Judge Rules Illinois Father Cannot Take Daughter to Easter Mass

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

Bubba_Switzler

Guest
A judge ruled an Illinois father involved in a bitter divorce is not allowed to take his 3-year-old daughter to church on Easter because of a dispute over the girl’s religious upbringing, according to MyFoxChicago.com.
Click to expand...
Joseph Reyes and the child’s mother had agreed to raise their daughter in the Jewish faith, but Reyes later had her baptized in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The girl’s mother then filed a temporary restraining order to stop him from exposing the little girl to other religions.
Click to expand...
“I’m very suspicious about the family court system in this country. I think its incredibly biased against the men,” Reyes told MyFoxChicago.com. He faces a contempt charge for violating the restraining order and taking his daughter to Mass.
Click to expand...
But the mother’s lawyer said she isn’t anti-Christian and doesn’t have a problem exposing the girl to other religions – she just wants Reyes to abide by court orders.
Click to expand...
foxnews.com/us/2010/03/25/judge-rules-illinois-father-daughter-easter-mass/?test=latestnews

My first reaction to these stories, and there seem to be a lot of them, is that the courts are anti-Christian.

But the only reason that these matters fall into the hands of the court in the first place is always a “bitter divorce” which, by definition, means placing the fate of your family into the hands of a judge.
 
I agree with the judge 100%.

Being raised by a Jewish dad and non-denominational mom I understand why.
 
Bubba_Switzler said:
foxnews.com/us/2010/03/25/judge-rules-illinois-father-daughter-easter-mass/?test=latestnews

My first reaction to these stories, and there seem to be a lot of them, is that the courts are anti-Christian.

But the only reason that these matters fall into the hands of the court in the first place is always a “bitter divorce” which, by definition, means placing the fate of your family into the hands of a judge.
Click to expand...
I agree ENTIRELY with the Mother.This stupid husband should NEVER have agreed to raise the children Jewish but Catholic.He is bound by the Church to raise his children as Catholics but didn’t make that demand of his wife BEFORE he married her.What he is doing because of his own stupidity and neglect is reprehensible.He NEVER should have had his daughter baptised against his former wife’s will.He was an idiot and agreed to let the child be raised Jewish.If he was anything but a cultural Catholic he NEVER would have agreed to the child being raised Jewish.It sounds like spite to me and using the child as a pawn to get back at the ex-wife.And by the way I’m Catholic to the MAX and a man.
 
And 2…The child is Jewish regardless.

In my case the only Jews that would accept me as Jewish is Reform Jews so it didn’t matter
either way.

My dad being Jewish and mom being Christian I’m still very confused on what to believe.

Regardless how the dad feels the child is Jewish through and through and should be raised as such.

This is the very reason why Jews are against interfaith relationships and I agree 100% from my childhood.

It screws kids up being involved in these issues.
 
I’m gonna have to agree with the judge here. I strongly believe that courts should enforce any religious upbringing agreements that were made by a couple before having kids. It’s just not right for a parent to change their mind after the fact.

This really hits home for me. I would not agree to marry my husband until he caved and agreed to allow me to raise our children Catholic. I was truly ready to walk if he couldn’t accept that. He finally did. But when were ran into serious trouble after we were married and almost split up, it was a very huge concern of mine that he would go back on his word. Thank God everything worked out in the end, but I realize how different things could have been.

Unfortunately for this dad, he screwed up. Now he and his daughter have to pay the price for the choices he made. The best he can do is live the best life he can as a Catholic, be a great dad and pray that his daughter will consider converting when she becomes an adult by her own choice.
 
masondoggy said:
I’m gonna have to agree with the judge here. I strongly believe that courts should enforce any religious upbringing agreements that were made by a couple before having kids. It’s just not right for a parent to change their mind after the fact.

This really hits home for me. I would not agree to marry my husband until he caved and agreed to allow me to raise our children Catholic. I was truly ready to walk if he couldn’t accept that. He finally did. But when were ran into serious trouble after we were married and almost split up, it was a very huge concern of mine that he would go back on his word. Thank God everything worked out in the end, but I realize how different things could have been.

Unfortunately for this dad, he screwed up. Now he and his daughter have to pay the price for the choices he made. The best he can do is live the best life he can as a Catholic, be a great dad and pray that his daughter will consider converting when she becomes an adult by her own choice.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%.I refused to marry my now former wife unless she agreed to have our child(ren) raised Catholic and that I would be entirely responsible for their catachesis.Upon our separation she took the boy on holiday to Boston and of course refused to take him to mass even after he begged her to.She told me she couldn’t find a Catholic Church…in Boston.Our divorce agreement stipulated that I get my son from Friday at 4pm till Monday at 8am.For twelve years I had my son every single weekend except for two due to illness.From the time he was an infant till now as a 15 year old he has come to mass with me for all masses plus of obligation.Today I have custody .He attends a very religious Catholic Highschool.is an altarserver,looks forward to being a Knight and is considering the priesthood and he’s 1000 times a better Catholic than I was at his age.
 
sidbrown said:
How would that be if the child has been baptised a Catholic?
Click to expand...
The Jewish line is matrilineal,but now that she’s baptised se’s technically both.There are many hebrew Catholics or protestant-Jews
 
sidbrown said:
How would that be if the child has been baptised a Catholic?
Click to expand...
If you mother and grandmothers are Jewish then you are Jewish because it’s maternal.

Regardless of what religion you follow you are still 100% Jewish.

You can be a member of say the Catholic church BUT your still Jewish.
 
Bishop93 said:
If you mother and grandmothers are Jewish then you are Jewish because it’s maternal.

Regardless of what religion you follow you are still 100% Jewish.

You can be a member of say the Catholic church BUT your still Jewish.
Click to expand...
Not really. You are Catholic if you have been baptised. You are no longer a Jew.
 
Soutane said:
The Jewish line is matrilineal,but now that she’s baptised se’s technically both.There are many hebrew Catholics or protestant-Jews
Click to expand...
No she’s not both because until she turns 12 and decides for herself to be Catholic the baptism she had is completely irrelevant.

Yes there are a lot of Jews that follow other religions BUT not until they reach the age of 13 for boys and 12 for girls which is when you are grown in Jewish law according to the Torah.
 
Bishop93 said:
No she’s not both because until she turns 12 and decides for herself to be Catholic the baptism she had is completely irrelevant.

Yes there are a lot of Jews that follow other religions BUT not until they reach the age of 13 for boys and 12 for girls which is when you are grown in Jewish law according to the Torah.
Click to expand...
No. this is wrong. You are a Catholic according to the Roman Catholic Church, immediately after you have been baptised. It doesn’t matter what your maternal line was.
 
sidbrown said:
No. this is wrong. You are a Catholic according to the Roman Catholic Church, immediately after you have been baptised. It doesn’t matter what your maternal line was.
Click to expand...
No,that is completely wrong according to Jewish Law.

Catholic Law has no relevance when they agreed to raise her Jewish.

She is Jewish NOT Catholic and until she reaches 12 and decides for herself to be Catholic the baptism she got is irrelevant.

Even if she decides to convert to Catholicism when she’s older she will STILL be Jewish by heritage.
 
Bishop93 said:
No,that is completely wrong according to Jewish Law.

Catholic Law has no relevance when they agreed to raise her Jewish.

She is Jewish NOT Catholic and until she reaches 12 and decides for herself to be Catholic the baptism she got is irrelevant.

Even if she decides to convert to Catholicism when she’s older she will STILL be Jewish by heritage.
Click to expand...
This is false according to Pope Pius IX. There is a historical case involving a Jewish boy who was baptised by the housekeeper against the will of his Jewish parents. It was required by law that he be brought up as a Catholic, regardless of what his Jewish parents wanted.
 
sidbrown said:
This is false according to Pope Pius IX. There is a historical case involving a Jewish boy who was baptised by the housekeeper against the will of his Jewish parents. It was required by law that he be brought up as a Catholic, regardless of what his Jewish parents wanted.
Click to expand...
Yes and that was a despicable act that I’m surprised that you’re not ashamed of!

In 1858 the Catholic Church had authority that they don’t have now.

In Catholic Law…You’re probably right but…

They agreed to raised the child as a Jew therefore what Pope Pius IX says doesn’t matter.

The kid is being raised Jewish therefore ONLY Jewish Law applies and everything else is irrelevant until she is 12 yrs. old.
 
Bishop93 said:
Yes and that was a despicable act that I’m surprised that you’re not ashamed of!

In 1858 the Catholic Church had authority that they don’t have now.

In Catholic Law…You’re probably right but…

They agreed to raised the child as a Jew therefore what Pope Pius IX says doesn’t matter.

The kid is being raised Jewish therefore ONLY Jewish Law applies and everything else is irrelevant until she is 12 yrs. old.
Click to expand...
This is an ad hominem argument that I should be ashamed of this or that. It has nothing to do with the fact that according to the Catholic law you are a Catholic once you have been baptised.
 
sidbrown said:
This is an ad hominem argument that I should be ashamed of this or that. It has nothing to do with the fact that according to the Catholic law you are a Catholic once you have been baptised.
Click to expand...
And according to Jewish law(a religion you are literally born into-not baptized into)…Once a Jew always a Jew regardless of how many times you are baptized.

You can be baptized in every Church in America BUT you’re still Jewish.

You are free to practice any religion you want to when you become an adult(12 for girls 13 for boys)…BUT again you are still Jewish.

This little girl in question is Jewish until if/when she decides otherwise.

According to this judge…She’s not going to mass anytime soon anyway.
 
Bishop93 said:
And according to Jewish law(a religion you are literally born into-not baptized into)…Once a Jew always a Jew regardless of how many times you are baptized.

You can be baptized in every Church in America BUT you’re still Jewish.

You are free to practice any religion you want to when you become an adult(12 for girls 13 for boys)…BUT again you are still Jewish.

This little girl in question is Jewish until if/when she decides otherwise.

According to this judge…She’s not going to mass anytime soon anyway.
Click to expand...
I think that this is a Catholic forum, and as Catholics we follow the Catholic law here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top