Marriage: Roman Catholic and Buddhist

  • Thread starter Thread starter ottomatik15
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unless you live somewhere where you are terribly persecuted, I don’t see how it would be very hard to baptize your kid, take them to Mass, take them to CCD, teach them prayers, etc.
👍

OK – so, what you’re saying is that you can conceive of a situation in which “you must raise your children as Catholics” and “you must do all in your power to raise your children as Catholics” lead to different results. So, then, you agree. Cool. 😉

So, maybe there’s ‘persecution’. Maybe there’s a home environment that’s hostile to Catholic practice. Maybe there’s even a situation in which a person feels that the ongoing health of their relationship with their in-laws (or worse, with their spouse!) will be adversely affected by raising the children as Catholics, and therefore, they feel that they cannot do so.
But, whatever.
Praised be God that you’re not in that situation! And yet, it doesn’t mean that this situation isn’t conceivable. (And hence, this is the reason that the language exists as it’s been developed. 🤷)
 
👍

OK – so, what you’re saying is that you can conceive of a situation in which “you must raise your children as Catholics” and “you must do all in your power to raise your children as Catholics” lead to different results. So, then, you agree. Cool. 😉

So, maybe there’s ‘persecution’. Maybe there’s a home environment that’s hostile to Catholic practice. Maybe there’s even a situation in which a person feels that the ongoing health of their relationship with their in-laws (or worse, with their spouse!) will be adversely affected by raising the children as Catholics, and therefore, they feel that they cannot do so.

Praised be God that you’re not in that situation! And yet, it doesn’t mean that this situation isn’t conceivable. (And hence, this is the reason that the language exists as it’s been developed. 🤷)
Maybe it is because hubby and I are both converts, but if my in-laws don’t like how I choose to raise my kids, well sorry 'bout it. Both sides are fundamentalists, so they don’t believe in infant baptism. I don’t care what they think. Junior is being baptized!
If hubby decides to go off the deep end and stop practicing Catholicism, I’ll still take my imaginary kids to mass. If he threatens to harm me, I have an iron skillet with his name on it.
I could see where if ISIS was in my neighborhood, where it would be difficult to take children to Mass, but that’s about it.
Didn’t scripture say that households will be divided? I don’t think that means that you cave in the sight of upset family members. Upset family members doesn’t really equate to persecution in my book.
And a hostile spouse, which I interpret to be abusive in someway, would be grounds for leaving them. Correct? I’m not trying to promote divorce, but an abusive relationship or an abusive parent shouldn’t ever be tolerated.
And if ISIS or the like was in my neck of the woods, I don’t see anyone venturing to Mass. 🤷
You could still teach your children at home.
 
The oldest and most authentic form of Buddhism does not require any rites or ceremonies for any weddings. If anything, its just traditions and cultural heritage within the family.

However if God does not preside over this wedding between you and the Catholic girl, she will not be in good standing with the Church and will not be able to take any of the Sacraments anymore. And the wedding will not be valid to the Church. In a way, you will be causing her great problems which you may not realize and which she may find it hard to deal with later. The Sacraments are very important to a Catholic. If her grandfather refuses to attend the wedding, its not because he was spiteful or anything. Its due to the fact that her grandfather being a good Catholic, cannot attend such weddings outside the Church because it will mean he acknowledges the wedding which God did not preside to be valid.

A wedding between a Catholic and a Buddhist is one of the easiest to deal with among all the other inter-religious marriages. A true Buddhist do not attach themselves to rites and ceremonies, if they truly hold firmly to the exact teachings of the Buddha himself. He never taught that. I know because I was a practicing Buddhist all my life, until a few years ago.

I do not see how these should affect you in any way. In fact, you should be glad that the obstacles are very few and minor to deal with. 👍

Since there’s no rites and ceremonies needed for Buddhism pertaining to weddings, by having a Catholic wedding in the Church, you are as a matter of fact being charitable and helping them to help you get married. At the end of the day, you are also helping them to acknowledge this wedding to be valid & recognized by the Church as well. It will work out well for both of you and your families, since you will be married civilly (good for you and your family) and married in a Church (good for her and her family).

You will be safeguarding your future wife’s interest without her having to lose the Sacraments. 🙂
 
Something terribly awful would have to happen and I would still be hell-bent on teaching my children the truth. Chalking it up to upset family members or a parent who doesn’t believe isn’t good enough in my eyes. I think my stubbornness is good this time. 😃
 
If he threatens to harm me, I have an iron skillet with his name on it.
I didn’t suggest that ‘abuse’ was what was in play here.
And a hostile spouse, which I interpret to be abusive in someway, would be grounds for leaving them. Correct? I’m not trying to promote divorce, but an abusive relationship or an abusive parent shouldn’t ever be tolerated.
Right; but I’m talking about an environment that isn’t abusive; rather, simply not open to Catholic practice.

So, these concerns don’t apply to you; yet, that doesn’t imply that they don’t apply to anyone else. 🤷
 
Right. True_Faith13’s and Kendra’s and powerofk’s assertions that any children from this marriage must be baptized in the Catholic Church is not accurate.

No; prior to 1983, I believe, the non-Catholic party was asked to make promises. Today, however, the non-Catholic party is only to be made aware of the promises that the Catholic party has made.
Georgia, can you clarify please as these statements seem to contradict each other. Your first one says they don’t need to make promises to raise the children catholic and your second one talks about the promises?

I’m happy to be corrected as I’m not catholic but you are the first to say that the catholic party does not need to raise the children catholic? So the catholic church would be happy with them being raised Buddhist for example? Of course in the long run, how you attempt to raise children, it will be down to the child to make their own decision at end of the day.
 
Georgia, can you clarify please as these statements seem to contradict each other. Your first one says they don’t need to make promises to raise the children catholic and your second one talks about the promises?

I’m happy to be corrected as I’m not catholic but you are the first to say that the catholic party does not need to raise the children catholic? So the catholic church would be happy with them being raised Buddhist for example? Of course in the long run, how you attempt to raise children, it will be down to the child to make their own decision at end of the day.
Prior to the change in Canon Law in 1983 Catholics marrying a non-Catholic had to promise to bring up their children in the Catholic faith. However, such a promise could sometimes be impossible to fulfill if the non-Catholic party subsequently refuses to allow it.
Canon Law was therefore changed so that the Catholic party would do their best to see that any children were brought up as Catholics. It does not make sense to get a person to promise to do something when you know from the outset it might not be possible through no fault of their own.
 
Prior to the change in Canon Law in 1983 Catholics marrying a non-Catholic had to promise to bring up their children in the Catholic faith. However, such a promise could sometimes be impossible to fulfill if the non-Catholic party subsequently refuses to allow it.
Canon Law was therefore changed so that the Catholic party would do their best to see that any children were brought up as Catholics. It does not make sense to get a person to promise to do something when you know from the outset it might not be possible through no fault of their own.
👍 Precisely.

In addition, prior to 1983, the non-Catholic party also was required to promise to raise the children as Catholic; now, no promise is required by the non-Catholic party.
 
To the OP:
You are NOT obliged to convert. In fact, it is contrary to the Catholic faith to pressure anyone to convert, as doing so must come from a genuine, personal conviction from the Holy Spirit. The Pre-Cana courses simply ensure that both parties understand the essential elements of a Catholic marriage (you are both open to life, you are both committed to a life long union, etc.).
Under canon law, you are not obliged to agree to raise the kids Catholic, but you must be informed of your wife’s obligation. Your wife must promise to do “all in her power” to raise the kids Catholic. How that works out in practice is between her and her priest confessor.
Normally, you would be required to marry in a Catholic ceremony, but with the bishop’s permission it is possible to be married in a non-Catholic ceremony. My wife is Pentecostal and I received a dispensation to marry in a Protestant ceremony.
 
Normally, you would be required to marry in a Catholic ceremony, but with the bishop’s permission it is possible to be married in a non-Catholic ceremony. My wife is Pentecostal and I received a dispensation to marry in a Protestant ceremony.
Just because I’m pedantic :rolleyes: :

Note that your situation might be different from the OP’s.

Did the tribunal determine that your wife’s baptism was valid? If so, then in your case, you’re in what is known in canon law as a “mixed marriage” – that is, a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian. In the OP’s case, the situation is called a “disparity of cult” – a marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person.

Unless your wife’s baptism was determined to be invalid in the eyes of the Church, then in various ways, the situation you outline for the OP’s consideration is different from his own.

Just being picky… 😉
 
This just my opinion, but this all seem the start to a very difficult life together. I know you have your feelings now, but once you hold your own child in your arms you are going to care a lot less, even resent, what her family thinks or says and they will continue to say a lot about everything.

It seem like maybe your fiance is too immature to deal with this kind of relationship. I know my mother was not thrilled with me marrying a German, Baptist, but I made up my mind that my kids would be raised Catholic, my parents had absolutely no say in how I raised them.

There is no perfect wedding, and any young girl as they matures usually sees how wasteful a big fancy wedding is because that is not what the vows are about. My mother told me I had to invite my father’s second wife, but if she came, my mother would not stay for the wedding. I looked her right in the eye and said that was her choice and it would be her loss!

This is not their lives. They had their choices, you should decide on your own lives. I am not trying to be negative, but do not give up how you were raised. I admire your parents much more than I admire hers.
 
Just because I’m pedantic :rolleyes: :

Note that your situation might be different from the OP’s.

Did the tribunal determine that your wife’s baptism was valid? If so, then in your case, you’re in what is known in canon law as a “mixed marriage” – that is, a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian. In the OP’s case, the situation is called a “disparity of cult” – a marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person.

Unless your wife’s baptism was determined to be invalid in the eyes of the Church, then in various ways, the situation you outline for the OP’s consideration is different from his own.

Just being picky… 😉
You’re right, it is definitely different, and I imagine it is far more likely for a diocese to grant a dispensation from form in the case of a mixed marriage (between two Christians)…but it is still possible in the OP’s case.
As an aside, the status of my wife’s baptism was uncertain so I also received a “conditional” dispensation for disparity of cult. A definitive decision would be made if and when she decided to convert.
 
There are a lot of factors here and I feel strongly that NONE of them should be “poo-pooed” as insignificant, because on paper (or in a forum discussion) we can talk about the black and white, but in reality people live in a much more complex world.

The technicality of Church law is all fine and well, but an individual family’s traditions/expectations do play into this.

Whether or not the Catholic Church pressures conversion isn’t going to much matter to the family if they feel conversion is of utmost importance.

If the OP gives assent, either on paper or verbally to raise the children Catholic or allow them to be raised Catholic, but doesn’t mean it or later retracts it…then we have an invalid marriage…so it’s pointless to say that technically he doesn’t have to sign a paper. Why go into a marriage that is likely to be invalid, no matter where the ceremony takes place?

The issue of ABC arises as well. If the OP goes into a marriage thinking ABC is ok…again, we end up with an invalid marriage.

Making a compromise etc so a marriage can take place in a church in front of a priest is pointless if the day to day issues have not only been hashed out but entered into with a full understanding…because you end up with the veneer of a Catholic marriage over a marriage that is actually invalid…out of ignorance perhaps, but invalid just the same.

Though in marriage one is told to forsake all others and cling to the spouse, in most marriages the families still have a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut and emotional sway upon the spouses. Telling Grandpa that since 1983 such and such piece of paper no longer needs to be signed…is unlikely to change how Grandpa or the rest of the family feels.

Ultimately, and what one is reminded of in Pre Cana is that it’s not about the ceremony, it’s about the marriage, the real day to day, year in and year out. A willingness to compromise so that someone gets the ceremony they want, is not the same as the willingness to lovingly support each other through difficult times for the rest of one’s life.

He will not only have to compromise on the wedding day, but for the 60 yrs following.

I was told by a priest that he didn’t care what I did or didn’t do after the wedding…sign the paper and make my mother happy.

That’s fine if the idea is to make it look right, but for it to BE right is another matter.

I don’t know how devoted to living the Catholic faith the fiance’ is. But if she is serious about her faith, marrying her in the church just to make her happy is truly not an act of love.
 
A catholic is required to marry in a catholic church and is required to raise their children catholic. If she doesn’t do this, she will not be in good standing with the church and won’t be able to partake in the Eucharist.
A Catholic marrying a non-Catholic can get a dispensation from form that allows her to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony. It may even be in front of a JP.

The Catholic has to promise to do everything in her/his power to have the children baptized and raised as Catholics – but not to the detriment of the marriage. If, once children arrive it is not possible for him/her to do that in order to keep the marriage intact, there is no penalty. *DIRECTORY FOR THE APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS ON ECUMENISM
151. In carrying out this duty of transmitting the Catholic faith to the children, the Catholic parent will do so with respect for the religious freedom and conscience of the other parent and with due regard for the unity and permanence of the marriage and for the maintenance of the communion of the family. If, notwithstanding the Catholic’s best efforts, the children are not baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church, the Catholic parent does not fall subject to the censure of Canon Law.

At the same time, his/her obligation to share the Catholic faith with the children does not cease. It continues to make its demands, which could be met, for example, by playing an active part in contributing to the Christian atmosphere of the home; doing all that is possible by word and example to enable the other members of the family to appreciate the specific values of the Catholic tradition; taking whatever steps are necessary to be well informed about his/her own faith so as to be able to explain and discuss it with them; praying with the family for the grace of Christian unity as the Lord wills it.*
 
If the OP gives assent, either on paper or verbally to raise the children Catholic or allow them to be raised Catholic, but doesn’t mean it or later retracts it…then we have an invalid marriage.
No, this is not the case. First off, the priest who is preparing them for marriage will not ask the non-Christian to give assent to raising the children Catholic. So, on that count, there’s no issue, and no reason to assert invalidity.

There’s a rather narrow case that might be made, perhaps, that fraud or conditioned consent were in play. However, these are highly technical arguments, and at the very least, it’s inaccurate to flatly state that a “later retraction” on the part of the non-Christian party to allow the children to be baptized and raised as Catholics would necessarily and automatically imply an invalid marriage.

So, on both counts, your assertion doesn’t hold up… 🤷
Why go into a marriage that is likely to be invalid, no matter where the ceremony takes place?
There isn’t sufficient reason here to presume that the “marriage is likely to be invalid.”
The issue of ABC arises as well. If the OP goes into a marriage thinking ABC is ok…again, we end up with an invalid marriage.
This, also, is not true. In preparation for marriage, the couple isn’t asked what their opinion of ABC is, per se, but rather, whether they are open to procreation. They may well be in a state of grave sin if they practice contraception, but that doesn’t mean that the marriage is, in an a priori way, invalid. (However, if a spouse practices contraception throughout the entirety of the marriage, one might be able to make the case that s/he wasn’t being truthful at the time of the wedding when s/he claimed an openness to the procreation of children in the marriage.)
Though in marriage one is told to forsake all others and cling to the spouse, in most marriages the families still have a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut and emotional sway upon the spouses. Telling Grandpa that since 1983 such and such piece of paper no longer needs to be signed…is unlikely to change how Grandpa or the rest of the family feels.
True; and yet, are we to keep Catholic families in the dark about what their Church really teaches? Many older Catholics are under the mistaken notion that, for a Catholic wedding to take place, the non-Catholic fiance must convert; that’s in error. Many think that the non-Catholic must still promise Catholic baptism of their children; that’s wrong, too. Is there no room for catechesis of our families, when these issues arise in our lives? Is there no room to ask them to follow what their Church teaches?
 
I was asked when I married. I know others who were asked.
Prior to 1983?

And, let’s be fair: the question “in what faith tradition do you plan to raise your children?” is fair game in a marital interview; not in the sense of “answer wrong and I won’t marry you,” but in the sense of “let’s start the discussion here, and see where it goes.” If the answer is “yep, no problem,” then there’s no need to go any further. If the answer is anything else, then the discussion would likely turn in the direction of what the couple has already talked about and whether they’ve reached a decision they both can abide by, in the context of Christian marriage as it’s understood by the Church.
I know people who received annulments because of issues related to this.
“Related to this”, or precisely because one spouse refused? Like I said, there are certain technicalities which might come into play, but generally, this is not the case.
Several of these instances took place after the year 1983
Weddings after 1983, or annulments after 1983?
, but of course not all priests, in all situations go strictly by the book, so perhaps those situations were not according to the current dictates of the Church.
Right; it’s possible that an older priest might still be doing things the way he always did prior to '83. That’s not good, of course, since it only confuses the faithful…
I say that because I do know of annulments that were granted concerning those issues.
Fraud, maybe… but not because the children weren’t raised Catholic, if the marriage took place in '83 or later and the person hadn’t made any promises… right?
I was asked that by the priest prior to marriage, but again, that may be the old school way, or perhaps the priest was not supposed to bring that issue up.
Well, again, it’s a question of why the issue would be brought up. In a discussion geared toward learning whether the couple is open to having children, the legitimate first thing to determine is whether there’s a potential issue: if the couple doesn’t practice birth control, then there’s no issue, and the conversation moves on to the next topic. If they do, though, then there’s the opportunity (and the need!) for some catechesis on the Church’s teachings. The goal of the conversation, of course, is to determine whether the couple will welcome the gift of procreation in their marriage.
Entering a marriage with the understanding that both are going to participate in grave sin in order to avoid children, while claiming to be open to children does seem to be a likely thing to invalidate a marriage. Seeing as a promise was being made that the parties did not intend to keep. But I can see where there would be wiggle room.
Remember, the question isn’t “are you going to be open to children on your wedding night?” but rather “are you open to children?” The answer is often, “oh, yeah, in five years or so…” which provides the opportunity to enter into discussion. If the couple said “yes, but we’ll be practicing NFP for the first five years,” would you still say that they’re only “claiming to be open to children” while making “a promise that [they]… did not intend to keep”?
I was pointing out that no matter the precise current laws the Church has regarding these things, the couple will have to live day in and day out with the beliefs and sentiments of the family members. Citing current church law is all well and good, but unlikely to cause the family to back off of hopes, wishes and dreams close to their heart.
Yep, that makes sense.
I am surprised that the Church on one hand requires the Catholic to say they will do everything they can to make sure their children are raised in the faith, yet would then agree to allow the person to marry (and likely have children with) someone who would not agree to allow the children to be baptized and raised Catholic.
True; and that’s why it’s important to ask the question. If the person says ‘no way’, then it’s important to be able to turn to the Catholic fiance(e) and ask, “were you aware of this? what have you two talked about, regarding children?” in order to make sure that they’re on the same page. If they are on the same page, then it’s time to ask the Catholic fiance[e] whether they realize that the Church is going to ask him/her to raise any children Catholic. If they aren’t on the same page, then it’s time to ask them to start talking about it and understanding what the issues are and how they plan to address them. 🤷
Unless the marriage is arranged, or forced, which again, going against the teaching of the church…would invalidate the marriage.
Oh, an arranged marriage isn’t invalid… if the couple consents. 😉
It is my experience and understanding that prior to the ceremony the priests asks the couples (individually) whether they are marrying of their own free will.
Correct – and in the ceremony, too!
That teaching broke a lot of hearts, but it did encourage people to marry within the faith and tend to the eternal well being of their children’s souls.
Actually, what it did was encourage lots of people to lie. :sad_yes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top