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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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.
Other than the difference mentioned by another poster (that Monica was in an arranged marriage), another difference would be that, at that time, Monica was still required to do her best to bring her child up Catholic (regardless of how “impossible” it may have been). If she was a royal now, she would be told she doesn’t have to do her best anymore…in fact, she doesn’t have to try at all…no big deal. Pffft.

And why do you continually talk to jwinch as if he is promoting forcing anything on anyone? He’s asked you to stop. He’s stated that that is not what he is promoting at all.
 
Other than the difference mentioned by another poster (that Monica was in an arranged marriage), another difference would be that, at that time, Monica was still required to do her best to bring her child up Catholic (regardless of how “impossible” it may have been). If she was a royal now, she would be told she doesn’t have to do her best anymore…in fact, she doesn’t have to try at all…no big deal. Pffft.

And why do you continually talk to jwinch as if he is promoting forcing anything on anyone? He’s asked you to stop. He’s stated that that is not what he is promoting at all.
Remember that it says “**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.”

**It doesn’t say “at all cost”. While the Catholic has to do everything in his/her power, the spouse has as much right to raise the child in his/her own religion. That’s particularly important to remember in cases where the non-Catholic is devout and the Catholic is lukewarm in his/her faith.
 
Remember that it says “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.”

It doesn’t say “at all cost”. While the Catholic has to do everything in his/her power, the spouse has as much right to raise the child in his/her own religion. That’s particularly important to remember in cases where the non-Catholic is devout and the Catholic is lukewarm in his/her faith.
I just don’t have the energy to even go here.
 
More vaguery.

Let’s try a more specific example. I’m really not clear on where you stand…yet.

Let’s say the Jew and the Catholic are equal in the kinds of sins they have committed throughout their lives (and to make things simple, say they were all venial sins, no mortal sins). Of course, things can never be that simple or even realistic because the Catholic was baptized and cleansed of original sin (and the Jew was not), but that’s apparently not important here.

Given those “facts”, which one has the better shot at salvation?
Have you even READ the Catechism regarding being saved? It has nothing to do with a tally of a person’s “sins”. Here it is again:
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.
Does it say ANYTHING about a tally of a person’s sins?
 
Saint Monica’s marriage was arranged, and she did not consent beforehand to raising her child outside of her faith. Your example is not relevant.
You’re confusing arranged with forced.

In Tudor times Jane Grey was actually locked in her room and beaten until she agreed to marry the man her parents had chosen for her. THAT is a case where there is no consent - and by the way an invalid marriage, since free consent has always been a requirement for validity.

There is no suggestion in anything I have read about Monica to indicate that she could not have either said no to the marriage (children did say no occasionally without the world caving in), nor insisted on a promise from her intended to allow Catholic baptism for the children, nor left her husband at some later point in protest, nor at least argued with him about it every day unless and until he agreed. She did none of these things as far as I am aware.

And is it not highly interesting that he - a pagan man with a Catholic wife - was required to give his consent before Catholic clerics would agree to baptise his child? Does that not show how high a value the Church has always placed on religious freedom - including the freedom for people to choose NOT to raise their children Catholic? Even in cases where only one parent disagrees?

I ask the question again - what exactly would you do in Kate’s place? Refuse to marry without a promise from Wills to allow a Catholic upbringing for the children? Say goodbye to the marriage then, and goodbye more importantly to any chance to sanctify your husband and children by example as St Monica did hers.
 
Have you even READ the Catechism regarding being saved? It has nothing to do with a tally of a person’s “sins”.
Yes, actually I have:

*1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."47 *

Oh, that’s right …the Sacrament of Penance is irrelevant…many Jews and other non-Catholics** will be **saved despite the fact that they have original sin/subsequent sins on their souls. :rolleyes:

And yes, I know that Catholics don’t get a free pass, so please don’t repeat that. It’s not the issue here.
 
Yes, actually I have:

*1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."47 *

Oh, that’s right …the Sacrament of Penance is irrelevant…many Jews and other non-Catholics** will be **saved despite the fact that they have original sin/subsequent sins on their souls. :rolleyes:

And yes, I know that Catholics don’t get a free pass, so please don’t repeat that. It’s not the issue here.
And what does all the above have to do with the paragraph I cited regarding those who can be saved without knowing the Church?
 
Yes, actually I have:

*1446 Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace."47 *

Oh, that’s right …the Sacrament of Penance is irrelevant…many Jews and other non-Catholics** will be **saved despite the fact that they have original sin/subsequent sins on their souls. :rolleyes:

And yes, I know that Catholics don’t get a free pass, so please don’t repeat that. It’s not the issue here.
Needs to be read in conjunction with the paragraph on Perfect Contrition, a state of being which procures forgiveness for mortal sins without confession, and a state which is surely possible for non-Christians as it is for Christians.
 
Needs to be read in conjunction with the paragraph on Perfect Contrition, a state of being which procures forgiveness for mortal sins without confession, and a state which is surely possible for non-Christians as it is for Christians.
I don’t see how perfect contrition is going to help a person who has rejected Jesus get into heaven.
 
I don’t see how perfect contrition is going to help a person who has rejected Jesus get into heaven.
Who is talking about a person who has rejected Jesus? The Catechism doesn’t talk about a person who has rejected Jesus. Lily hasn’t said anything about a person who has rejected Jesus. I haven’t said anything about a person who has rejected Jesus. What does anthing in this thread have to do with someone who has rejected Jesus? 🤷
 
Who is talking about a person who has rejected Jesus? The Catechism doesn’t talk about a person who has rejected Jesus. Lily hasn’t said anything about a person who has rejected Jesus. I haven’t said anything about a person who has rejected Jesus. What does anthing in this thread have to do with someone who has rejected Jesus? 🤷
A non-Christian is someone who has rejected Jesus. Either they rejected Him when they were directly presented with the Gospel, or they failed to correspond with the graces God gave them to learn about Jesus and His Church. It’s as simple at that. It really is. If such a person dies in that state, all of the contrition in the world isn’t going to save them. Baptism of desire, maybe, but not perfect contrition. The number if people on the planet who have never heard the name of Jesus nor had any way of learning about Him on their own initiative has to be extremely small; much smaller than most people think. Going to hell is pretty easy, for Christians and non-Christians alike.
 
A non-Christian is someone who has rejected Jesus.
A non-Christian is someone who doesn’t KNOW Jesus, unless proven otherwise.
Either they rejected Him when they were directly presented with the Gospel, or they failed to correspond with the graces God gave them to learn about Jesus and His Church. It’s as simple at that. It really is.
Not according to the teachings of the Church. And unless you know more than the Church…
The number if people on the planet who have never heard the name of Jesus nor had any way of learning about Him on their own initiative has to be extremely small; much smaller than most people think. Going to hell is pretty easy, for Christians and non-Christians alike.
Just because someone has “heard” the name of Jesus doesn’t mean squat. “Knowing” and “heard of” are completely different things. You can’t just snap your fingers along with saying “Jesus” is God and all of a sudden the one who doesn’t know Jesus knows him. You live on the same planet. Non-Christians who are devout to the religion into which they were born are just as devout to their religion as cradle Catholics are to theirs. Thankfully the Church understands this. If you go back and read the thread you’ll find evidence of this fact in Church documents.
 
I am tired of trying to get a clear answer, and I will take all the doubletalk as being indicative.

Thanks for the replies, and may you have a nice day.
Right there with you.

I just hope that others reading certain posts in this thread are not led to believe that those of non-Catholic religions/denominations are assured of salvation by virtue of their religion…that it doesn’t matter what religion one follows… that they all lead to the same place.

The best route to Heaven is the Catholic Church (and yes that does not mean that all Catholics go to Heaven). Any other route is banking on God’s mercy and God’s mercy alone.

I would love to believe that my Jewish mother has just a good a shot at Heaven as some Catholic strangers on this website, but I know that is just not the truth. I used to push and bank on some of the same things other posters have been pushing as I was given the same impression that they have about Church teaching, but in the end I have to pray that God will have mercy on her soul.

We, as Catholics (lay, religious, the hierarchy, etc), have an obligation to evangelize the Truth. If we do not make it** clear **that the Catholic Church is the surest route to Heaven, then we are not meeting that obligation.

And I realize that I have to work at that myself.
 
Right there with you.

I just hope that others reading certain posts in this thread are not led to believe that those of non-Catholic religions/denominations are assured of salvation by virtue of their religion…that it doesn’t matter what religion one follows… that they all lead to the same place.
I saw another person talk about this phenomenon describe it as the death of a doctrine by “a thousand qualifications” so that over time, what ends up happening is that people believe that the exceptions are the rule, rather than the reverse. Of course Vatican I clearly declared that any change in the sense or understanding of a doctrine over time, or attempt to interpret it differently than in the past, is not to be done:

First Vatican Council, Session Three, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason
  1. For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  2. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy mother Church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
May understanding, knowledge and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole Church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.

First Vatican Council, Session Three, Canons
  1. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.
The best route to Heaven is the Catholic Church (and yes that does not mean that all Catholics go to Heaven). Any other route is banking on God’s mercy and God’s mercy alone.
Indeed. And while God is certainly merciful, He is also just. I also seem to remember something about not putting God to the test… Oh well, I’m sure that wasn’t really important.
I would love to believe that my Jewish mother has just a good a shot at Heaven as some Catholic strangers on this website, but I know that is just not the truth. I used to push and bank on some of the same things other posters have been pushing as I was given the same impression that they have about Church teaching, but in the end I have to pray that God will have mercy on her soul.
I feel the same way. My family is mostly non-practicing and all are non-Catholic. I pray for them regularly and it is very hard thinking that they might not be saved, which is when I pray it is for their conversion and and for God’s mercy.

St. Francis de Sales worked awfully hard at reevangelizing Protestants, as did many other great saints, for there to be no difference. If one could be saved by being a good Calvinist, he might as well have left them alone. Indeed, one wonders why the Church ever worked so hard to stomp out heresies or convert anyone. If all that matters is that people are sincere in seeking God, then why bother changing their understanding of doctrine or evangelizing at all?
We, as Catholics (lay, religious, the hierarchy, etc), have an obligation to evangelize the Truth. If we do not make it** clear **that the Catholic Church is the surest route to Heaven, then we are not meeting that obligation.
And I realize that I have to work at that myself.
As do we all.
 
So if someone is ‘incredibly devout’ in their own faith and is sincere in it, why should we evangelize? It seems to be that if they then DO NOT accept the Catholic faith, that WE lead them to damnation…

Am I understanding all of this correctly?

If this is all true, then I do have another question: If this ‘incredibly devout’ person is never evangelized but breaks a moral and natural law that is written on the hearts of mankind-has an abortion, supports Same Sex Marriage, etc, then are they damned for breaking the natural moral law? If so, is it not prudent then to spread the one true faith which can proclaim the truth-divine and moral-to mankind? It seems to me that even if someone is a devout X Y or Z, that if their religion allows them to break natural law that since it is still written on men’s hearts that they would be held accountable for such sins.
 
So if someone is ‘incredibly devout’ in their own faith and is sincere in it, why should we evangelize? It seems to be that if they then DO NOT accept the Catholic faith, that WE lead them to damnation…

Am I understanding all of this correctly?

If this is all true, then I do have another question: If this ‘incredibly devout’ person is never evangelized but breaks a moral and natural law that is written on the hearts of mankind-has an abortion, supports Same Sex Marriage, etc, then are they damned for breaking the natural moral law? If so, is it not prudent then to spread the one true faith which can proclaim the truth-divine and moral-to mankind? It seems to me that even if someone is a devout X Y or Z, that if their religion allows them to break natural law that since it is still written on men’s hearts that they would be held accountable for such sins.
This is part of it too. Invincible Ignorance when applied correctly (which some haven’t done in this thread) only means that those truly invincible in their ignorance are excused only from the sin of non-belief. That is it. So it is true that one truly in a state of invincible ignorance has a possibility of being saved. However, as you say, he needs to also obey the natural law on his heart. This has nothing to do with being a devout Muslim/Hindu/Bhuddist - or maybe it does, because if those false religions tell him or allow him to do something against natural law, then if it is grave enough he sins mortally and is thus lost.

Invincible ignorance again only applies to the sin of non-belief. Which is why missionaries tracked into deep, dark jungles to convert savages. Clearly they were not living according to the law on their hearts that St Paul talks about. They were steeped in sin. And hypothetically if there is one who is invincible ignorant and is one who tries to live by the natural law, again we want him to be Catholic because it is all that much easier for him outside the sacraments to be tempted into grievous sin and perish. And even were he invincible ignorant and obeying the natural law, even then we want him to be Catholic since as scripture says “The Just man is scarcely saved” and we want him to live the joy of finding Jesus Christ in the religion He established.

It is a dogma of the Church for a reason. One can try as they might to find a million ways out of it but they never work without resorting to modernism, heresy or irrationality.
 
I just hope that others reading certain posts in this thread are not led to believe that those of non-Catholic religions/denominations are assured of salvation by virtue of their religion…that it doesn’t matter what religion one follows… that they all lead to the same place.
Others reading this thread only need to look at the Catechism. It’s right there in black and white for the world to see and understand. That’s the great thing about it: it’s hard to deny what’s written by the Church for the world to see 🙂
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.
 
This is part of it too. Invincible Ignorance when applied correctly (which some haven’t done in this thread) only means that those truly invincible in their ignorance are excused only from the sin of non-belief. That is it. So it is true that one truly in a state of invincible ignorance has a possibility of being saved. However, as you say, he needs to also obey the natural law on his heart. This has nothing to do with being a devout Muslim/Hindu/Bhuddist - or maybe it does, because if those false religions tell him or allow him to do something against natural law, then if it is grave enough he sins mortally and is thus lost. .
Remember that in order for someone to sin, they have to have full knowledge that something is a sin. That can’t be possible if they don’t know the rules and laws of the Church, because they don’t know the Church to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top