Cohabitation

[FastLearner]

I would agree with that, but there are couples (from my experience of working with them and just reading Catholic brides talk on the secular bridal forums) that they actually don’t believe premarital sex is wrong and also don’t believe in the actual Sacrament or care about what it’s all about. They just do it because they were raised Catholic, but have no real understanding of what a sacrament entails. I think that is what a lot of priests have to deal with and make a decision.

I understand that experience, but the issue is extrapolating a small sample size of “what you see” and applying it to everyone in existence that has something in common with those individuals.

It seems that posters on here can’t get past that point, and it’s the reason I “ducked out” about 7 pages ago.

 

[EasterJoy]

Well, this is a little tricky. Canon 868 2ƒ requires “a well‚founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion.” However, notice that it does not say the well founded hope is that they be practicing Catholics, but only that the child be brought up in the catholic religion.
Secondly, the canon goes on to state “if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.” So even if there is no well founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic religion it should not be denied outright but rather delayed and discussed with the parents. And even that must follow the particular law set forth by the diocesan bishop.

So in a hypothetical situation of two parents who simply do not attend Mass and have no intention of doing so, if they are willing to send their child to ccd or catholic school, then it seems they would be meeting the requirements of the canon. The priest is possibly on some shaky ground with the hypothetical situation presented.

I think that parents who argue that they fulfilling their obligation to raise their kids in the faith because they are willing to send their kids to a Catholic school but without making any other effort to live the faith personally are the ones on shaky ground. Catholic schools are full of non-Catholics who (obviously) don’t practice the faith, but are just there for a first-rate education.

It is a life lived that teaches. Everything else is just talk. In fact, I would argue that talk without action is worse than nothing at all. It is, of all options, the one most likely to produce children who never grow up to practice the faith.

There’s a huge difference between not believing premarital sex/cohabitation is wrong and not believing marriage is a sacrament that creates a permanent bond.

Absolutely. In fact, one problem can be that the couple believes the permanent bond exists prior to marriage, because their consent has been privately given, their marriage consumated, finances combined, mutual personal and career sacrifices made, and the commitment to raising children together made. In other words, they believe that marriage in the Church is only a formality that confirms what they have already done. They think that the element of truth in this rationalization removes the sinfulness of their pre-marital sex.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I think that parents who argue that they fulfilling their obligation to raise their kids in the faith because they are willing to send their kids to a Catholic school but without making any other effort to live the faith personally are the ones on shaky ground. Catholic schools are full of non-Catholics who (obviously) don’t practice the faith, but are just there for a first-rate education.

But the canon only requires a well founded hope the child be raised Catholic, it does not state the parents must be good Catholics.

It is a life lived that teaches. Everything else is just talk. In fact, I would argue that talk without action is worse than nothing at all. It is, of all options, the one most likely to produce children who never grow up to practice the faith.

Obviously talk without action is terrible. And yes, it is most likely to produce children who do not practice the faith, but it is not guaranteeed. So are we then going to deny the child the removal of original sin and the graces of communion and confirmation because some set of circumstances might lead them not to practice the faith somewhere down the road?

If that’s the case, then should we deny baptism to the children of overbearing Catholic parents? After all, that kind of religious upbringing will probably leave a bad taste in the child’s life later on…

 

[EasterJoy]

But the canon only requires a well founded hope the child be raised Catholic, it does not state the parents must be good Catholics.

Obviously talk without action is terrible. And yes, it is most likely to produce children who do not practice the faith, but it is not guaranteeed. So are we then going to deny the child the removal of original sin and the graces of communion and confirmation because some set of circumstances might lead them not to practice the faith somewhere down the road?

If that’s the case, then should we deny baptism to the children of overbearing Catholic parents? After all, that kind of religious upbringing will probably leave a bad taste in the child’s life later on…

If I get an eight-year-old child preparing for her First Holy Communion in my CCD class who knows none of the prayers (having had no one at home to help her memorize them the previous year, or to use them since then), who knows essentially nothing about the Mass (having witnessed it either rarely or not at all), who prays or observes the faith with her parents not at all, and if I find that her parents have no desire to do anything themselves to change this state of affairs, but put the change on the shoulders of her teachers alone, would you expect me to think, “Well, thank heavens they sent her to us, so she could be raised in the faith!”? Of course not! CCD teachers do not raise children! Parents do! Sadly, I would have to say that a parent who intends only to send their kids to others for their Catholic education have no intention to raise their child in the faith. As much as I like to think that my teaching makes a difference, I’d have to admit that the likelihood that the child will also not practice the faith in any meaningful form is all but guaranteed, regardless of my efforts and prayers as her teacher. As for her pastor, if the child is not taken to Mass, she’ll not see him from the day she is baptized until the day she sees him for her first (and probably last) confession. After the day of her First Holy Communion, she might not see another priest until her wedding.

I actually had a co-worker in graduate school (whose Catholic parents quit practicing when he was five) who had to ask his mother what their religion was, because when his girlfriend had asked, he did not know! Would it surprise you to learn that his mother was truly astonished to find that her son did not know he was Catholic? This same man once asked me why people kept saying that Jesus was a Jew, since the man was under the impression that Jesus was a Christian! Tell me that someone with that kind of (name removed by moderator)ut from home will be “raised in the faith” by virtue of having been sent to Catholic schools!

Besides, consider the words of the baptismal ritual. Is it possible to honestly affirm what the parents are asked to affirm, and yet at the same time have no intention of fulfilling the precepts of the Church or joining in the life of the Church in any way, save sending the child for an hour of formal instruction once a week for a few years in grade school? Wouldn’t the priest be allowing them to perjure themselves, or be allowing them to make a sacrament into some sort of magic ritual, or worse yet, a polite pretence?

Mothername and Fathername, you have asked to have your child baptised. ** In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training her in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty** to bring her up to keep God’s commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbour. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?
Mothername & Fathername: I do.
Priest: Godparents, are you ready to help *Mothername and Fathername *in their duty as Christian parents?
Godparents: We are
…

Godparents, your commitment is to support Mothername and Fathername as they nurture Childname in faith in God and to encourage Childname through her development and her life encounters.

Godparents, on your part you must make it your constant care to bring her up in the practice of the faith. See that the divine life which God gives her is kept safe from the poison of sin, to grow always stronger in her heart.

Parents and Godparents, if your faith makes you ready to accept this responsibility, renew now the vows of your own baptism. Reject sin; profess your faith in Christ Jesus. This is the faith of the Church. This is the faith in which the child is about to be baptised…

Priest: Mothername and Fathername, Godparents is it your will that Childname should be baptised in the faith of the Church, which you have all professed?
Parents and Godparents: It is.

It unfortunately seems necessary to delay baptism for the child until there is some hope that the parents will be honestly affirming what the ritual requires them to affirm, doesn’t it? If they cannot honestly do that, then their child will have to wait until she is old enough to do it for herself.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If I get an eight-year-old child preparing for her First Holy Communion in my CCD class who knows none of the prayers (having had no one at home to help her memorize them the previous year, or to use them since then), who knows essentially nothing about the Mass (having witnessed it either rarely or not at all), who prays or observes the faith with her parents not at all, and if I find that her parents have no desire to do anything themselves to change this state of affairs, but put the change on the shoulders of her teachers alone, would you expect me to think, “Well, thank heavens they sent her to us, so she could be raised in the faith!”? Of course not! CCD teachers do not raise children! Parents do! Sadly, I would have to say that a parent who intends only to send their kids to others for their Catholic education have no intention to raise their child in the faith. As much as I like to think that my teaching makes a difference, I’d have to admit that the likelihood that the child will also not practice the faith in any meaningful form is all but guaranteed, regardless of my efforts and prayers as her teacher. As for her pastor, if the child is not taken to Mass, she’ll not see him from the day she is baptized until the day she sees him for her first (and probably last) confession. After the day of her First Holy Communion, she might not see another priest until her wedding.

Not necessarily true. Campus ministers do wonderful work, as does the Holy Spirt.

Besides, consider the words of the baptismal ritual. Is it possible to honestly affirm what the parents are asked to affirm, and yet at the same time have no intention of fulfilling the precepts of the Church or joining in the life of the Church in any way, save sending the child for an hour of formal instruction once a week for a few years in grade school?

There’s a difference between heresy and sin. They could say the Creed in all honesty and agree to raise the child Catholic and that’s pretty much the minimum requirement. Once again, the canon doesn’t require the parents to be good Catholics or even practicing Catholics.

It unfortunately seems necessary to delay baptism for the child until there is some hope that the parents will be honestly affirming what the ritual requires them to affirm, doesn’t it? If they cannot honestly do that, then their child will have to wait until she is old enough to do it for herself.

Perhaps, but who decides who is “catholic enough” to receive the sacrament? I’ve seen parishes deny baptism because the baby doesn’t have a saint’s name, even though the canons don’t require that. I get nervous when priests demand (which is different from asking) more than what the canons require.

 

[EasterJoy]

Not necessarily true. Campus ministers do wonderful work, as does the Holy Spirt.

I didn’t say she wouldn’t see a priest. I meant it was entirely possible that she might not see one. And again, if we are talking about a college supplying the education, we have a baptized Catholic who was not raised Catholic. I’m only arguing that the phrase, “My parents sent me to Catholic schools, but we weren’t Catholic” is NOT a non-sensical statement. It is very possible. In fact, if a kid is in a Catholic school and yet their parents never practice and only their non-Catholic friends can say the same, are they supposed to just assume that they are Catholic? I can’t see why they would.

Do you think this impossible? I also know of Catholic kids who spent 8 years in a Catholic grade school who are certain that they never made their first confession! They don’t remember it. Why would a child brought up in a totally non-observant home think that they must have been baptized?

There’s a difference between heresy and sin. They could say the Creed in all honesty and agree to raise the child Catholic and that’s pretty much the minimum requirement. Once again, the canon doesn’t require the parents to be good Catholics or even practicing Catholics…

Perhaps, but who decides who is “catholic enough” to receive the sacrament? I’ve seen parishes deny baptism because the baby doesn’t have a saint’s name, even though the canons don’t require that. I get nervous when priests demand (which is different from asking) more than what the canons require.

I only mean that it is hard to argue that a couple who plans only to purchase their child’s formal education from the Catholic school system can be said to be planning that their child be “brought up in the Catholic religion”. There is nothing that keeps Jews or atheists from doing as much. In fact, you will be hard-put to find a Catholic school that does not have non-Catholic students whose parents do not want their kids to become Catholics! Therefore, the intent to buy a formal education from a Catholic school system is insufficient in itself.

“Brought up in the Catholic religion” can mean anything the parents want it to, as long as it means they have an intention to do something–anything!!–themselves to transmit the faith to their child. If they don’t, then whatever it means to “bring up”, they’re not planning on doing it, because they’re planning on doing nothing at all.

“When my child grows up, he/she will be able to say that he/she learned at least some small part of the faith directly from me, from my words or my actions.” You have to admit that even that is a pretty low bar concerning what is meant by “brought up in the Catholic religion.”