E
Esrb99
Guest
I don’t think this is the case with sins against natural law. It is written on men’s hearts that abortion for example is a sin.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
jwinch2
Guest
You are correctI don’t think this is the case with sins against natural law.
"were a man to be invincibly ignorant of the true religion, such invincible ignorance would not be sinful before God; that, if such a person should observe the precepts of the Natural Law and do the will of God to the best of his knowledge, God, in His infinite mercy, may enlighten him so as to obtain eternal life; for, the Lord, who knows the heart and thoughts of man, will, in His infinite goodness, not suffer any one to be lost forever without his own fault." Pope Pius IX
Let those, therefore, who wish to be saved, come to the pillar and the ground of faith, which is the Church; let them come to the true Church of Christ, which, in her bishops, and in the Roman Pontiff, the Chief Head of all, has the succession of apostolical Authority, which has never been interrupted, which has never counted anything of greater importance than to preach, and by all means to keep and defend the doctrine proclaimed by the Apostles at Christ’s command … We shall never at any time abstain from any cares or labors that, by the grace of Christ Himself, we may bring those who are ignorant, and who are going astray, to this only road of truth and salvation. Pope Pius IX
*“Their inculpable (invincible) ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance.” *St. Thomas Aquinas
No one is saved through ignorance. However, God in His mercy may choose to instruct the ignorant in the Catholic Faith, so that they can repent and be saved. This is provided they have not sinned against the natural law, as noted by Pope Pius IX above, and also taught by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.
“And the ignorance of these things of salvation, the knowledge of which men did not care to have, is, without doubt, a sin for them; but for those who were not able to acquire such knowledge, the want of it is a punishment for their sins” St. Augustine
“There are many things which a man is obliged to do, but which he cannot do without the help of divine grace: as, for instance, to love God and his neighbor, and to believe the articles of faith; but he can do all this with the help of grace; and 'to whomsoever God gives His grace He gives it out of Divine Mercy: and to whomsoever He does not give it, He refuses it out of divine justice, in punishment of sin committed…” St. Thomas Aquinas
This is why we must evangelize and why it is so important to teach people the Faith. Those who have committed no mortal sin against the natural law may indeed receive God’s grace and mercy. However, what percentage of people are we willing to bet can go uninstructed in the Faith and commit no sin against natural law throughout their lives? Not many, I suspect. As I noted above, the situations which allow one to be saved outside of the visible body of the Church are the exceptions to No Salvation Outside the Church, not the rule. Furthermore, none of this in anyway provides justification for those who have left the Faith, or for those to choose to not raise their kids in the Faith, particularly for some sort of earthly reward.
Pope Pius IX had some choice words for those who try to twist the teachings of the Church in this area:
“many of the enemies of the Catholic Faith direct their efforts towards placing every monstrous opinion on the same level with the doctrine of Christ, or confounding it therewith; and so they try more and more to propagate that impious system of the indifference of religions. But quite recently – we shudder to say it certain men have not hesitated to slander us by saying that we share in their folly, favor that most wicked system, and think so benevolently of every class of mankind as to suppose that not only the sons of the Church, but that the rest also, however alienated from Catholic unity they may remain, are alike in the way of salvation, and may arrive at everlasting life. We are at a loss, from horror, to find words to express our detestation of this new and atrocious injustice that is done to us.” Pope Pius IX
R
Rence
Guest
I know it’s the case. One has to have full knowledge. It can’t be “written on men’s hearts” if a person’s religion makes exceptions for specific circumstances, like our brothers and sisters, the Jewish do. They love God too and wish to please Him and follow His commands. Their laws give them “the best of their knowledge” to work with…as was quoted from the Catechism.I don’t think this is the case with sins against natural law. It is written on men’s hearts that abortion for example is a sin.
E
Esrb99
Guest
Wait… are you saying that IF the Jewish religion said abortion was okay in some circumstances, then because this was related to their faith, that the precept of natural law would not apply to them when it comes to abortion?I know it’s the case. One has to have full knowledge. It can’t be “written on men’s hearts” if a person’s religion makes exceptions for specific circumstances, like our brothers and sisters, the Jewish do. They love God too and wish to please Him and follow His commands. Their laws give them “the best of their knowledge” to work with…as was quoted from the Catechism.
If so, I’m not sure I agree with that.
R
Rence
Guest
No, I’m not saying IF. A Jewish woman is allowed an abortion if her very life is in danger, according to the rules of their religion. Given this teaching, a Jewish person is going to believe the religion into which they were born and follow. Most religions allow abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. The Church knows that due to the many denominations and the existence of older religions, people are going to be born and raised by their rules and laws, and that these people will be just as devout and dedicated to their religion as are expected to be in ours. People can’t be held accountable for following Church laws and rules if they don’t know them because they are devout in their religion. That doesn’t mean that they don’t strive to please God. It means they do so differently than Catholics do.Wait… are you saying that IF the Jewish religion said abortion was okay in some circumstances, then because this was related to their faith, that the precept of natural law would not apply to them when it comes to abortion?
If so, I’m not sure I agree with that.
E
Esrb99
Guest
Following this line of thought though, God would not hold the Mayan pagans accountable for sacrificing virgins to their gods even though such needless murder is against natural law, since it is a tenant of their faith, and they are trying to be good Mayans.No, I’m not saying IF. A Jewish woman is allowed an abortion if her very life is in danger, according to the rules of their religion. Given this teaching, a Jewish person is going to believe the religion into which they were born and follow. Most religions allow abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. The Church knows that due to the many denominations and the existence of older religions, people are going to be born and raised by their rules and laws, and that these people will be just as devout and dedicated to their religion as are expected to be in ours. People can’t be held accountable for following Church laws and rules if they don’t know them because they are devout in their religion. That doesn’t mean that they don’t strive to please God. It means they do so differently than Catholics do.
I don’t see how this is correct.
J
JuantheTuba
Guest
Rence, this is not Catholic teaching, in fact, I would say this is exactly the relativism the Popes have spoken against and warned about.No, I’m not saying IF. A Jewish woman is allowed an abortion if her very life is in danger, according to the rules of their religion. Given this teaching, a Jewish person is going to believe the religion into which they were born and follow. Most religions allow abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. The Church knows that due to the many denominations and the existence of older religions, people are going to be born and raised by their rules and laws, and that these people will be just as devout and dedicated to their religion as are expected to be in ours. People can’t be held accountable for following Church laws and rules if they don’t know them because they are devout in their religion. That doesn’t mean that they don’t strive to please God. It means they do so differently than Catholics do.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Replace the word “abortion” with “murder” and this takes on an interesting twist.No, I’m not saying IF. A Jewish woman is allowed an abortion if her very life is in danger, according to the rules of their religion. Given this teaching, a Jewish person is going to believe the religion into which they were born and follow. Most religions allow abortion when the woman’s life is in danger. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. The Church knows that due to the many denominations and the existence of older religions, people are going to be born and raised by their rules and laws, and that these people will be just as devout and dedicated to their religion as are expected to be in ours. People can’t be held accountable for following Church laws and rules if they don’t know them because they are devout in their religion. That doesn’t mean that they don’t strive to please God. It means they do so differently than Catholics do.
The Church has long taught that a direct abortion is out of the question. That isn’t a Canon Law or a practice, that’s doctrine.
E
Esrb99
Guest
Got it. That’s what I thought.Replace the word “abortion” with “murder” and this takes on an interesting twist.
The Church has long taught that a direct abortion is out of the question. That isn’t a Canon Law or a practice, that’s doctrine.
Now that we got that out of the way…
back on topic.
I still do not understand how a practicing who is marrying into the royal family can get a dispensation from his or her bishop without acknowledging that they will raise their children Catholic. That seems to be one of the sticking points for the church when allowing a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic outside of the church;that the children will be raised Catholic. So in this case, how would such a person get a dispensation if there are such high expectations for the child to be Anglican?
I assume that if one got a dispensation, that they would have agreed in writing to raise their kids Catholic. If they did not agree to this, then they would not have gotten a dispensation. And as I understand it, if they did not get a dispensation, then they participated in an invalid marriage, correct?
M
Melchior_1
Guest
I’m cross posting this from another board, because I wouldn’t mind getting others thoughts:I still do not understand how a practicing who is marrying into the royal family can get a dispensation from his or her bishop without acknowledging that they will raise their children Catholic. That seems to be one of the sticking points for the church when allowing a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic outside of the church;that the children will be raised Catholic. So in this case, how would such a person get a dispensation if there are such high expectations for the child to be Anglican?
I assume that if one got a dispensation, that they would have agreed in writing to raise their kids Catholic. If they did not agree to this, then they would not have gotten a dispensation. And as I understand it, if they did not get a dispensation, then they participated in an invalid marriage, correct?
The whole dispensation thing can be boiled down to a very simple concept; if raising your kids Catholic is immutable doctrine, then there can be no dispensation. If raising your kids Catholic is a Canon Law thing, then a dispensation could be granted and used.
The question is, of course, is if raising your kids Catholic required by Canon law or doctrine. Once we get that answer, the mystery is solved.
P
Phemie
Guest
There is no dispensation required to marry a baptized non-Catholic in the Church. In many dioceses the priest preparing the couple has the faculty to give permission. A dispensation is required to marry a non-baptized person.I’m cross posting this from another board, because I wouldn’t mind getting others thoughts:
The whole dispensation thing can be boiled down to a very simple concept; if raising your kids Catholic is immutable doctrine, then there can be no dispensation. If raising your kids Catholic is a Canon Law thing, then a dispensation could be granted and used.
The question is, of course, is if raising your kids Catholic required by Canon law or doctrine. Once we get that answer, the mystery is solved.
The Catholic promises not to abandon his/her faith and to do all in his/her power to have any children baptized and raised Catholic. Yet the Church says that’s not at all cost: they are not to risk their marriage over this and they are not to discount the non-Catholic’s freedom of conscience and religion.
So, at the time they make that promise they may very well intend to fulfill it but, years later, faced with making a choice between marital harmony and raising the children Catholic, they may well opt for marital harmony. The Church says that if they do that they face no censure but they must keep teaching the children about the Catholic faith, by word and example.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Of course it is relativism.Rence, this is not Catholic teaching, in fact, I would say this is exactly the relativism the Popes have spoken against and warned about.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Oh please, don’t be some sort of fanatic, abortion may be bad but only crazy people think that it’s murder.Replace the word “abortion” with “murder” and this takes on an interesting twist.
The Church has long taught that a direct abortion is out of the question. That isn’t a Canon Law or a practice, that’s doctrine.
(sarcasm)
R
Rence
Guest
First of all, you can’t hold someone reponsible for something they truly don’t know. Second of all, we have no idea what God decides about the Mayans or anyone else. I’m not in the position of God. Only God knows the fate of someone, and only God knows the heart of someone. Third of all, there are enough “topics” of this thread. We don’t need to add abortion and the Mayans to it.Following this line of thought though, God would not hold the Mayan pagans accountable for sacrificing virgins to their gods even though such needless murder is against natural law, since it is a tenant of their faith, and they are trying to be good Mayans.
I don’t see how this is correct.
This thread is about the Church not condemning, not holding responsible, those who, for reasons outside their control, can’t raise their children Catholic, royal or not. There are several pages dealing with just that and whether or not salvation can be obtained outside the Church. Surely there is enough to discuss without, yet again and again and again and again, bringing up the off-topic but ever popular abortion topic. I’ve enterained the off topic question twice. I’m not going to respond regarding abortion again on this thread. Abortion is not the topic of this thread. If you want to duke it about about abortion yet again and again and again and again, start another thread about it.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
Was Nuremberg wrong to hold the Nazis accountable, after all they (the Nazis) believed the Jews to be subhuman?First of all, you can’t hold someone reponsible for something they truly don’t know. Second of all, we have no idea what God decides about the Mayans or anyone else. I’m not in the position of God. Only God knows the fate of someone, and only God knows the heart of someone. Third of all, there are enough “topics” of this thread. We don’t need to add abortion and the Mayans to it.
This thread is about the Church not condemning, not holding responsible, those who, for reasons outside their control, can’t raise their children Catholic, royal or not. There are several pages dealing with just that and whether or not salvation can be obtained outside the Church. Surely there is enough to discuss without, yet again and again and again and again, bringing up the off-topic but ever popular abortion topic. I’ve enterained the off topic question twice. I’m not going to respond regarding abortion again on this thread. Abortion is not the topic of this thread. If you want to duke it about about abortion yet again and again and again and again, start another thread about it.
E
Esrb99
Guest
I posited the scenario of invincible ignorance and the natural law in the ask an apologist section. Here’s the answer:First of all, you can’t hold someone reponsible for something they truly don’t know. Second of all, we have no idea what God decides about the Mayans or anyone else. I’m not in the position of God. Only God knows the fate of someone, and only God knows the heart of someone. Third of all, there are enough “topics” of this thread. We don’t need to add abortion and the Mayans to it.
This thread is about the Church not condemning, not holding responsible, those who, for reasons outside their control, can’t raise their children Catholic, royal or not. There are several pages dealing with just that and whether or not salvation can be obtained outside the Church. Surely there is enough to discuss without, yet again and again and again and again, bringing up the off-topic but ever popular abortion topic. I’ve enterained the off topic question twice. I’m not going to respond regarding abortion again on this thread. Abortion is not the topic of this thread. If you want to duke it about about abortion yet again and again and again and again, start another thread about it.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=781899
Excerpt:
“There is no “free pass” based on invincible ignorance, it would be better to know the truth and follow/live it.”
J
jwinch2
Guest
Invincible ignorance does not save someone from violations of the natural law.First of all, you can’t hold someone reponsible for something they truly don’t know.
These are not reasons outside of their control. They are not in a situation where a gun is being held to their head or their kids are going to be taken from them if they make a decision that someone doesn’t like. They are deciding as parents whether or not the kingdom of God or the kingdom of England is more important for their child to attain. Some here seem to think that it is OK to seek the earthy kingdom at the expense of having the sacraments which come from a valid priesthood. Based on the arguments provided, this seems to be because they don’t think having the sacraments makes that much difference either way in terms of achieving salvation. Others disagree.This thread is about the Church not condemning, not holding responsible, those who, for reasons outside their control, can’t raise their children Catholic, royal or not.
That, is the discussion at hand.
L
Lucky7
Guest
This is s very succinct description of this whole thread…well done.These are not reasons outside of their control. They are not in a situation where a gun is being held to their head or their kids are going to be taken from them if they make a decision that someone doesn’t like. They are deciding as parents whether or not the kingdom of God or the kingdom of England is more important for their child to attain. Some here seem to think that it is OK to seek the earthy kingdom at the expense of having the sacraments which come from a valid priesthood. Based on the arguments provided, this seems to be because they don’t think having the sacraments makes that much difference either way in terms of achieving salvation. Others disagree.
That, is the discussion at hand.
L
LilyM
Guest
Actually the children may well be taken from any royal spouse who dares attempt to raise them Catholic in direct violation of the wishes and freedom of conscience of the royal (Anglican) parent. Unlike you and I, the courts of England do not recognise the inherent superiority of Catholicism. If any faith is superior under UK law it would be Anglicanism. And they would favour a royal parent’s wishes in any event.Invincible ignorance does not save someone from violations of the natural law.
These are not reasons outside of their control. They are not in a situation where a gun is being held to their head or their kids are going to be taken from them if they make a decision that someone doesn’t like. They are deciding as parents whether or not the kingdom of God or the kingdom of England is more important for their child to attain. Some here seem to think that it is OK to seek the earthy kingdom at the expense of having the sacraments which come from a valid priesthood. Based on the arguments provided, this seems to be because they don’t think having the sacraments makes that much difference either way in terms of achieving salvation. Others disagree.
That, is the discussion at hand.
Remember this is a country where poor old Princess Diana was vilified not so much for having lovers (after all, Charles did too) but for the fact that two of them were not just non-Anglican but worse, Muslim. And where poor old Tony Blair had to hide the fact of his conversion to Catholicism while he was Prime Minister (which from memory came out later when a photograph surfaced of him being given communion by JP2 at a time when he was supposedly still Anglican) because get backlash would have been so awful.
So it is a place where pro-Anglican prejudices still run extremely deep - deep enough to indeed cause the sort of repercussions you are claiming would not eventuate.
In any event, the documents cited above do require best efforts, but best efforts does not mean futile attempts bound to failure and bound to only result in strain on the family for the sake of showing willing.
L
latin_rite
Guest
That’s the Church of England’s problem. Why should the child miss out because of it?But there’s a chance that the kid who comes from such a union could be the head monarch in like, 70 years from now. The head monarch, whatever gender they are, is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Scotland.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.