Dating a Non-Catholic?

[Magickman]

If I had restricted myself only to dating Catholics, then I would hardly have dated in my entire life. It was not that I disliked Catholic girls, rather that I met so few of them.

As it is, I can sometimes go many years without any dates at all. So I do not feel in a position to reject dates for reasons of religious exclusion.

If I have a preference, it is for women who are not religious at all.

 

[SwizzleStick]

…If I have a preference, it is for women who are not religious at all.

May I ask why? You identify as Catholic, so why would you want to date a woman who is not religious at all?

I think NewsTheMan covers plenty of reasons why it might be hard to date someone who is not religious (seems like that would apply for non-Christian religions too) in his post below. But, I cannot imagine why a Catholic, someone who is religious, would want to date someone who is not religious?

Everyone has pretty much said everything that I would have.

Let me add my own 2 cents. For me, I wont ever date a non-Christian. If she is Christian, then I would consider it (weigh it all up, ya know? She would have to be open to converting I guess), but ‘secular’ not a chance. Never again. In fact, even if she was Catholic by baptism but secular by thought and action I would have to think twice. I’ll tell you why, and why sometimes we can have the pleasure of sitting back and believing dating someone outside the faith is okay until it gets to the point that its not.

I dated a secular girl. In fact, she was a New Ager, really. Crystals, Angels cards, lighting candles to the “power”. All that. The first few months are okay, in fact they are great. Of course! I thought, “pshht, non-Catholic whatever she’s cool!”. But then…

Things start to pop up. Their views on sex, sexuality, modesty, abortion, religion, God, Jesus, love, what is appropriate. All these things are different than yours. And these are some big things. BIG things. But the problem is that, you are so far into the relationship that you become torn, well I did anyway. I loved the girl, but I knew it was never gonna work. And, it didn’t work. It wont ever work. If you’re Catholic, it just doesn’t work with a secular person in this day and age AND/OR unless they have been brought up with “Catholic” values but just aren’t Catholic. Otherwise, hey in my experience it just causes a ton of pain suffering and a tough lesson to learn!

 

[Miserys_Fence]

My fiance, God rest his soul, was a cradle Catholic and we loved each other deeply, although I was not Catholic when we were dating. Maybe because I wasn’t Protestant, I had a more relaxed attitude towards Catholicism–enough so to convert!

But I do disagree with the poster who said that any other Christian beliefs don’t mesh with Catholic beliefs. The church I attended was probably “closer” to Catholicism than the Protestant churches I grew up in, and we even had one parishoner (not an “official” member, but she attended on a fairly regular basis) who was Catholic. She was very comfortable with the church. My fiance attended with me once, and he was a VERY devout cradle Catholic, and he found nothing offensive either.

Miz

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Nothing wrong with it, it just depends on the level of “faith” that the two have I guess. People who are very strong Catholics would not even usually ask the question, and look solely for other Catholics anyways. This is like any other religion.

If by some weird chance some extremely fanatical Catholic gets together with some fanatical Muslim, then no it would not be a good idea at all, but do you think it will ever happen?

It’s not really a Catholic issue as much as it is a general compatibility issue, it should be looked at in terms of compatibility, conflicting values is always bound for trouble. That being said, there are some close family members of mine who are Catholic and have married non-Catholics, and they are going well, though they haven’t been all that strong in faith. It all depends, one should evaluate it based on their preferences and circumstances, not by someone else’s.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

I think you can call it what you want, but I think most people here would agree that dating is for discerning marriage. If you have no intent to marry this girl then what is the point of dating? Does that make sense?

There’s a contradiction within your own statements; most people agree that dating is for discerning marriage here apparently, that leaves some people who don’t agree with that. Then you ask what is the point based on the majority interpretation…obviously the people who hold a different view wouldn’t really be able to answer that flawed question.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with dating without the intent to marry, get to know people, you don’t have to be constantly ony the look out for finding someone to marry. Most people find ‘the one’ when they aren’t acting all desperate and looking for marriage but just going with the flow and having fun, socializing.

See a pretty girl, ask her out, who cares if she’s not Catholic or not.

 

[EasterJoy]

If by some weird chance some extremely fanatical Catholic gets together with some fanatical Muslim, then no it would not be a good idea at all, but do you think it will ever happen?

Oh, you would be surprised. How exactly do you think James Carville wound up married to Mary Matalin? Do not forget, too, that parenthood has brought many a lukewarm believer to a level of caring about religion that they never thought they’d feel.

I would find it entirely likely that a fanatical Catholic and a fanatical Muslim, surrounded by peers in their own religious groups who seem lukewarm and indifferent, would find a lot in each other that is interesting. I could see them intelligently arguing fine points of religion for hours after their friends have all thrown their hands up and wandered off. As Mary Matalin put it, “The problem is, people look at us as if we’re opposites. We’re not. We’re actually very similar people. We’re both advocates. We’re both passionate. We both like a good, fair fight. My opposite is someone who doesn’t have a philosophy of life, someone who doesn’t get fired up about anything.”

I could see a couple realizing in distress that life is no fun without the other one around to drive them so exquisitely up the wall. Differences are the spice of life, spicy is exciting, and once you’re hooked, it is no fun to figure out what to do about the situation. Carville and Matalin disagree on politics, but they don’t talk politics at home. Carville was raised a Catholic; Matalin, raised a Methodist, joined the Church only recently.

It seems a little silly at the time, but it is not a good idea to date anybody you would have qualms about marrying. You just never know. I’m all for people having friends of both genders well beyond grade school, but that is, I think, best accomplished in highly-chaperoned settings. Once you reach an age where hormones have their say, hormones have to be treated as a flammable substance…with a lot of respect for the damage one stray spark can do!

See a pretty girl, ask her out, who cares if she’s not Catholic or not.

You’d be wise to find out if she’s anything other than pretty, before you ask her out. See above.

 

[RobNY]

Sanctity is the end of Christian life. Marriage is a sacrament meant to sanctify the spouses.

When religion is a matter of dispute rather than a matter of agreement, it recedes to the background in your relationship with your boyfriend or girlfriend. You’ll have to let religion go by the wayside in order to keep the peace. Even if you are ‘agreeing to disagree’ you are still letting religion go by the wayside to keep the peace. Religion will then drop out of your common life together. This too is a shame, for of all the things which one should have in common and share with one’s spouse, one will not have the most important thing-- even though they may still both be Mets fans, and like Italian food. It may even be as though the spouses live two separate lives and keep a part of themselves apart from the other spouse-- if Catholicism is the first priority in your life, the most important thing in your life, and you don’t share it with your spouse, then it’s almost as if one’s spouse doesn’t get to see all of you.

I’m not being especially clear or concise here, but ‘mixed’ marriage of all sorts are almost always tremendous crosses.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Oh, you would be surprised. How exactly do you think James Carville wound up married to Mary Matalin? Do not forget, too, that parenthood has brought many a lukewarm believer to a level of caring about religion that they never thought they’d feel.

I would find it entirely likely that a fanatical Catholic and a fanatical Muslim, surrounded by peers in their own religious groups who seem lukewarm and indifferent, would find a lot in each other that is interesting. I could see them intelligently arguing fine points of religion for hours after their friends have all thrown their hands up and wandered off. As Mary Matalin put it, “The problem is, people look at us as if we’re opposites. We’re not. We’re actually very similar people. We’re both advocates. We’re both passionate. We both like a good, fair fight. My opposite is someone who doesn’t have a philosophy of life, someone who doesn’t get fired up about anything.”

I could see a couple realizing in distress that life is no fun without the other one around to drive them so exquisitely up the wall. Differences are the spice of life, spicy is exciting, and once you’re hooked, it is no fun to figure out what to do about the situation. Carville and Matalin disagree on politics, but they don’t talk politics at home. Carville was raised a Catholic; Matalin, raised a Methodist, joined the Church only recently.

It seems a little silly at the time, but it is not a good idea to date anybody you would have qualms about marrying. You just never know. I’m all for people having friends of both genders well beyond grade school, but that is, I think, best accomplished in highly-chaperoned settings. Once you reach an age where hormones have their say, hormones have to be treated as a flammable substance…with a lot of respect for the damage one stray spark can do!

I was just thinking wow such a situation actually existed, until I read “Methodist” - with all due respect, I did say Muslim. Catholicism and Methodist is nowhere as different as Catholics and Islam. So it’s largely an irrelevant rant.

You’d be wise to find out if she’s anything other than pretty, before you ask her out. See above.

No, not really. It’s worked for me so far. If I find some obvious personality conflict, I wouldn’t, but I don’t factor in religion as a major issue, unless of course the girl is a known figure for waging jihad and arranging terrorist bombings in the area - Especially with girls who you don’t know and have a brief chance to get a phone number and then go out with. You can probably find out whilst dating whether or not you’re compatible.

There’s no set formula for dating, not everyone happens to know the person they are dating completely before going out for the first time.

 

[Suspicious_Mind]

Sanctity is the end of Christian life. Marriage is a sacrament meant to sanctify the spouses.

When religion is a matter of dispute rather than a matter of agreement, it recedes to the background in your relationship with your boyfriend or girlfriend. You’ll have to let religion go by the wayside in order to keep the peace. Even if you are ‘agreeing to disagree’ you are still letting religion go by the wayside to keep the peace. Religion will then drop out of your common life together. This too is a shame, for of all the things which one should have in common and share with one’s spouse, one will not have the most important thing-- even though they may still both be Mets fans, and like Italian food. It may even be as though the spouses live two separate lives and keep a part of themselves apart from the other spouse-- if Catholicism is the first priority in your life, the most important thing in your life, and you don’t share it with your spouse, then it’s almost as if one’s spouse doesn’t get to see all of you.

I’m not being especially clear or concise here, but ‘mixed’ marriage of all sorts are almost always tremendous crosses.

Once again, it really depends. Your opinion depends solely on the prospective to-be’s to be really into their faith, whilst in the present day this definitely isn’t the case for the majority of people. I would completely agree based on the grounds of common sense not to marry someone who you have a completely different value system to you.

If you have a Catholic that goes to Church only during Christmas, engages in pre-marital sex, uses contraception, and say a Muslim that’s never been to the Mosque before, never prayed, in other words the liberal end of the spectrum for both of them…that’s not a conflict.

Put some liberal Catholic with a conservative Catholic and you’ll definitely see sparks fly, so should the two Catholics marry despite being ‘Catholic’ - obviously not. It’s all about compatibility and not simply the tit.e

 

[RobNY]

Once again, it really depends. Your opinion depends solely on the prospective to-be’s to be really into their faith, whilst in the present day this definitely isn’t the case for the majority of people. I would completely agree based on the grounds of common sense not to marry someone who you have a completely different value system to you.

If you have a Catholic that goes to Church only during Christmas, engages in pre-marital sex, uses contraception, and say a Muslim that’s never been to the Mosque before, never prayed, in other words the liberal end of the spectrum for both of them…that’s not a conflict.

Put some liberal Catholic with a conservative Catholic and you’ll definitely see sparks fly, so should the two Catholics marry despite being ‘Catholic’ - obviously not. It’s all about compatibility and not simply the tit.e

It seems that you agree with me. Inasmuch as one is Catholic, dating a non-Catholic is difficult.

-Rob

 

[Julianna]

The Church takes this very serious. Mixed marriage is not to be encouraged.

A Catholic is forbidden from marrying a non-Catholic in canon law. It requires permission from the Bishop for a mixed marriage with a non-Catholic Christian and a dispensation to marry a non-baptized person.

Before giving this permission, the bishop must be assured that the Catholic will not be inhibited from practicing the faith nor in danger of defecting from the faith. And, the Catholic must promise to baptized and raise the children Catholic.

Lastly, this issue is so serious that numerous popes have written on the topic. See for example Casti Connubii, paragraphs 81-82 and Quas Vestro, and Matrimonia Mixta.

Unbelievable. You have read the story of my parents and you still spout this. My brother and sis in law were married in the Catholic Church, Diocese of Charleston, SC in 1990. My sis in law is Church of the Nazerene. I was “there” with her and my brother when they met with our parish priest…he asked her “have you been Baptized”, she said yes…right then and there he got on the phone to her Church a few blocks away.

Fr. B says: “Hello, Pastor A, this is Fr. B at St. J’s”…I have a lovely lady here who is going to marry a man from our parish. I need a copy of her Baptismal record. She said she was Baptized in your Church."

Pastor A says:“How are you, Fr. B…yes I know this young lady…sure, I will go ahead and get that to you…”

Fr. B says: “Thank you Pastor A…” click hangs up the phone.

They have been married close to 20 yrs. They never had children, however, she agreed…to raise any children from the marriage Catholic.

My mother did the same in 1956.

I don’t remember Fr. B calling the Bishop at that point. Because I was “there”, I asked “is that all that needs to be done”…he said “yes”. Surely he would have mentioned contacting the Bishop.

 

[EasterJoy]

I was just thinking wow such a situation actually existed, until I read “Methodist” - with all due respect, I did say Muslim. Catholicism and Methodist is nowhere as different as Catholics and Islam. So it’s largely an irrelevant rant.

No, not really. It’s worked for me so far. If I find some obvious personality conflict, I wouldn’t, but I don’t factor in religion as a major issue, unless of course the girl is a known figure for waging jihad and arranging terrorist bombings in the area - Especially with girls who you don’t know and have a brief chance to get a phone number and then go out with. You can probably find out whilst dating whether or not you’re compatible.

There’s no set formula for dating, not everyone happens to know the person they are dating completely before going out for the first time.

It is ironic that you’re the one who chose the handle “Suspicious Mind.” Let’s just say I never really trusted guys who didn’t need to know a thing about me besides my looks before wanting to date. They were the most likely to put on whatever false front they thought I wanted. If you were at all suspicious, you’d know that there are women who do the same thing. What a silly charade, and a total waste of time. Those were not the fun dates, either.

With all due respect, “fanatical” and “fundamentalist” are not the same thing, and I wasn’t referring to Catholics and Muslims. I was referring to Mary Matalin, the deputy campaign manager for George Bush’s re-election bid in 1992, and James Carville, the campaign manager for Bill Clinton, who defeated Bush in that contest. They married in 1993, the year after that 1992 Presidential campaign. Just because you have never heard of them doesn’t mean that they are irrelevant.

Having said that: Pope John Paul II, famous for his outreach to Muslims and other faiths, felt a need to specifically discourage the marriage of Catholics to Muslims. rferl.org/content/article/1052841.html. This is an issue.

As for “You can probably find out whilst dating whether or not you’re compatible”, the couples are legion who totally ignore the red flags signalling their incompatiblity before they marry. Furthermore, one would hope you’re not already parents when you marry. What we imagine we will do with our imaginary children and what we actually try to do with our actual children are miles apart. Parenthood is an entirely new ballgame. When couples of radically different background marry, their chances of divorce go up dramatically. Yet people do it all of the time.

On the topic of “It’s worked for me so far”…are you telling me that this is how you found your wife? Because if you haven’t dated your way into a good and lasting marriage in which you’ve navigated the religious upbringing of your children in spite of the total lack of thought you put into the issue while dating, then you only mean that you’ve had a good time so far. Well, congratulations, but the ultimate success of your dating life is yet to be seen.

Your youth won’t last as long as you think. Save everyone some wasted time and truly awful memories, and try to find out if you are even remotely compatible with young women you find “pretty” before dating them. If you think that rant is irrelevant, then I feel sorry for the poor women you pick out of the meat display. There was a book written about dates like that. It was titled “I Shaved My Legs for This?!”

 

[EasterJoy]

Unbelievable. You have read the story of my parents and you still spout this. My brother and sis in law were married in the Catholic Church, Diocese of Charleston, SC in 1990. My sis in law is Church of the Nazerene. I was “there” with her and my brother when they met with our parish priest…he asked her “have you been Baptized”, she said yes…right then and there he got on the phone to her Church a few blocks away.

Fr. B says: “Hello, Pastor A, this is Fr. B at St. J’s”…I have a lovely lady here who is going to marry a man from our parish. I need a copy of her Baptismal record. She said she was Baptized in your Church."

Pastor A says:“How are you, Fr. B…yes I know this young lady…sure, I will go ahead and get that to you…”

Fr. B says: “Thank you Pastor A…” click hangs up the phone.

They have been married close to 20 yrs. They never had children, however, she agreed…to raise any children from the marriage Catholic.

My mother did the same in 1956.

I don’t remember Fr. B calling the Bishop at that point. Because I was “there”, I asked “is that all that needs to be done”…he said “yes”. Surely he would have mentioned contacting the Bishop.

The priest does the investigation on behalf of the bishop about whether the non-Catholic party knows what the Church teaches about the Catholic’s responsibilities in a mixed marriage, and so on. Then the couple has to supply proof of the non-Catholic’s baptism and fills out some extra paperwork that is sent to the chancery office for approval. If the non-Catholic is not baptised, that is a case of disparity of cult. The paperwork is different, but the matter also has to be approved by the chancery office in order for the marriage to be valid.

This is one of those things in which the bishop is “contacted” as a matter of course, though. The Church does not forbid marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics. It is just that while Catholics who are free to marry have the right to marry each other, they do not have a right to marry outside of the Church. They have to get permission, so the bishop can ensure that all parties know what they’re getting into. Contacting the chancery office is not something that the priest would have mentioned, though. It is expected.

 

[1ke]

Unbelievable. You have read the story of my parents and you still spout this.

Uh, yeah, I do make this assertion** because it is true**. I don’t know what your problem is. It is easy enough to look at the requirements in canon law, but since you didn’t bother, here let me post them for you:

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

The “local ordinary” in canon law means the Bishop.

My brother and sis in law were married in the Catholic Church, Diocese of Charleston, SC in 1990. My sis in law is Church of the Nazerene. I was “there” with her and my brother when they met with our parish priest…he asked her “have you been Baptized”, she said yes…right then and there he got on the phone to her Church a few blocks away.

Fr. B says: “Hello, Pastor A, this is Fr. B at St. J’s”…I have a lovely lady here who is going to marry a man from our parish. I need a copy of her Baptismal record. She said she was Baptized in your Church."

Pastor A says:“How are you, Fr. B…yes I know this young lady…sure, I will go ahead and get that to you…”

Fr. B says: “Thank you Pastor A…” click hangs up the phone.

They have been married close to 20 yrs. They never had children, however, she agreed…to raise any children from the marriage Catholic.

Anecdotal conversations aside, Canon Law is quite clear that a valid marriage cannot exist between a Catholic and a non-Catholic unless the Bishop expressly gives permission.

My mother did the same in 1956.

The requirements in 1956 were even more stringent than they are now. I did not say that such a marriage cannot ever take place. I said it is prohibited unless they receive permission from the Bishop and meet all of the requirements for his permission.

I don’t remember Fr. B calling the Bishop at that point. Because I was “there”, I asked “is that all that needs to be done”…he said “yes”. Surely he would have mentioned contacting the Bishop.

Just because you do not “remember” the priest contacting the bishop does not mean he did not. The required permission from the bishop is **not **verbal. And, one does not just pick up the phone and call the bishop. The bishop typically takes appointments only.

Permission for mixed marriage requires a document be filled out, submitted to the Bishop at the diocese, and his signature obtained. The priest could have indeed completed all the premarital paperwork after the initial conversation with your brother and sister-in-law. He would have had several meetings with them during premarital preparation in which freedom to marry is ascertained and also the permissions for mixed marriage documented along with baptismal records, etc.

There is a process. It’s not done verbally. And, you were not likely witness to it.

The other option being, of course, that the priest did not follow canon law or obtain permission from the Bishop making your brother’s marriage invalid. But, I would not presume a priest to be so neglectful of his duties. It is much more likely that you were simply not aware of all the required elements and the priests actions subsequent to this conversation.

I suggest you learn a little more about Catholic Canon Law.

 

[Julianna]

Uh, yeah, I do make this assertion** because it is true**. I don’t know what your problem is. It is easy enough to look at the requirements in canon law, but since you didn’t bother, here let me post them for you:

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

The “local ordinary” in canon law means the Bishop.

Anecdotal conversations aside, Canon Law is quite clear that a valid marriage cannot exist between a Catholic and a non-Catholic unless the Bishop expressly gives permission.

The requirements in 1956 were even more stringent than they are now. I did not say that such a marriage cannot ever take place. I said it is prohibited unless they receive permission from the Bishop and meet all of the requirements for his permission.

Just because you do not “remember” the priest contacting the bishop does not mean he did not. The required permission from the bishop is **not **verbal. And, one does not just pick up the phone and call the bishop. The bishop typically takes appointments only.

Permission for mixed marriage requires a document be filled out, submitted to the Bishop at the diocese, and his signature obtained. The priest could have indeed completed all the premarital paperwork after the initial conversation with your brother and sister-in-law. He would have had several meetings with them during premarital preparation in which freedom to marry is ascertained and also the permissions for mixed marriage documented along with baptismal records, etc.

There is a process. It’s not done verbally. And, you were not likely witness to it.

I suggest you learn a little more about Catholic Canon Law.

last comment: I have to work for a living…I can’t lock myself in room and read Canon Law all day long.

anywhoooo…I am glad they got married. Yes, it was hell for my parents…alot of back and forth. For my brother and sis in law…it was a piece of cake. Glad that is over with…

 

[1ke]

This is one of those things in which the bishop is “contacted” as a matter of course, though. The Church does not forbid marriage between Catholics and non-Catholics. It is just that while Catholics who are free to marry have the right to marry each other, they do not have a right to marry outside of the Church. They have to get permission, so the bishop can ensure that all parties know what they’re getting into. Contacting the chancery office is not something that the priest would have mentioned, though. It is expected.

Easter Joy, this simply isn’t true. Read the canon. It states that marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic is **prohibited **without the express permission of the Bishop. A Catholic does NOT have a right to marry a non-Catholic. It is not a formality, it is not a “matter of course.” It is a serious thing.

 

[1ke]

last comment: I have to work for a living…I can’t lock myself in room and read Canon Law all day long.

I work full time and have for the last 25 years.

The faith is important and I therefore make it a priority to know what I am talking about before posting, or before accusing people of “spouting off.”

 

[EasterJoy]

Easter Joy, this simply isn’t true. Read the canon. It states that marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic is **prohibited **without the express permission of the Bishop. A Catholic does NOT have a right to marry a non-Catholic. It is not a formality, it is not a “matter of course.” It is a serious thing.

I married a non-Catholic myself. My cousin married a non-baptised non-Catholic. I know what the procedures are. I wrote nothing untrue.

Re-read what I said. I wrote that Catholics who are free to marry have a right to marry each other. I said clearly that Catholics have to get permission to marry non-Catholics. The marriages are not forbidden, though. It is simply forbidden that they be done without following the procedures put in place by the local ordinary.

I also did not say that it wasn’t a serious thing. What I said was that the priest doing the investigation on behalf of the bishop is the normal course of things. Under normal circumstances, the bishop does not get personally involved. When we married, the archbishop never contacted me, his auxillary bishop never contacted me, and the priest who prepared us never mentioned to anybody that he’d contacted the archbishop directly. He could have, but it wouldn’t have been necessary. The archbishop handles many matters without directly contacting the parties concerned. He can give his consent to his staff, and they can do the rest.

All the Catholic adults in my family knew that the priest had to go over certain things with me and with my non-Catholic fiance. The bishop entrusted this duty to him, and he did it. Everybody knew that the chancery office was contacted. Everybody knew that the chancery office would follow the archbishop’s instructions to the letter. There wasn’t a reason in the world, though, that the paper documentation our priest provided to the chancery office and that the chancery office used to reply wouldn’t be sufficient. It is just the way it is done. Just because something is serious doesn’t mean that the bishop has to be contacted personally, or that there has to be a lot of fanfare that would get the attention of the relatives.

IOW, just because Julianna is not aware of any fanfare surrounding the marriages of her relatives doesn’t mean that canon law wasn’t followed. Following canon law seriously and well does not require a trumpet. No one at the chancery office needs to get a feather out of place. Generally speaking, these things are done, and done well, as a matter of course. No news is made, and that is a very good thing.

 

[Julianna]

I married a non-Catholic myself. My cousin married a non-baptised non-Catholic. I know what the procedures are. I wrote nothing untrue.

Re-read what I said. I wrote that Catholics who are free to marry have a right to marry each other. I said clearly that Catholics have to get permission to marry non-Catholics. The marriages are not forbidden, though. It is simply forbidden that they be done without following the procedures put in place by the local ordinary.

I also did not say that it wasn’t a serious thing. What I said was that the priest doing the investigation on behalf of the bishop is the normal course of things. Under normal circumstances, the bishop does not get personally involved. When we married, the archbishop never contacted me, his auxillary bishop never contacted me, and the priest who prepared us never mentioned to anybody that he’d contacted the archbishop directly. He could have, but it wouldn’t have been necessary. The archbishop handles many matters without directly contacting the parties concerned. He can give his consent to his staff, and they can do the rest.

All the Catholic adults in my family knew that the priest had to go over certain things with me and with my non-Catholic fiance. The bishop entrusted this duty to him, and he did it. Everybody knew that the chancery office was contacted. Everybody knew that the chancery office would follow the archbishop’s instructions to the letter. There wasn’t a reason in the world, though, that the paper documentation our priest provided to the chancery office and that the chancery office used to reply wouldn’t be sufficient. It is just the way it is done. Just because something is serious doesn’t mean that the bishop has to be contacted personally, or that there has to be a lot of fanfare that would get the attention of the relatives.

IOW, just because Julianna is not aware of any fanfare surrounding the marriages of her relatives doesn’t mean that canon law wasn’t followed. Following canon law seriously and well does not require a trumpet. No one at the chancery office needs to get a feather out of place. Generally speaking, these things are done, and done well, as a matter of course. No news is made, and that is a very good thing.

thank you. You explained it well…where I could understand it. There were forms and paperwork filled out…I do remember that. I appreciate your comments.

 

[why_me]

In a previous topic, it was mentioned that a Catholic should not date a Non-Catholic.

I find this to be dumb, and almost to the point of offensive. My dad was a non-Catholic before marrying my mom. If you agree to raise your children Catholic, and your spouse is fine with you being Catholic, (which if he isn’t you probably wouldn’t want not marry them), then why is is bad to marry a Non-Catholic?

There are two parts to your post. But I think that the first part deserves answering first. I suppose that when one is dating and the person dating is a catholic, dating another catholic could be the way to go. Catholics should think about chasity and modest dating. Premarital sex is a no-no. And although this is rather old fashioned it can come into play if a person is a devout catholic. She or he may experience pressure from a non-catholic to have intercourse.

Now of course if marriage is proposed and the person is a non-catholic, problems may develop according to the devoutness of the catholic. If the catholic goes to church every sunday, it is nice if the partner also attends. And when children arrive, it becomes a family event, to go to church on sunday and the faith becomes a wonderful celebration.

But on the other hand, you have read earlier posts where interfaith marriages have worked. I guess that when the decision is made, all must hope for the best regardless of the circumstance.