Insincere "conversion" -- what to say?

[jmcrae]

But does using ABC mean the Catholic couple isn’t open to children?

Being open to children means that during each sex act, both members of the couple are open to the possibility that a pregnancy may take place. Philosopher Peter Kreeft tells us that sex, rightly ordered, makes the husband and wife one flesh - and that one flesh may indeed become so individual that he takes on a life of his own, and needs a crib and a name.

Artificial birth control is a deliberate attempt by at least one member of the couple to ensure that no pregnancy will result. We see that the birth control is said to have “failed” if a pregnancy results, which tells us that the goal was to have no pregnancy. This means that during that contracepted sex act, they were not open to life.

 

[Padres1969]

Being open to children means that during each sex act, both members of the couple are open to the possibility that a pregnancy may take place. Philosopher Peter Kreeft tells us that sex, rightly ordered, makes the husband and wife one flesh - and that one flesh may indeed become so individual that he takes on a life of his own, and needs a crib and a name.

Artificial birth control is a deliberate attempt by at least one member of the couple to ensure that no pregnancy will result. We see that the birth control is said to have “failed” if a pregnancy results, which tells us that the goal was to have no pregnancy. This means that during that contracepted sex act, they were not open to life.

But for the purposes of marriage from a Catholic perspective does the same definition apply? By that I mean at the time of marriage they must be open to children right? Using ABC doesn’t negate the possibility that the couple on the balance is open to children at a later date or that they’ll be using ABC indefinitely. Yes their individual sexual acts before and perhaps immediately after their marriage might not be open to children provided ABC is being used, but that in no way means they’re not open to children in their marriage as a whole.

 

[jmcrae]

I have to say, my jaw hit my desk when I read that. I mean I get his sentiment, but to hear a bishop basically tell people who might not be the best Catholics if they were to join to leave seems wrong. Shouldn’t a shepherd of the church want as many as possible to join the flock, even if they’re not perfect?

There is a vast gulf between someone who is not perfect, and someone who is intending to be a lukewarm or bad Catholic - that is, someone who doesn’t intend to live the Catholic lifestyle or practice the faith, but who wants to receive some benefit from having the name “Catholic” or from having a Catholic Baptism certificate.

As for his assertion that there’s already enough bad or lukewarm Catholics, I’d posit that’s because the Catholic Church doesn’t let anyone leave. Many if not most of the “bad Catholics” are born into the faith and never had a say on whether they even wanted to be Catholic. If he wants bad Catholics out of the church so badly, work to let those that had no choice in becoming Catholic, to leave officially. That’ll get those “bad Catholics” off your books Your Excellency.

He has also excommunicated his fair share of bad Catholics; he isn’t a hypocrite.

Catholicism is a voluntary religion, and there are plenty of people who were baptized Catholic, who aren’t going around telling people they are Catholic while doing things that go against the faith - if the subject comes up at all, they might say that they “used to be” Catholic. It matters not even one little bit to them that the Catholic Church still considers them members of the Church.

There are also a lot of bad Catholics who sincerely believe that by undermining the teachings of the Church, and by continually mentioning that they are Catholic while doing things that go against our teachings, they will cause the Church to “progress,” which is why they don’t leave. These are the bad Catholics of whom we don’t need any more.

 

[jmcrae]

But for the purposes of marriage from a Catholic perspective does the same definition apply? By that I mean at the time of marriage they must be open to children right? Using ABC doesn’t negate the possibility that the couple on the balance is open to children at a later date or that they’ll be using ABC indefinitely. Yes their individual sexual acts before and perhaps immediately after their marriage might not be open to children provided ABC is being used, but that in no way means they’re not open to children in their marriage as a whole.

Catechism, 1643: “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter - appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.”

The whole article is here.

 

[jaimeleglise]

If a Catholic couple use artificial birth control, they are lying to both the priest and God. They are also committing a mortal sin. How can you receive graces and blessings in a situation like that?

 

[jmcrae]

Shouldn’t a shepherd of the church want as many as possible to join the flock, even if they’re not perfect?

No organization needs members who intend to undermine its mission.

 

[Padres1969]

There is a vast gulf between someone who is not perfect, and someone who is intending to be a lukewarm or bad Catholic - that is, someone who doesn’t intend to live the Catholic lifestyle or practice the faith, but who wants to receive some benefit from having the name “Catholic” or from having a Catholic Baptism certificate.

He has also excommunicated his fair share of bad Catholics; he isn’t a hypocrite.

Catholicism is a voluntary religion, and there are plenty of people who were baptized Catholic, who aren’t going around telling people they are Catholic while doing things that go against the faith - if the subject comes up at all, they might say that they “used to be” Catholic. It **matters not even one little bit to them that the Catholic Church still considers them members of the Church.
**
There are also a lot of bad Catholics who sincerely believe that by undermining the teachings of the Church, and by continually mentioning that they are Catholic while doing things that go against our teachings, they will cause the Church to “progress,” which is why they don’t leave. These are the bad Catholics of whom we don’t need any more.

I’d beg to differ being one of those that did leave and knowing a great many others who did as well. I mean technically I’d be one of those “bad Catholics” the bishop is referring to since I technically can’t leave his church by its reckoning. Granted it’s a different form of issue than those that remain Catholic and don’t abide by church teaching but the end result is similar.

 

[1ke]

But does using ABC mean the Catholic couple isn’t open to children?

No. Not per se.

A permanent intention against children is a higher threshold than simply using contraception.

 

[rcwitness]

I’d beg to differ being one of those that did leave and knowing a great many others who did as well. I mean technically I’d be one of those “bad Catholics” the bishop is referring to since I technically can’t leave his church by its reckoning. Granted it’s a different form of issue than those that remain Catholic and don’t abide by church teaching but the end result is similar.

I think the problem is people in the Church, involved in activities, enjoying privileges, seeking benefits, etc. yet reject Teachings and disciplines who are a burden for her. They are representing her while secretly opposed to her. It’s hypocrisy.

From what you have shared, about yourself, you don’t seem to be a hypocrite.

 

[exnihilo]

It’s not unheard of for people to lie to their priest about cohabitation. That in itself does not make an attempt at marriage invalid.

I know people who did it, both Catholics, and the parents complicit with the deception of mail coming to their home.

It’s a terrible thing to do, but it’s pretty common.

I’m saddened at the lack of personal integrity in our society. There isn’t even an attempt to at least keep up appearances.

 

[JimG]

At the end of the RCIA process, those who seek to join the Catholic Church make a statement of Faith to the effect that they accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. I don’t think it would be a good idea to make a false statement at such a solemn occasion.

 

[jmcrae]

At the end of the RCIA process, those who seek to join the Catholic Church make a statement of Faith to the effect that they accept all that the Catholic Church teaches. I don’t think it would be a good idea to make a false statement at such a solemn occasion.

I don’t, either. Consider the Judgement Day. The Lord will say, If you thought the Church was false, why did you join? If you thought it was true, why did you disobey? It makes no sense.

 

[Padres1969]

I’m saddened at the lack of personal integrity in our society. There isn’t even an attempt to at least keep up appearances.

One could argue that joining the Catholic Church in the manner the OP presented is exactly that, keeping up appearances.

 

[otjm]

Being open to children means that during each sex act, both members of the couple are open to the possibility that a pregnancy may take place. Philosopher Peter Kreeft tells us that sex, rightly ordered, makes the husband and wife one flesh - and that one flesh may indeed become so individual that he takes on a life of his own, and needs a crib and a name.

Artificial birth control is a deliberate attempt by at least one member of the couple to ensure that no pregnancy will result. We see that the birth control is said to have “failed” if a pregnancy results, which tells us that the goal was to have no pregnancy. This means that during that contracepted sex act, they were not open to life.

Then use of NFP woud be immoral, because the couple is planning on only having sexual relations when the wife is not fertile.

Using contraception, per se, does not mean they are not open to having a child; it only means, per se, that they are not open to having a child at that time. and that is not an impediment to a valid marriage.

If they are using contraception with the intent of never having a child, that is a different matter.

 

[otjm]

There is a vast gulf between someone who is not perfect, and someone who is intending to be a lukewarm or bad Catholic - that is, someone who doesn’t intend to live the Catholic lifestyle or practice the faith, but who wants to receive some benefit from having the name “Catholic” or from having a Catholic Baptism certificate.

He has also excommunicated his fair share of bad Catholics; he isn’t a hypocrite.

Catholicism is a voluntary religion, and there are plenty of people who were baptized Catholic, who aren’t going around telling people they are Catholic while doing things that go against the faith - if the subject comes up at all, they might say that they “used to be” Catholic. It matters not even one little bit to them that the Catholic Church still considers them members of the Church.

There are also a lot of bad Catholics who sincerely believe that by undermining the teachings of the Church, and by continually mentioning that they are Catholic while doing things that go against our teachings, they will cause the Church to “progress,” which is why they don’t leave. These are the bad Catholics of whom we don’t need any more.

and apparently, the Holy Spirit has taken a permanent vacation.

I don’t consider the bishop to be a bad person. He could have said something concerning the issue in a far different manner. I have been around liong enough (70 years) to ahve expertienced priests saying essentially the same thing, and I now have to deal with those people in Catholics Return Home, with all the anger and distrust from wht they took as a condemnation.

Christ surrounded himself with sinners. He didn’t say “Hey, you are good to go!”, but neither did He speak to them as the bishop did.

Everyone, through their lives, have to make choices, and many of them make poor, or lousy, or terrible ones. God wants all to return, and a bishop telling them if they are bad, they are not wanted is not what I hear Christ saying in the Gospels.

He could have talked about the high standards which Christ set; and the fact that we all struggle to meet them, and that we fail, on a fairly regular basis.

There are far better ways to say that following Christ is both easy and difficult, and that the Church holds up Christ as our goal. And we may be doing a terrible job, or not doing anything right; but within the Church there is forgiveness, grace, and the opportunity to grow closer the Christ.

Telling them to leave? Wow - how totally Christ-like!

NOT!..

 

[otjm]

I think the problem is people in the Church, involved in activities, enjoying privileges, seeking benefits, etc. yet reject Teachings and disciplines who are a burden for her. They are representing her while secretly opposed to her. It’s hypocrisy.

From what you have shared, about yourself, you don’t seem to be a hypocrite.

Christ died for us, so that all could be saved.

Including hypocrites.

Kinda hard to save them if the first thing you do is tell them to take a hike, because we (meaning Christ) don’t need them.

 

[otjm]

I’m saddened at the lack of personal integrity in our society. There isn’t even an attempt to at least keep up appearances.

I am too.

And I keep in mind the saying “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”

 

[otjm]

Wow.

Just, wow.

Such an enthralling thread on evangelism and seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit! Such testaments to encouraging the weak (Begone! We don’t need you!).

I am reminded of the Pharisees, and in particular the scene of the Pharisee and the sinner in temple.

Is the young woman seeking to become a Catholic wrong? Yep.

Is confronting her and beating her about the head and shouldeers in a fashion she will immediately identify as judgmental an effective way to get her to change her behavior?

I have yet to see that work.

Do we need to speak the truth? Absolutely; but if we cannot do it in a way that does not use a cudgel, then perhaps we should pray - daily - for the intervention of the Holy Spirit, and ask that same Spirit to guide us in anything we do. And in the meantime, perhaps we should shut up.

And pray more.

And perhaps we should remember that one of the really great saints of the Church was a fornicator, among other sins that they seemed intent on bringing to perfection, before their conversion experience. As in, St. Augustine.

Wonder how that would have turned out if a bishop had said the same thing to him…

 

[Reuben_J]

Then use of NFP woud be immoral, because the couple is planning on only having sexual relations when the wife is not fertile.

Using contraception, per se, does not mean they are not open to having a child; it only means, per se, that they are not open to having a child at that time. and that is not an impediment to a valid marriage.

If they are using contraception with the intent of never having a child, that is a different matter.

Open to life here must be understood in conjunction with the sex act. Husband and wife when they engage in every sex act, the couple must be open to the possibility of conception (of a child) as a result of the union - its purpose as two-fold, unity and procreation.

This is even when NFP is employed that the couple too must be open to the possibility of conception.

A candidate for Baptism or pre-nuptial couple therefore has to make that vow of accepting the belief of the Church and especially for the latter not to engage in birth control. In my area of the world, in their pre-nuptial seminar, they are especially taught this and the priest has the prerogative not to marry them if they refuse such belief.

 

[Reuben_J]

I have to say, my jaw hit my desk when I read that. I mean I get his sentiment, but to hear a bishop basically tell people who might not be the best Catholics if they were to join to leave seems wrong. Shouldn’t a shepherd of the church want as many as possible to join the flock, even if they’re not perfect?

As for his assertion that there’s already enough bad or lukewarm Catholics, I’d posit that’s because the Catholic Church doesn’t let anyone leave. Many if not most of the “bad Catholics” are born into the faith and never had a say on whether they even wanted to be Catholic. If he wants bad Catholics out of the church so badly, work to let those that had no choice in becoming Catholic, to leave officially. That’ll get those “bad Catholics” off your books Your Excellency.

It seems to me rather unkind of you to say that about the Catholic Church but you are not a Catholic, I think it is understandable. Probably there is no love lost there.

I am not surprised for a Catholic Bishop to say what he said. This is not to say that people should not become Catholics, especially sinners. Ain’t we all are. I can assure you the good Bishop certainly knew that.

But that’s not what he meant if I understand correctly when a Catholic Bishop speaks like this. He meant if you want to become Catholic, you must be sure about it and what it entails.

You see, this is the difference between Catholic and Protestant. In Catholicism, there is no “alter call”, there is no such thing after hearing a Biblical verse, a person who has never heard about Jesus accepts Him and become Christian on the spot. There is no walk in interview in Catholicism.

You have to be taught it, no less than a full liturgical calendar year, something like a year. And at the end of it, you are supposed to know enough to make an informed decision and decide whether to proceed with Baptism or not.

If the Catholic Church does not get many converts, it is perhaps of this difficulty in becoming one. People would just walk in an Evangelical church and become Christian instantly. Not in the Catholic Church.

The idea why it takes so long to become Catholic, is because the seriousness of it. It is a life changing decision and the person at least has given himself a fair chance to know what he is into.

Thus the mentioned good Bishop was quite right. If you want to become Catholic, you have to be sure that you really want to.