Marriage between a Roman Catholic and an Agnostic

[KarenElissa]

This idea of RCIA has been mentioned by a couple of people and is beginning to intrigue me. My question is, what exactly does it entail? Other than for a purely scholastic experience, I don’t know how useful it will be. My boyfriend and I are both very happy with our own brands of “faith,” even if they’re not what a devout Catholic may agree with.

I started reading this thread one day when I was busy procrastinating and got a bit hooked. So now I’ll actually throw in my two cents.

The main reason for RCIA is for people who are interested in becoming Catholic. It is a class that covers the basics of the Catholic faith so they know what they are getting into. It usually involves a class once a week or so with a speaker and some discussion, that kind of thing. Often people who are just curious about the faith but don’t want to actually become Catholic or people who are already Catholic but would like to learn more about their faith attend. It is just a good overview for anyone in those groups.

As for what the use would be, maybe just a scholastic experience, I don’t know. It would give you both a chance to learn some of the whys behind the beliefs of the Church, as well as the whats. It may not change anything, but being more educated about something is always a good thing, right?

 

[ABello]

Sorry it took so long, everyone, but here are some of my responses to the questions and concerns that arose.

To Therese1:
“A once luke-warm Catholic may very well find himself looking at life in a different manner after children arrive. That is something I was not prepared for, nor my husband. We went opposite directions.”
True, but I would argue that it would be more likely that we’d go in the same direction. I can’t offer any more support for this claim other than the fact that I know and trust my boyfriend. I mentioned earlier that I trust the promises we make to one another, and the vows we will make to each other on our wedding day. A number of things could happen, but to a certain extent I believe one has to trust in their spouse, and trust that what they’re saying is true.

To Feanaro’s Wife:
“After all, to think it won’t happen to me is a bit of an insult to the people it does happen to…”
Absolutely correct. There’s the idea that, with anything that’s bad, “it won’t happen to me”. In a lot of ways this is niave. It COULD happen to you, (whatever it is) and you’d best face that as a possibility. However, on the other hand, I believe harm can be done by focusing on what “could happen”. Back in school, if you walked into a test and already decided that you were going to fail, you probably did. Walk like a winner, and you’ll come out like a winner. I believe that it’s all really part preparation (whether it be a test, or marriage) and part attitude.

To wanner47:
“If you do not believe it and LIVE it as well, your child will ultimately come to the conclusion that it’s false or not important. Their thought processes will be, “Well, Mom and Dad don’t believe it it, so why should I?””
I can really only stretch so far. I can’t “force” myself to believe something that I quite simply, don’t. I certainly hope that my child’s though process would be “Well, Dad believes it and Mom doesn’t…looks like I’ll have to decide for myself”.

“If your intention is to expose your child to all religions and let them choose, please don’t. It does so much more harm that good. This thread goes into detail about that.”
I think perhaps I’m not being clear here. We don’t intend to raise a child without values and morals. We don’t intend to raise a child without God or faith. Letting a child choose what to believe is not the same as choosing to eat meat and proteins or not. Let me put it this way: of course, you’re going to have to make decisions for your children and “make” them do things. After all, they’re children and you’re a parent – it comes with the territory. “Yes, you need to eat your chicken. You don’t have to believe that it’s good for you, but as your parents, we believe it is. When you’re older, you can stop eating chicken”. The same tune goes for religion: “Yes, Daddy believes in God. You don’t have to believe in God. You have to go to church. When you’re older, you can stop going to church. At any age, you can believe whatever you want.”

I can’t think of a parent who would tell their children what political party to vote for. So, put a different way: “Your father and I vote for the Liberal (Democratic) party. We support this party for reasons X, Y and Z. You don’t have to support this party if you don’t want to. You can vote for whoever you’d like.”

“Why, then, is he Catholic? Would he rather be a member of a church that he DOES agree with 100% (No hostility or offense intended by this question.)”
Your point is entirely valid (and no offence taken! ). Catholicism to my boyfriend, is made up of partly belief, and partly community. He believes in most of the teachings of the Catholic church (“Cafeteria Catholic,” “Liberal” or “Progressive Catholic”, “New-age hippie Catholic”…take your pick). Overall, he believes that the good outweighs the bad. I asked him the question that you posed, if he would prefer a religion where he believed it all. Ultimately, his answer was no, for two main reasons:

1) He doesn’t want to give up on Catholicism. He thinks there’s room for change, it’s time for change, and he’d like to see it happen.

2) Church = family. In a way, quite literally…his whole family goes together. They have their own pew and everything. Plus, he knows the priest, and feels “connected” to his parish. He was involved in world youth day with his church, and he really digs these people. This sense of community isn’t something he wants to give up on because of a few disagreements.

“It’s not a bad thing per se, but it doesn’t seem to me to be an honest thing.”
I can see why this would feel dishonest. I didn’t feel comfortable with being in a church that I didn’t believe in, so I too left. My boyfriend, however, doesn’t feel the least bit dishonest about his faith, and I agree with him. He’s never claimed to believe something he didn’t, and he’s very honest about his faith and who he is. He’s not lying to himself, nor is he lying to others. He doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church 100%, but I assure you he’s never pretended that he did.

“One of these is the belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, which you’ve indicated your boyfriend does not believe.”
I’m not sure where this came from. I likely wasn’t clear about something along the way, and you’ll have to excuse me. My boyfriend does believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, I just may have worded something incorrectly (as it’s not something that I myself really understand).

“However, they’re still obligated to follow the law of the land even if they disagree, or there will be consequences. It’s the same in the Church (except that the consequences are spiritual rather than civil in nature).”
Perhaps, but every law is open to interpretation. Over time, laws change. I believe that my boyfriend believes that breaking certain laws will not lead to eternal damnation. The same can be said for state laws. Something to the tune of “In Alabama, you can’t have an iced cream cone in your back pocket”. Well, I’m going to guess that this one isn’t that heavily enforced.

To KarenElissa:
First off, welcome!

“It would give you both a chance to learn some of the whys behind the beliefs of the Church, as well as the whats. It may not change anything, but being more educated about something is always a good thing, right?”
I agree. Perhaps not right now, but maybe later on down the road we’ll look into making this our new learning project.

 

[Therese1]

I am certain that right now you are both in love and completely honest. I know that my husband was being honestly supportive of my faith journey at the time. I’m just trying to point out for you to be prepared for one or the other of you to convert more deeply than the other. Yes, trust is vital to your relationship, but neither you nor your future spouse has any idea what changes will occur three years from now. We are all constantly growing and changing. If you at least are aware of this now it will not be such a such or unexpected as it was with me. I will make my marriage work because I am determined to be what God wants me to be. You are already in love and already committed to this person, and that’s how I felt. Just be prepared for possibilities and discuss them with your future spouse. If you do this ahead of time, you will be miles ahead later on. God bless, Therese1

 

[ecp007]

I like this question….but certainly not because I think it’s easy! I think every child should have a certain degree of choice, but it should be tailored to their age and abilities. What I’m saying is that by slowly allowing our children to think for themselves, we’re teaching them to be self-sufficient adults. Please understand that I DON’T mean we should throw them into the Catholicism-Agnostic pool of confusion and see if they can swim. What my boyfriend and I would both like is for our children to be raised with strong morals and values, and to understand the important message that the story of Christ holds. As they age and become more inquisitive, we can answer their questions appropriately. Once they’re older, they can decide if the story of Christ is more metaphorical or literal, or if they’d rather adopt a whole new belief system all together. I find that a lot of people have expressed concern over “confusing” the children. Children will only be confused if you allow their religious upbringing to be confusing. What I hope to get across here is that with careful parenting, I have no doubt that our children will be well-adjusted.

You seem very smart, and honestly contemplating an important issue, so I appreciate your time and effort in this area. I wish all future spouses would be so pensive! I guess I have a few questions for you?
You say that you had a Catholic upbring, including attending Catholic school. In what way did that upbringing not allow you to think for yourself, to have choice, and to decide that you are agnostic?

Sadly, I have spoken to many highschool students that are products of the Catholic Schools in my home town that call themselves “Agnostic”. I believe that being taught all of the “steps and rules” of the Church, by teachers who were “Cafeteria Catholics” themselves gives them a really poor understanding of the profundity of our religion. They know all the “hows” but not the “whys”, which makes the “hows” seem silly and meaningless.

You say you are a scientist, and so am I (I hold a master’s degree in Electrical Engineering) and have worked my entire life (almost 20 years now in a fortune 100 company) with facts, and statistics, and numbers. Please, without meaning to cause offense. Your understanding of what it is to be Catholic, reminds me of my understanding of my “Logics” class my freshman year in college. I was brilliant in Calculus, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. But, since I attended an all girls Catholic school, they never had any practicle labs on electronics. I remember my “Logics” class being so easy for my friends from public school who had taken a simple “shop class”. But I didn’t know what an “NAND gate” actually was or a “circuit”, so I did my best to memorize everything, managing to squeak by with a C. It wasn’t until my senior year, that I took a lab where I actually used a “NAND gate to build a circuit”, that I understood what it was all about. And then looking back, it was like “Now it all makes sense”.

Without experiencing the fullness and beauty and profundigy of the Catholic Christian experience, I’m afraid you are squeeking by life with only a “C”

God calls us. He chooses us, we don’t choose Him. That fact that both you and your boyfriend are spending so much time on this website, and giving this topic so much time, means that somewhere, God has planted a seed in your heart. Be it a seed of skeptisism, or a seed of “God exists only if you believe He does”, but somewhere, He is leading you to the truth. Please, continue to be “inquisitive” and “open minded”, continue to “think for yourself”, and “choose”. But make an informed choice, not one based on ignorace and half truths.

Please attend RCIA.

 

[jmcrae]

I am just thinking that when I was 21, I had about half the vocabulary that I have right now - that is to say, I could only think coherently about half the things that I can think coherently about, today.

Maybe I was a dumber kid than most - certainly, nobody has ever pounded at my door to offer me a membership in Mensa.

But it occurs to me that the more I learned, and the more vocabulary I picked up, meaning, the more stuff I could start thinking about, the more my ideas changed. I’m not the same person today that I was at 21 - nor would I want to be.

The Catholic Church wasn’t even on my radar (that happened when I was 22) - other than in the most general possible sense, I had no idea that it even existed. If someone had told me then that some day I would be a Catholic, I not only wouldn’t have believed them, I wouldn’t even have understood what they were talking about.

Anyhow, I guess my point is, after all that - 21 is very young. It’s impossible to predict the future at that age. You cannot say for certain, “I will do this; I will do that. I will react to this situation in this way, and to that situation in that way.” Not in any long-term way.

 

[wanner47]

To wanner47:
“If you do not believe it and LIVE it as well, your child will ultimately come to the conclusion that it’s false or not important. Their thought processes will be, “Well, Mom and Dad don’t believe it it, so why should I?””
I can really only stretch so far. I can’t “force” myself to believe something that I quite simply, don’t. I certainly hope that my child’s though process would be “Well, Dad believes it and Mom doesn’t…looks like I’ll have to decide for myself”.

I think it’s more complicated than that. Kids aren’t quite that logical – at least not for a long time. All they will see is that mommy doesn’t have to go to Mass, and mommy doesn’t believe, so why should they?

“If your intention is to expose your child to all religions and let them choose, please don’t. It does so much more harm that good. This thread goes into detail about that.”
I think perhaps I’m not being clear here. We don’t intend to raise a child without values and morals. We don’t intend to raise a child without God or faith. Letting a child choose what to believe is not the same as choosing to eat meat and proteins or not. Let me put it this way: of course, you’re going to have to make decisions for your children and “make” them do things. After all, they’re children and you’re a parent – it comes with the territory. “Yes, you need to eat your chicken. You don’t have to believe that it’s good for you, but as your parents, we believe it is. When you’re older, you can stop eating chicken”. The same tune goes for religion: “Yes, Daddy believes in God. You don’t have to believe in God. You have to go to church. When you’re older, you can stop going to church. At any age, you can believe whatever you want.”

A good philosophy, but with one exception – if you marry in the CC, you will promise to raise your child to believe in God. Telling your kids that they don’t have to would violate that promise, and it would violate the promises you’ll make at their baptisms…

I can’t think of a parent who would tell their children what political party to vote for. So, put a different way: “Your father and I vote for the Liberal (Democratic) party. We support this party for reasons X, Y and Z. You don’t have to support this party if you don’t want to. You can vote for whoever you’d like.”

Right, but you don’t make a solemn vow and promise to God to raise them in a political party.

“Why, then, is he Catholic? Would he rather be a member of a church that he DOES agree with 100% (No hostility or offense intended by this question.)”
Your point is entirely valid (and no offence taken! ). Catholicism to my boyfriend, is made up of partly belief, and partly community. He believes in most of the teachings of the Catholic church (“Cafeteria Catholic,” “Liberal” or “Progressive Catholic”, “New-age hippie Catholic”…take your pick). Overall, he believes that the good outweighs the bad. I asked him the question that you posed, if he would prefer a religion where he believed it all. Ultimately, his answer was no, for two main reasons:

1) He doesn’t want to give up on Catholicism. He thinks there’s room for change, it’s time for change, and he’d like to see it happen.

2) Church = family. In a way, quite literally…his whole family goes together. They have their own pew and everything. Plus, he knows the priest, and feels “connected” to his parish. He was involved in world youth day with his church, and he really digs these people. This sense of community isn’t something he wants to give up on because of a few disagreements.

What disagreements, specifically?

If he’s hoping the Church will change its views on women priests or contraception or same-sex marriage, it won’t happen. It simply won’t. Truth is not determined by majority vote, as B16 has said.

Moreover, disagreement on fundamental issues such as the ones listed above means that your boyfriend doesn’t believe in the teaching authority of the Church. Why does he want to be in a Church that he believes is in error? How will that benefit him spiritually?

Community is all well and good, but it’s not a reason to stay in a religion if you sincerely believe that religion is in error. Almost my entire extended family is Lutheran and it was hard to leave that “community.” But I had to seek the Truth. That took precedence.
Again, no offense intended. These are questions I struggled with myself while a Lutheran.

“It’s not a bad thing per se, but it doesn’t seem to me to be an honest thing.”
I can see why this would feel dishonest. I didn’t feel comfortable with being in a church that I didn’t believe in, so I too left. My boyfriend, however, doesn’t feel the least bit dishonest about his faith, and I agree with him. He’s never claimed to believe something he didn’t, and he’s very honest about his faith and who he is. He’s not lying to himself, nor is he lying to others. He doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church 100%, but I assure you he’s never pretended that he did.

Does your boyfriend realize that act of taking the Eucharist means assenting to unity with the Church in ALL its doctrines – including that of the Church’s teaching authority? That is one of the main reasons why non-Catholics cannot partake. If he is going to communion and accepting the Eucharist while knowingly in dissent against the Church on non-negotiable issues, then he IS being dishonest. He’s outwardly professing unity while inwardly dissenting.

“One of these is the belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, which you’ve indicated your boyfriend does not believe.”
I’m not sure where this came from. I likely wasn’t clear about something along the way, and you’ll have to excuse me. My boyfriend does believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, I just may have worded something incorrectly (as it’s not something that I myself really understand).

My apologies. I’m glad I was mistaken. Still, that makes my above concern all the more worrisome.

“However, they’re still obligated to follow the law of the land even if they disagree, or there will be consequences. It’s the same in the Church (except that the consequences are spiritual rather than civil in nature).”
Perhaps, but every law is open to interpretation. Over time, laws change. I believe that my boyfriend believes that breaking certain laws will not lead to eternal damnation. The same can be said for state laws. Something to the tune of “In Alabama, you can’t have an iced cream cone in your back pocket”. Well, I’m going to guess that this one isn’t that heavily enforced.

Some of the Church’s teachings are *not *open to interpretation, and violating them knowingly may indeed lead to eternal damnation (if the person is knowingly and willfully rejecting Christ and the teachings of his Church.)

 

[jmcrae]

“One of these is the belief of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, which you’ve indicated your boyfriend does not believe.”
I’m not sure where this came from. I likely wasn’t clear about something along the way, and you’ll have to excuse me. My boyfriend does believe in the real presence in the Eucharist, I just may have worded something incorrectly (as it’s not something that I myself really understand).

You said something to the effect that he would tell his own seven year old child, while preparing for First Holy Communion, that she or he is not required to “really believe” that it is Jesus.

Jesus is our Creator. To deny your Creator while receiving Him in Holy Communion (that is, while your Creator is in your mouth) is one of those things that is simply unthinkable - a Catholic who believes in the Eucharist would not be able to think such a thought in any serious way.

Do you know what happened to the Lapsi, in the Early Church? The Lapsi were people who had been Catholic, but who, when they were taken to the arena to be eaten by lions, recanted their faith in Jesus, and had their lives spared by the Roman Emperor.

When they returned, the Church excommunicated them. They were not considered worthy to be allowed to go to Mass, nor to associate with Catholics at all. One of the great arguments of the Early Church was, should they be completely excommunicated, or should they be allowed to do 25 years of penance, in sack cloth and ashes, begging for their food and confessing their inability to stand up for Christ in the face of the lions at the arena - and then, after living like that for 25 years, then be allowed to come back to Mass, and (after making a full confession of their sins in public) be allowed to receive the Eucharist again.

Now, looking at it with modern eyes, we probably think that this is very unfair - after all, who in their right mind could be expected to keep hold of their faith in Jesus when they are about to be eaten by a lion? Fear and lying - saying absolutely anything to get out of it - are perfectly natural reactions to this situation.

But, what the reaction of the Church to the Lapsi did was, it gave an extra push - something bigger and scarier than merely being eaten by a lion, to fear, for those who did, in fact, become Saints. Because they would rather be eaten by a lion, than be cut off from the Eucharist.

This is how seriously we take the Eucharist. This is how seriously we want our kids to take the Eucharist. So, under no circumstances would we ever want to tell our kids, “It’s okay not to believe in it.”

Millions of Lapsi would rise up from Hell and haunt us, I think, if we were ever to approve such a course of action.

 

[ABello]

You guys exhaust me. You make me really work for it, and constantly keep me thinking. I love it, so thank you

To Therese1:
“You say that you had a Catholic upbring, including attending Catholic school. In what way did that upbringing not allow you to think for yourself, to have choice, and to decide that you are agnostic?”
My upbringing did allow me to think for myself. My Catholic upbringing was the “light beer” version of Catholicism, so to speak, so I cannot say whether or not a strict Catholic upbringing would have permitted this same freedom.

“I believe that being taught all of the “steps and rules” of the Church, by teachers who were “Cafeteria Catholics” themselves gives them a really poor understanding of the profundity of our religion. They know all the “hows” but not the “whys”, which makes the “hows” seem silly and meaningless.”
I agree. The Catholic schools in my province certainly seem to echo the type you’re speaking of.
Just as an FYI for those who are interested: In Ontario (and perhaps the other provinces as well, I’m not certain), there are two types of public schools: real public schools, and Catholic public schools. Both receive government funding, which I gather is not the case with Catholic schools in the United States. The “Catholicism” that is taught in these schools, since they are publicly funded, is “watered down” to say the least. These schools are still subjected to the same curriculum as the rest of the public schools. So while in religion class you might learn that abstinence is best, in next period health class you’d be learning how to put on a condom.

“Without experiencing the fullness and beauty and profundigy of the Catholic Christian experience, I’m afraid you are squeeking by life with only a “C””
Well here I am, trying to get some extra credit. I’ve never claimed that I knew much about the Catholic faith, and I’m certainly trying to know more.

To jmcrae:
“Anyhow, I guess my point is, after all that - 21 is very young. It’s impossible to predict the future at that age. You cannot say for certain, “I will do this; I will do that. I will react to this situation in this way, and to that situation in that way.” Not in any long-term way.”
Once upon a time, a long time ago, I thought 21 was really old (HA!) Now at 21, I feel like just an infant. I agree that I can’t know the future for certain (and I believe I’ve touched upon this a little earlier).

To wanner47:
“All they will see is that mommy doesn’t have to go to Mass, and mommy doesn’t believe, so why should they?”
First off, I think you’re underestimating the influence of DADDY going to mass. Action is just as powerful as inaction. Also, I don’t quite understand your point. Is it that you suggest I go to mass to give the illusion that I believe?

“if you marry in the CC, you will promise to raise your child to believe in God.”
I’m still struggling with this. Is the promise that I would be making to raise my children in the Catholic belief system, or to raise them to believe in God and Catholicism? To me, there’s a very subtle but important difference. The former, I can do…the latter is something I am NOT prepared to do, as I don’t believe you can/should force someone to believe something.

“What disagreements, specifically?”
Oh boy…can of worms: contraception, pre marital sex, homosexuality, just to name “the big three”. I can feel that this isn’t going to be pretty Bring it on, I’m ready.

“Community is all well and good, but it’s not a reason to stay in a religion if you sincerely believe that religion is in error.”
Believing that the Church is “in error” clearly holds more weight for some than for others. I understand that you (and what appears to be a large number of people on this site) believe that obedience to the Church’s teachings is obligatory (correct me if I’ve gotten this all wrong). My boyfriend believes many of the teachings of the Catholic Church, but not all. This, coupled with the community aspect, is enough for him to stay.

“Does your boyfriend realize that act of taking the Eucharist means assenting to unity with the Church in ALL its doctrines – including that of the Church’s teaching authority?”
I can’t answer this question (I haven’t had the opportunity to ask him and I’m really not sure what it means). Could you or anyone else possibly suggest a source that explains that taking the Eucharist means agreeing with all church doctrines? Preferably a laymen’s version, I’m afraid

To jmcrae (again):
“You said something to the effect that he would tell his own seven year old child, while preparing for First Holy Communion, that she or he is not required to “really believe” that it is Jesus.”
Ah-ha…I’ve dug up where this came from. Here’s the initial quote I believe you’re referring to:

To ThyKingdomCome:
“you listen while he teaches her about the real presence in the Eucharist and he teaches her that it’s not ok to believe otherwise” My boyfriend and I both believe is IS ok to believe otherwise.
I understand the confusion now, so please allow me to set the record straight. It is NOT ok to carry on with First Communion if one does not “really believe” that it is Jesus. This belief is paramount to the sacrament. However, it IS ok to NOT believe in Jesus, and to not believe that the host is really Jesus. In this case, First Communion would be an inappropriate course of action.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

“if you marry in the CC, you will promise to raise your child to believe in God.”
I’m still struggling with this. Is the promise that I would be making to raise my children in the Catholic belief system, or to raise them to believe in God and Catholicism? To me, there’s a very subtle but important difference. The former, I can do…the latter is something I am NOT prepared to do,** as I don’t believe you can/should force someone to believe something.**

**Sure you do. You will “force” your kid(s) to believe that playing with fire can be dangerous, that running across a busy road could get them killed, that talking to strangers may not be a wise thing to do… that if you jump from a building you will NOT fly, etc etc etc.

As parents it is our job to educate and instruct. We teach our children the truth about life. For Catholics that truth involves all matters of faith. It is not optional. We teach our children about Jesus in the same way as we would teach about gravity…it’s just a given.**

“What disagreements, specifically?”
Oh boy…can of worms: contraception, pre marital sex, homosexuality, just to name “the big three”. I can feel that this isn’t going to be pretty Bring it on, I’m ready.

**Well, what you have just listed are all sexual in nature. I would think that the sexual “rules” are some of the most difficult to accept. It is pretty easy for most people to agree with “thou shall not murder” (well, not in the case of abortion, but that’s a different matter) but when it comes to sex this culture has given us the mistaken impression that it’s “personal”. God has no business in our bedrooms… but sex is one of the most beautiful creations. The way we abuse and misuse this wonderful gift is very sad.

So, if those are some of his objections I suggest you guys start your new study adventure by learning about sex and marriage. I didn’t understand any of what your boyfriend is having trouble with before my conversion. But since I started to believe in God I had to assume that one of us was wrong…didn’t seem likely that it would be God… so if your boyfriend believes in God he needs to ask himself who is more likely to be right…him, or God?**

 

[Carjack1]

I don’t believe that you can force someone to believe something that they don’t. So in that case A Bello I agree with you. It would be odd if you were to force a child to believe something that you do not believe entirely. You can teach them the Catholic Faith, but you can’t force one to believe. If the child questions, why isn’t mom going to Mass? You can reply because I do not believe and I will not be a hyprocrite and attend in something I do not believe. In other words, don’t lie to your children about your beliefs.

 

[ABello]

To Feanaro’s Wife:
“You will “force” your kid(s) to believe that playing with fire can be dangerous…”
I see your point, and we’re basically talking about the same things but with subtle differences. You tell your kid that they CANNOT jump from buildings, that part is non-negotiable. Also, you tell them that you shouldn’t jump from a building, because of X, Y, and Z. You hope that they’d believe you, because, well, this is something that’s based on hard science and it’s something you believe yourself. In essence, I think you can tell someone what I believe, but not force them. When it boils down to it, you kid can believe whatever they want…the fact still remains that “as long as you live under MY roof, there will be NO jumping from roofs!”
The difference with belief in God, is that this is something that I don’t believe in, and it’s not based on science. I could not, in good conscience, sell something I wasn’t buying.

“It is not optional. We teach our children about Jesus in the same way as we would teach about gravity…it’s just a given.”
As a non-Catholic, I cannot do this. Gravity is a fact…Jesus is a belief. Although some Catholics might see the two as equals, my boyfriend and I do not.

“So, if those are some of his objections I suggest you guys start your new study adventure by learning about sex and marriage.”
I understand that once you accept certain beliefs, the rest become “easy” so to speak. Once one accepts that the bible is the true word, following it doesn’t become so hard. The way I see it (and this is a bit of a tangent) is that there are effectively 4 degrees of separation between you and I:

1. Belief in God – I think most (but not all) people would agree that existence in God cannot be proven. What is required, is a leap of faith. I’m certainly not ready for that leap yet, and I don’t know if I’ll ever be.
2. Belief in Jesus as the Son of God – Once again, I’m not sure how one gets to this point. Proof only goes so far, and I’m sure many of you understand that the “because the bible tells us so” argument holds no water.
3. Belief that the bible is the word of God – I have a lot of difficulty with this one. I see a lot of supporting evidence for both sides of the argument. Does anyone think this can be verified, or does it require another leap of faith?
4. The belief that the bible has no flaws, and is 100% internally consistent – the bible was written by man, and I really don’t see it as being likely that they were as accurate as they need to be. In order for one to accept all the rules within it, the bible has to be iron clad. Belief that even one item may be out of order challenges the validity of the whole thing.

So what I’m curious about (and I’m still off-topic here) is how do you get to overcome these hurdles of uncertainty, and arrive at a religion based on faith? You mentioned that in your own conversion, CAF played a role. So far, I’ve seen nothing in these forums that have pushed me in the direction of Catholicism, mainly because they’re all based on the Catholic belief that the bible is fact.

To Carjack1:
“You can reply because I do not believe and I will not be a hyprocrite and attend in something I do not believe. In other words, don’t lie to your children about your beliefs.”
I agree.

 

[wanner47]

To wanner47:
“All they will see is that mommy doesn’t have to go to Mass, and mommy doesn’t believe, so why should they?”
First off, I think you’re underestimating the influence of DADDY going to mass. Action is just as powerful as inaction. Also, I don’t quite understand your point. Is it that you suggest I go to mass to give the illusion that I believe?

My point is that it is VERY important for parents to have a unified faith life, otherwise the children receive a very mixed and confusing message.

“if you marry in the CC, you will promise to raise your child to believe in God.”
I’m still struggling with this. Is the promise that I would be making to raise my children in the Catholic belief system, or to raise them to believe in God and Catholicism? To me, there’s a very subtle but important difference. The former, I can do…the latter is something I am NOT prepared to do, as I don’t believe you can/should force someone to believe something.

Re: your bolded portion – to Catholics, they are one and the same. You cannot separate the two. What, in your opinion, is the difference? It is something you can articulate or just a “feeling”?

“What disagreements, specifically?”
Oh boy…can of worms: contraception, pre marital sex, homosexuality, just to name “the big three”. I can feel that this isn’t going to be pretty Bring it on, I’m ready.

Well, there are numerous threads about those subjects already on these forums, so I won’t go into them here. But suffice it to say that if your boyfriend disagrees with the above, then he is not in full unity with the CC and should NOT be taking the Eucharist.

“Community is all well and good, but it’s not a reason to stay in a religion if you sincerely believe that religion is in error.”
Believing that the Church is “in error” clearly holds more weight for some than for others. I understand that you (and what appears to be a large number of people on this site) believe that obedience to the Church’s teachings is obligatory (correct me if I’ve gotten this all wrong). My boyfriend believes many of the teachings of the Catholic Church, but not all. This, coupled with the community aspect, is enough for him to stay.

It mattters not what I or other Catholics believe. What’s important is that the Catholic Church itself teaches that obedience to Her teachings is obligatory. There are certain matters where Catholics can legitimately hold differing opinions (e.g., capital punishment), but the “big three” you mentioned (for example) are not in this category.

“Does your boyfriend realize that act of taking the Eucharist means assenting to unity with the Church in ALL its doctrines – including that of the Church’s teaching authority?”
I can’t answer this question (I haven’t had the opportunity to ask him and I’m really not sure what it means). Could you or anyone else possibly suggest a source that explains that taking the Eucharist means agreeing with all church doctrines? Preferably a laymen’s version, I’m afraid

This is a letter from former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). Its context is politicians who speak out in favor of abortion receiving Communion (or rather, the inappropriateness of this), but it also applies here:

“1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).”

This is a good definition of what it means to be in full communion with the Church:

"How do we know what the Church believes? A good start is the Catechism. As the Pope writes in the introduction, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.” The Pope, and each bishop in the world, is telling us that the Catechism contains what the Catholic Church believes. That, then, is what we as Catholics believe.

Bishop Anthony Pilla, a former president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated at one of the group’s national meetings, “Essential to true reconciliation within the Church is the principle that being Catholic is not a purely personal and subjective matter but is something that involves accepting Church teaching and practice.”

The Catechism gives us Church teaching and practice. We need to accept these teachings and adhere to them with a religious assent. If we don’t, what happens? If you call yourself Catholic but you want to pick and choose which of the Church’s teachings you will accept and which you will reject, you give everyone else who calls himself “Catholic” the right to do the same.

For example, let’s say you believe women should be allowed to be priests. Turn to the Catechism, paragraph 1577, which states, “Only a baptized man validly receives ordination. . . . For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.” You reject that teaching? Okay, that’s fine. Please rip that page out of your Catechism. There. You just made it the Catechism of your Catholic Church, but not of mine.

Remember, if you can throw doctrines out, so can everyone else who calls himself Catholic. That gives Joe Parishioner over at St. Doubting Thomas Catholic Church the right to throw out the Church’s social justice teachings. He doesn’t feel like feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, and all that other bleeding-heart stuff, so he rips out paragraphs 2401–2463. He just made it the Catechism of his Catholic Church, not mine and not yours.

You believe contraception is okay? Rip out paragraph 2370, which says contraception is “intrinsically evil.” Joe Parishioner doesn’t like what the Church teaches on the Eucharist? Paragraphs 1322–1419?—Rip! Someone else doesn’t like what it teaches in paragraphs 200–205?—R-r-i-i-p! Or in paragraphs 1560–1580?—R-r-r-i-i-i-p!

Can you see what is happening? Can you see where this is leading? I’ve heard it said that there is a shortage of vocations to the priesthood in the United States, but that there is no shortage of vocations to the papacy. If we don’t believe in all of it, if we each appoint ourselves pope and throw out a doctrine here or a doctrine there, then our faith is no longer Catholic.

Once we accept the principle that adherence to Church teaching is a matter of personal preference, once we accept the principle that cafeteria Catholicism is legitimate—that anyone may pick and choose which truths of the faith to accept and which to reject—then we no longer believe in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

 

[HouseArrest]

I have read through all the posts - very interesting and great discussion. From what I have been reading it sounds like you and perhaps your boyfriend as well, cannot promise you will raise your kids Catholic. In promising to bring them up in the Catholic faith I think it is understood that you’ll do everything possible to achieve the goal of raising a practicing Catholic. By your posts it sounds like you are willing to go through the motions. From your description of what your boyfriend wants, it sounds like you are actually on the same page with it so why make the promise if neither of you want to? I’m not trying to be rude, here. I just wanted to write that in because the discussion so far is great, I don’t want to be the one to mess it up.

 

[Carjack1]

Abello,

You are both going to have to agree on how you raise your children. There are some people who believe every single teaching. There are others who don’t agree 100%. As you aware, there are many labels for the folks who do not agree 100% such as Cafeteria Catholic. I would NOT advise your boyfriend to quit labelling himself a Catholic. Many people are on different paths on their Catholic journey(which everyday should be opportunity to grow). So I do not agree with anyone who is telling him to look elsewhere. Whatever his reasons are for choosing to be a Catholic, I am glad he has a connection to it and am also glad that he is not looking elsewhere. If everyone practiced the Catholic teachings 100% then there would be no need for confession . Please do not reject the teachings without finding out the practices behind them. Please keep your mind open to embracing the teachings that you do not agree with. (In other words, don’t be Anti-Catholic). BTW I am married to an athiest so I know the challenge(sort of) that you are going through right now. Right now I am reading Christopher West’s book. Good news about sex and marriage to my husband, so that he knows what he is saying “I do” too when we get our marriage convalidated.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

I would NOT advise your boyfriend to quit labelling himself a Catholic. Many people are on different paths on their Catholic journey(which everyday should be opportunity to grow). So I do not agree with anyone who is telling him to look elsewhere.

Sometimes when someone decides to leave (a faith, a person, a job…whatever) they really look into to themselves to find out why. Many times that actually leads them to stay, but with a better appreciation for their spouse, faith, or job. No one here is saying that he is a terrible Catholic so leave… it’s more of a “so if you don’t agree with it or believe in it, WHY do you stay?”. His answer will either make him realize he is living a lie or grow stronger in his faith.

If everyone practiced the Catholic teachings 100% then there would be no need for confession .

That is true. We are ALL sinners. But there is a big difference between someone who believes in all of the teachings and tries to follow them (and fails) and one who does not believe. That person is not even eligible for confession since receiving absolution requires remorse. If one does not believe sex outside of a marriage is wrong, first of all why would they confess it and what would they expect to “get” from the confession?

 

[jmcrae]

“It is not optional. We teach our children about Jesus in the same way as we would teach about gravity…it’s just a given.”
As a non-Catholic, I cannot do this. Gravity is a fact…Jesus is a belief. Although some Catholics might see the two as equals, my boyfriend and I do not.

The Creator (Jesus) who gave us the laws of gravity and thermocombustion is the same Creator (Jesus) who gave us the Catholic Church and the Sacraments.

They are completely equal, because they come from the same Person. And although the consequences for not believing the teachings of the Church are less visible than the consequences for not believing in the laws of gravity and thermocombustion, they are just as real.

So what I’m curious about (and I’m still off-topic here) is how do you get to overcome these hurdles of uncertainty, and arrive at a religion based on faith? You mentioned that in your own conversion, CAF played a role. So far, I’ve seen nothing in these forums that have pushed me in the direction of Catholicism, mainly because they’re all based on the Catholic belief that the bible is fact.

You don’t need to start with the Bible. The early Christians didn’t - they didn’t even have a Bible, yet - they were the ones writing it.

The beginning point is actually personal experience.

Just as in science, one learns best by performing controlled experiments, so also when it comes to faith (since the same God created both) we need controlled experiences.

This is where the Church comes in. When we participate in the Sacraments, we are actually participating in controlled experiences that produce predictable results. Of course, it takes time - you don’t (usually) convert the very first time you go to Mass, any more than you fully understand the principles of anatomy the first time you dissect a frog.

But over time, as you keep going, the experience seeps into your soul, and you come to a point where you find that you believe things that you never knew you could believe, just as, over time, a scientist comes to learn things that he or she never believed possible, through a series of repetition and experimentation.

G. K. Chesterton understood the Christian science/faith connection quite well - his book Orthodoxy is a really good starting place for someone who is coming from your point of view. One of the things he said that illustrates the connection is when he said something to the effect that, “Christianity is the only metaphysical philosophical system that produces reliable plumbing and good roads.” (Which isn’t completely accurate - Buddhism doesn’t do too badly, either - but you can understand what he is getting at - which is that the same way of thinking that arrives at Christianity, also arrives at reliable science. Western civilization was brought to us by people who assumed that Christianity was true - who assumed that the Christian God who gave us a reliable Church probably also gives us reliable laws that govern the physical universe, as well - and, given that those reliable laws probably existed, they went out and started looking for them.)

 

[ABello]

Sorry about the delay, friends. Very busy weekend!

To wanner47:
“Re: your bolded portion – (Is the promise that I would be making to raise my children in the Catholic belief system, or to raise them to believe in God and Catholicism?) to Catholics, they are one and the same. You cannot separate the two. What, in your opinion, is the difference? It is something you can articulate or just a “feeling”?”
I can raise my children to do certain things, but I cannot and will not tell them that they “have” to believe anything as it pertains to the Catholic Church, or religion at all. I believe I can raise them within the Catholic belief system by providing them with all the “tools” they need to be Catholics (their sacraments, church, religion classes), but I would not feel comfortable with telling them “this is what you are required to believe”.

“It mattters not what I or other Catholics believe. What’s important is that the Catholic Church itself teaches that obedience to Her teachings is obligatory. There are certain matters where Catholics can legitimately hold differing opinions (e.g., capital punishment), but the “big three” you mentioned (for example) are not in this category.”
With regards to how Andrew feels about his faith, and how he feels about disagreeing with certain aspects of his faith, I’ll try and offer the following analogy and see how this goes:

The Church, to him, is a lot like parents. They’ve been with you all of your life, and helped shape your values. There are certain things that your parents teach you, and they may tell you that “obedience is obligatory”. But wait – what if you disagree? Some people comply anyways. Andrew, in this case, does not. This doesn’t mean that he goes looking for new parents that agree with him more. They just wouldn’t be…HIS parents.
Overtime, the Catholic Church has not been static. There have been new rules and doctrines. Andrew recognizes this, and believes he can indeed, pick and choose which he would like to follow, and which he would like to question.

In the “Apologetics Primer” that you’ve posted, it warns of the dangers of “picking and choosing” what to follow. Indeed, it can snowball. Andrew believes that if he keeps the essence of Catholicism, this is sufficient. God will judge if this is true.

HouseArrest:
“From your description of what your boyfriend wants, it sounds like you are actually on the same page with it so why make the promise if neither of you want to? I’m not trying to be rude, here.”
Don’t worry, that was very polite. While I could certainly do without the promise to raise my children in the Catholic faith, this point is actually very important to my boyfriend. His faith IS very important to him, even if it is perhaps not in the way that many people on this forum recognize. I hope the analogy that I’ve written (above) helps clarify that this “promise” means something a little bit different to him.

To Carjack1:
Please don’t think I’m ignoring you! If I don’t reply to your posts, it’s just simply because I agree with you very much.

To Feanaro’s Wife:
“so if you don’t agree with it or believe in it, WHY do you stay?”
I agree with this position. As I’m sure many have noticed, I place a lot of emphasis on constantly asking yourself questions, and working through what you discover about yourself. However, I get the impression that some people think the outcome will either be (1) devout Catholicism, or (2) another religion…in my boyfriend’s situation, I think he’s headed towards the equally legitimate option (3)…being comfortable with his own brand of Catholicism.

To jmcrae:
“They are completely equal, because they come from the same Person.”
I know that Catholics believe this. All I can do is really reiterate my previous point. Once again, as a non-believer, this is not the position that I hold.

“You don’t need to start with the Bible.”
I know the bible doesn’t need to be a starting point, but since it seems to be one of my biggest hurdles between my current beliefs and becoming a practicing Catholic, I’m thinking I should start there.

 

[agapewolf]

To clarify…

the Catholic church has never, nor will ever ever change doctrine.

disciplines have changed… Mass is said in a different language, Lent practices change…this is because people change. THe foundational beliefs of what Mass is, and what penance is, has never changed.

This is what proves its truth. As a human institution, it should have folded by now, but because it has the Holy Spirit preventing from teaching error, and the truth never ever changes, (2+2=4), this is how it has held strong this long and will till the end of time.

 

[HouseArrest]

*this “promise” means something a little bit different to him. *

I would say you’d need to be sure your “promise” and the Church’s “promise” are the same thing. In talking to your priest during marriage prep, I would bring this up.

We raise our kids Catholic, and at no time do I say “you HAVE to believe it.” That is because I am telling them that what they are hearing is the truth. It’s the truth no matter if they leave the Church or not. That is what I believe. Even if they leave, I have done my part to raise them Catholic. But if I leave as clause in there the whole time that they don’t “have to” believe it, then I am really not raising them Catholic. Not really. I am sneaking in a doubt. I am telling them that there is a chance that what we are teaching them is not true.

I like the 2+2=4 analogy. Does anyone tell their kids 2+2=4 and you HAVE TO believe it? No, because it’s the truth and so they don’t feel the need to add that.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

This is what proves its truth. As a human institution, it should have folded by now, but because it has the Holy Spirit preventing from teaching error, and the truth never ever changes, (2+2=4), this is how it has held strong this long and will till the end of time.

Yeah, 2000+ years of not being screwed up by us, wow! That was a huge factor in my own conversion.