But they don’t need to be given a why. On the contrary it is for the couple and/or their priest to say why - in other words to give sufficiently compelling reasons why they should be allowed to depart from the norm and have a Mass.I hope that’s true, but all I gleaned from OP was that they were told they could not have a nuptial Mass, not why.
How they give a reason why they should have a Mass if they don’t know why they can’t have a Mass? All the priest has to do is EXPLAIN why; not change the rules, not bend the rules…just EXPLAIN the rules.But they don’t need to be given a why. On the contrary it is for the couple and/or their priest to say why - in other words to give sufficiently compelling reasons why they should be allowed to depart from the norm and have a Mass.
He doesn’t have to say anything beyond “The Rite says you can’t have a Mass because it’s a mixed-marriage.” They can try to convince him otherwise.How they give a reason why they should have a Mass if they don’t know why they can’t have a Mass? All the priest has to do is EXPLAIN why; not change the rules, not bend the rules…just EXPLAIN the rules.
An informative explanation goes along way towards helping people understand; it is an opportunity to catechize.He doesn’t have to say anything beyond “The Rite says you can’t have a Mass because it’s a mixed-marriage.” They can try to convince him otherwise.
Personally, I can’t see the first thing I do as a married person being something that my spouse can’t do because he’s of a different religion. My own marriage is no less a marriage and no less sacramental just because it wasn’t celebrated outside of Mass. We spoke the same vows and we were still given a Nuptial blessing.
That’s like demanding a reason from a tax agent as to why I can’t pay 15% income tax when my income is in the bracket that pays 25%. I can’t because the law says I can’t, and that’s all the tax agent needs to say. Of course there are good reasons - the government needs x amount of tax from us to provide services and run itself. But even if there were no good reasons, the law is the lawHow they give a reason why they should have a Mass if they don’t know why they can’t have a Mass? All the priest has to do is EXPLAIN why; not change the rules, not bend the rules…just EXPLAIN the rules.
I have never said the priest MUST explain. I have said, and maintain, it is a teaching moment. How many times on CAF has someone made a statement and someone else responded, “Can you provide documentation…”. That’s all I’m saying. Instead of leaving questions unanswered, make it a teaching moment.That’s like demanding a reason from a tax agent as to why I can’t pay 15% income tax when my income is in the bracket that pays 25%. I can’t because the law says I can’t, and that’s all the tax agent needs to say. Of course there are good reasons - the government needs x amount of tax from us to provide services and run itself. But even if there were no good reasons, the law is the law
It is then up to me to say to the tax agent ‘I need to pay less tax because I’ve spent a lot of my own money buying new equipment for my business rather than living on it myself’ or whatever other reason I have.
I’ve been following the thread from the beginning and I agree with you here. Although an explanation is not mandatory, it does goes a long way. For example, I work with parishioners from different churches for weddings, funerals, etc. There are times when either the music director or the pastor doesn’t give any explanation as to why certain music they want is not permitted. They are just told it isn’t allowed and sometimes the way the situation is handled is not the nicest. I have found that when my clients start out upset and not understanding the “why”, after I actually explain the reasons “why” the music isn’t permitted, they are usually much more understanding and accepting. Some will say, “Now, why couldn’t have Father/Music Director just tell me that?” or “Why couldn’t he/she have been nice about it like you were? All he/she had to do was just explain it to me nicely.”I have never said the priest MUST explain. I have said, and maintain, it is a teaching moment. How many times on CAF has someone made a statement and someone else responded, “Can you provide documentation…”. That’s all I’m saying. Instead of leaving questions unanswered, make it a teaching moment.
I am a police officer and I spent 5 years as a traffic cop and accident investigator. I conduct a traffic stop and ask you for your driver’s license. You, of course, want to know why I stopped you. Am I required to tell you right then?..No. But I know, through my training and experience, that if I just take a few minutes and explain why I stopped you and the charges, I avoid any misunderstanding. You may not like it, but you understand it.
Just my thoughts, it is well and good to explain a decision to the person directly involved in the situation, like you explaining the traffic stops to the the driver. BUT, this thread is a little confusing because the OP still has not explained their relationship to the bride or even if the OP is the bride themselves. Would you explain the traffic stop if the driver himself didn’t ask why you stopped them but a friend came to you after the fact for an explanation? The OP doesn’t need the priest to explain the situation and people have given plenty of reasons why the priest would make the decision he did based on the information the OP provided. For all the OP knows, the priest did explain it to the engaged couple and perhaps they have decided not to share the reasons why to the OP, it could be a private matter and it should be a private matter between the priest and the engaged couple.I have never said the priest MUST explain. I have said, and maintain, it is a teaching moment. How many times on CAF has someone made a statement and someone else responded, “Can you provide documentation…”. That’s all I’m saying. Instead of leaving questions unanswered, make it a teaching moment.
I am a police officer and I spent 5 years as a traffic cop and accident investigator. I conduct a traffic stop and ask you for your driver’s license. You, of course, want to know why I stopped you. Am I required to tell you right then?..No. But I know, through my training and experience, that if I just take a few minutes and explain why I stopped you and the charges, I avoid any misunderstanding. You may not like it, but you understand it.
I agree with you; I have only been responding to the comments that the priest does not have to explain.Just my thoughts, it is well and good to explain a decision to the person directly involved in the situation, like you explaining the traffic stops to the the driver. BUT, this thread is a little confusing because the OP still has not explained their relationship to the bride or even if the OP is the bride themselves. Would you explain the traffic stop if the driver himself didn’t ask why you stopped them but a friend came to you after the fact for an explanation? The OP doesn’t need the priest to explain the situation and people have given plenty of reasons why the priest would make the decision he did based on the information the OP provided. For all the OP knows, the priest did explain it to the engaged couple and perhaps they have decided not to share the reasons why to the OP, it could be a private matter and it should be a private matter between the priest and the engaged couple.
As a driver let me say that your example only works if the driver you stopped kept insisting that he should be allowed to drive 20 miles/hour over the limit without consequence. Then it should be sufficient for you to say 'Sorry Sir/Ma’am, the law says you can’t." In the case of the priest, there is nothing to explain. The Church says no, what could be clearer than that?I agree with you; I have only been responding to the comments that the priest does not have to explain.
As far as the traffic stop, I have always made it a practice to explain the stop, the charges, the court date, etc often before the driver asks. It goes a long way. As far a friend of the driver asking questions…that’s going to depend on how they ask.
I have to disagree. We are an exclusive Church for people who do not accept our faith, our laws, and our ways. If we allowed anyone to eat the Eucharist without understanding what that means and is, than it is no longer sacred. Keep in mind that Jesus himself set up our oldest rules and sacraments. Other faiths have taken our bible and created their own religion out of it without understanding the fullness of the truth. I want all to be welcome in the Chruch, but not at the cost of trying to appease people. God is not what we make him, He made us.If we are to move forward with are ecumenical ways, we need to continue to show we are fully inclusive and not appearing to be discriminating towards other faiths. We must continue to open our doors to the wider Ecumenical community and allow them to still recieve a blessing, until then we continue to pray for us all, that one day we all become in full union with Christ our Lord.x
Let’s all keep in mind that we don’t actually know what the priest explained. We have a second hand rendition of the story via the OP, who is neither the bride nor the groom. It is possible the priest explained everything and they simply did not like the explanation, or that the mother continues to press her own agenda.I agree with you; I have only been responding to the comments that the priest does not have to explain.
Honestly I am not sure that the priest does not have to explain. All the laws of the Church are of pastoral nature and for our own good. The bishop and after him the pastor of a parish are the teaching authorities and thus they have an obligation to make sure that an explanation of the law is available. However, that does not imply that the priest has to bargain or that he has to find an explanation to modify the rules.I agree with you; I have only been responding to the comments that the priest does not have to explain.
As far as the traffic stop, I have always made it a practice to explain the stop, the charges, the court date, etc often before the driver asks. It goes a long way. As far a friend of the driver asking questions…that’s going to depend on how they ask.
Go back and read my previous posts; I have stated and maintained that I am not saying nor have I ever said the priest should change or bend the rules…only explain.Honestly I am not sure that the priest does not have to explain. All the laws of the Church are of pastoral nature and for our own good. The bishop and after him the pastor of a parish are the teaching authorities and thus they have an obligation to make sure that an explanation of the law is available. However, that does not imply that the priest has to bargain or that he has to find an explanation to modify the rules.
The laws of the land are not pastoral in nature and it is also assumed that the citizens know the laws, thus a cop does not have to give an explanation of why the speed limit is there.
Once again…I have only been responding to the comments that the priest does not have to explain.Let’s all keep in mind that we don’t actually know what the priest explained. We have a second hand rendition of the story via the OP, who is neither the bride nor the groom. It is possible the priest explained everything and they simply did not like the explanation, or that the mother continues to press her own agenda.
I was not criticizing your post, I do not think that you said anything wrong. I was simply using it as a starter for a personal reflection. My apologies if I gave the impression that I was criticizing your statement.Go back and read my previous posts; I have stated and maintained that I am not saying nor have I ever said the priest should change or bend the rules…only explain.
I could quote you dozens of traffic laws that people who have be driving for decades have no idea are violations…hence, the explanation is appropriate.
I think this is bad logic. Receiving the Eucharist is not merely an “activity” that one does that the other can’t. When a person receives the Eucharist, they become one with Jesus, get the graces from the sacrament. This is a GOOD thing for the other half of the couple, not bad.Personally, I can’t see the first thing I do as a married person being something that my spouse can’t do because he’s of a different religion. .
So you are proposing that the Church abandon 2000 years of closed communion so that those choosing to marry someone outside the Church can have a full nuptial mass wedding? Really?If we are to move forward with are ecumenical ways, we need to continue to show we are fully inclusive and not appearing to be discriminating towards other faiths. We must continue to open our doors to the wider Ecumenical community and allow them to still recieve a blessing, until then we continue to pray for us all, that one day we all become in full union with Christ our Lord.
Thank you and God bless. x
We’re cool.I was not criticizing your post, I do not think that you said anything wrong. I was simply using it as a starter for a personal reflection. My apologies if I gave the impression that I was criticizing your statement.