of the other parent and with due regard for the unity and permanence of the marriage and for the maintenance of the communion of the family. **If, notwithstanding the Catholic’s best efforts, the children are not baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of Canon Law.143 At the same time, his/her obligation to share the Catholic faith with the children does not cease. It continues to make its demands, which could be met, for example, by playing an active part in contributing to the Christian atmosphere of the home; doing all that is possible by word and example to enable the other members of the family to appreciate the specific values of the Catholic tradition; taking whatever steps are necessary to be well informed about his/her own faith so as to be able to explain and discuss it with them; praying with the family for the grace of Christian unity as the Lord wills it.

I do believe that this is a change from the 1917 Code of Canon Law, since in 1975 my husband (a member of the United Church of Canada) had to promise to raise our children Catholic. Non-Catholics no longer have to promise that, they are simply informed of the Catholic’s promise.

 

[Rence]

I have to tell you I don’t even understand this above.

Yes, I know you don’t.

I was just curious as to whether you thought the Anglican church, for instance, does as much for their faithful in terms of finding salvation as does the Catholic Church. :

It depends on the person, and what they give to and take from the religion they belong to. There are other variables involved besides the simple fact that one person is Catholic, and one person is not Catholic. The fact is, there is no salvation for a Catholic who wants nothing from the Church, despises the Church, and/or doesn’t trust the Church. However that person can be saved if he followed God with his/her heart and soul through another religion. So to ask me if I believe that an Anglican/Baptist/Church of Christ has just as much a chance to be saved as a Catholic discounts all the other variables that are involved.

 

[Rence]

I invite you to read articles 143-151 of ***DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM ***for what the Church teaches on mixed-marriages.

Article 151 is pertinent to this discussion:

1. In carrying out this duty of transmitting the Catholic faith to the children, the Catholic parent will do so with respect for the religious freedom and conscience of the other parent and with due regard for the unity and permanence of the marriage and for the maintenance of the communion of the family. If, notwithstanding the Catholic’s best efforts, the children are not baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of Canon Law.143

Ok, the above quote is straight from the Vatican. If this doesn’t resolve this despute for those who have been critical of Catholic parents married to non-Catholic parents, and who have not raised their kids Catholic, then having Christ come down from Heaven to repeat those words verbatim won’t help either.

There you have the answer to the OP, which supports what Brother JR has been trying to say.

 

[Rence]

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. As the user above me said, it’s putting the earthly kingdom above the Heavenly. The poor child will be brought up at best indifferent to Catholicism - after all it can’t matter too much to be Catholic since he was allowed to be brought up outside the Church - or at worst positively anti-Catholic for whatever reason. Either way, it’s allowing the child to have small to little chance of salvation. A situation that could be easily remedied. To my mind this isn’t pastoral at all. It’s favouring the couple who wish to have no hurdles to their love; but it isn’t favouring the parents or the children in the long run when it comes to eternal salvation. Either way you’re testing God it seems (if God wanted it He’ll convert them kind of thing). Leaving it up to chance is the fools way of securing salvation. Hoping ever-so-hard that the kids will become devout Catholics after an upbringing where they aren’t allowed to be formed in the Church and then discovering at a later age that mommy and daddy got permission not to raise their kiddies as Catholics is sending only the worst kind of message.

Pheemie found the document you requested:

Re: Catholic royals won’t have to raise kids Catholic [CNAU]

---

I invite you to read articles 143-151 of DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF
PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM for what the Church teaches on mixed-marriages.

Article 151 is pertinent to this discussion:

Quote:
151. In carrying out this duty of transmitting the Catholic faith to the children, the Catholic parent will do so with respect for the religious freedom and conscience of the other parent and with due regard for the unity and permanence of the marriage and for the maintenance of the communion of the family. If, notwithstanding the Catholic’s best efforts, the children are not baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of Canon Law.143 At the same time, his/her obligation to share the Catholic faith with the children does not cease. It continues to make its demands, which could be met, for example, by playing an active part in contributing to the Christian atmosphere of the home; doing all that is possible by word and example to enable the other members of the family to appreciate the specific values of the Catholic tradition; taking whatever steps are necessary to be well informed about his/her own faith so as to be able to explain and discuss it with them; praying with the family for the grace of Christian unity as the Lord wills it.