wedding present and card for other people's invalid marriages?

[Rence]

My cousin and his wife (both left Catholic Church in their teens (1970’s) for Evangelical Protestantism. They divorced 3 years ago. My cousin married again a couple months ago.

**I don’t know what the Church teaches in this specific case, I’m sure someone else can state a catechism quote or something. But IMOHO, they are no longer practicing the Catholic religion. They are now Evangelical Protestant. Is this marriage allowed in their current religion? If so, I don’t see why you can’t attend the wedding, or send a gift and card. They are no longer praciticing the Catholic religion, they are following a different religion.

The best way to lead someone back to the Church is by example. If you show them that you don’t care about them by boycotting or not acknowledging their wedding, what are you saying to them? But if you let them know that you don’t approve, that you still consider them catholic, but that you still support them until they see the light, then I think you have a better chance of getting them back into the fold. Doesn’t the Church tell us to deal with ‘sinners’ with compassion and kindness?

But it doesn’t make sense to me, to force your religious views on people who have a different religion than you. The CC might consider them catholic because they were baptized, but these folks don’t. **

My question I would like to ask both ways: from the vantage point of them being ex-Catholics and from the vantage point of what if they had always been Protestants—yet baptized Protestants. Baptized Protestants are considered by the Church to have valid sacramental marriages. When they marry again therefore it would be an invalid marriage from the Catholic point of view.

Question: I recognize that the Catholic Church doesn’t have jurisdiction over Protestants, but as far as a Catholic condoning and congratulating them/attending wedding, wouldn’t this be giving scandal by expressing joy and approval at something that is wrong? This gives the couple (and others) that someone who is even a strong Catholic approves.

**I think you can support them even though you let them know that you don’t agree with them, as a Catholic. But remember they don’t consider themselves catholic anymore. IMOHO, you would be forcing your values on them. People have the right to choose their religion and they have the right to live their lives. **

Don’t get me wrong. I still plan on attending family functions and being as friendly as always.

**I just wonder if what they’re doing is allowed in their current religion? Were they truthful with the party who is marrying them?

I can’t imagine that, if a former Catholic friend of mine, converted to Judaism, that I would not go to the wedding, or send a gift/card. **

 

[Bookcat]

We must follow the truth as it is…not as someone thinks it is. If the Marriage is going to be invalid…then how would it be good to ‘say it is’ by a gift?

So be friendly…love them…but do not ‘say it is’ when it is not. Truth in love.

Even if in persons newly chosen way of life they think something is good…**we **need to speak and act the truth in love.

A Catholic must act as a Catholic…as a Christian at all times…speaking and doing the truth in charity.

 

[kage_ar]

Renece -

When you type into a quote box, you make it very difficult for anyone to respond to your comments. I have simply copied/pasted, yours are in BOLD:

"I don’t know what the Church teaches in this specific case, I’m sure someone else can state a catechism quote or something. But IMOHO, they are no longer practicing the Catholic religion. They are now Evangelical Protestant. Is this marriage allowed in their current religion? If so, I don’t see why you can’t attend the wedding, or send a gift and card. They are no longer praciticing the Catholic religion, they are following a different religion."

You have been around this block before.

Basic question for you - is the Catholic Church right or is it wrong? Something cannot be both. IF the Catholic Church is real, if she is true, then the truth stands, because someone says “I no longer practice Catholicism” does not make them non-Catholic. All it does is put them into grave sin.

We cannot support people in their sin, we cannot cooperate with sin.

If the Catholic Church is wrong, then, we are all wasting our time and there is no God in heaven and Jesus is a myth.

Scripture summed it up “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve”, and Bob Dylan paraphrased it well “you’re gunna have to serve somebody”. You will have peace in your life when you make your decision. What is it gunna be?

 

[Joe_5859]

It doesn’t? I’m tolerant of diverse viewpoints, not all of them. Do you see the distinction? I don’t tolerate intolerance. Kind of a paradox, I’ll admit, but one I’m sure you can understand all the same.

Actually, I don’t quite understand. Sorry. To me, it seems more like an oxymoron than a paradox. If you don’t tolerate intolerance, that means that you are in fact intolerant about something. Which then means that you don’t tolerate yourself? But if you do tolerate yourself, then you would be tolerating intolerance. See the dilemma?

We’re all tolerant of some things and intolerant of others. No one here (hopefully) would tolerate white supremicism or racism. And yet there are other things that people disagree on being tolerant towards.

Given that, I don’t understand the need to bring up tolerance. If we’re all tolerant of some things, but not others, then why should we accept your definitions of what should be tolerated over anyone else’s? The discussion then is really why a certain act should or should not be tolerated.

That’s why I really don’t care for the word tolerance. In recent years, it seems to be just a buzz word to throw out there to stealthily assert one’s virtue while avoiding the appearance of self-righteousness. (I don’t think that’s what you’re doing, but it can come off that way.) I’d rather be charitable than tolerant.

 

[Think_About_It]

Actually, I don’t quite understand. Sorry. To me, it seems more like an oxymoron than a paradox. If you don’t tolerate intolerance, that means that you are in fact intolerant about something. Which then means that you don’t tolerate yourself? But if you do tolerate yourself, then you would be tolerating intolerance. See the dilemma?

We’re all tolerant of some things and intolerant of others. No one here (hopefully) would tolerate white supremicism or racism. And yet there are other things that people disagree on being tolerant towards.

Given that, I don’t understand the need to bring up tolerance. If we’re all tolerant of some things, but not others, then why should we accept your definitions of what should be tolerated over anyone else’s? The discussion then is really why a certain act should or should not be tolerated.

That’s why I really don’t care for the word tolerance. In recent years, it seems to be just a buzz word to throw out there to stealthily assert one’s virtue while avoiding the appearance of self-righteousness. (I don’t think that’s what you’re doing, but it can come off that way.) I’d rather be charitable than tolerant.

Being intollerant of someone because they’re religion is different isn’t much better than being intollerant of someone because they’re a different colour of skin than you. The difference between you and them is environment (they learned a different tradition than you), just as the difference between you and others, in terms of race, is geography. It’s petty and small minded. I won’t convince any of you that you’re not doing a virtuous thing by abstaining from such celebrations, but don’t be surprised to be called a bigot, because you fit the definition.

 

[Joe_5859]

Being intollerant of someone because they’re religion is different isn’t much better than being intollerant of someone because they’re a different colour of skin than you. The difference between you and them is environment (they learned a different tradition than you), just as the difference between you and others, in terms of race, is geography. It’s petty and small minded. I won’t convince any of you that you’re not doing a virtuous thing by abstaining from such celebrations, but don’t be surprised to be called a bigot, because you fit the definition.

Again, I fail to grasp what any of this talk of tolerance has to do with the topic of the thread at hand. Who is advocating being intolerant of other religions?

We’re talking about the appropriateness of Catholics attending marriages that would more than likely be considered invalid according to Catholic teaching. There is no specific answer to this question as the Church has never made any pronouncements in this regard. Hence why there is a difference of opinion even amongst the Catholics on this thread.

Two Protestants getting married, two Muslims getting married, two Buddhists getting married, or any mixture of the above would still be considered a valid marriage (provided it was their first). No problems there. But a Catholic (even one who has left the faith for another one) who tries to get married in a manner not consistent with Canon Law is probably entering into an invalid marriage. Recognizing that fact is not an act of intolerance. I make no judgements of them nor do I presume to know the fate of their soul. I would not advocate being rude or uncharitable towards them. I’m sure they’re acting with the best of intentions. But that doesn’t change the Church’s teaching on Marriage.

I’m not sure why it seems that those who so proudly tout tolerance are the first to toss out the “b” word.

 

[kage_ar]

Again, I fail to grasp what any of this talk of tolerance has to do with the topic of the thread at hand. Who is advocating being intolerant of other religions?

We’re talking about the appropriateness of Catholics attending marriages that would more than likely be considered invalid according to Catholic teaching. There is no specific answer to this question as the Church has never made any pronouncements in this regard. Hence why there is a difference of opinion even amongst the Catholics on this thread.

Two Protestants getting married, two Muslims getting married, two Buddhists getting married, or any mixture of the above would still be considered a valid marriage (provided it was their first). No problems there. But a Catholic (even one who has left the faith for another one) who tries to get married in a manner not consistent with Canon Law is probably entering into an invalid marriage. Recognizing that fact is not an act of intolerance. I make no judgements of them nor do I presume to know the fate of their soul. I would not advocate being rude or uncharitable towards them. I’m sure they’re acting with the best of intentions. But that doesn’t change the Church’s teaching on Marriage.

I’m not sure why it seems that those who so proudly tout tolerance are the first to toss out the “b” word.

Careful about speaking the truth, it will get you labled as a venom spitter and all sorts of ugly things

 

[andyandely1997]

People who like to throw out the tolerance card, are only tolerant when it comes to their world view. Being tolerant does not mean you have to approve of it. Being tolerant does not mean you have to keep your mouth shut if you disagree with something. But these days, if you do not approve of something, especially if it is sin, you are an intolerant bigot.

 

[alongexpected]

And of the tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity, you think yours to be so exalted that you wouldn’t even chance celebrating with family members if the opportunity arose. I’m astounded that people make these kinds of decisions based on creeds and beliefs for which there is no compelling evidence. When peoples’ religion makes them unable to celebrate what would normally be a joyous occasion (if not for dogma), that’s when I take offence. You’re whole belief system is set up to excempt people from your good graces if they don’t believe exactly as you do. There could be no truer sense of the word bigot. That is what you must be to be true to the Christian faith. It’s disgusting.

One of the most enlightened things I’ve ever read on this board.

Take your pompous beliefs somewhere else.

 

[alongexpected]

Yes…and Catholicism is just as likely to be that truth as Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Or maybe they are all true in what actually matters, and everything else is just details that don’t matter.

Yes!!!

 

[Joe_5859]

One of the most enlightened things I’ve ever read on this board.

Take your pompous beliefs somewhere else.

Is that a complement followed by an insult, or were you addressing the second comment to someone else?

The thing is, “pompous” in the eyes of whom? To some, the belief that certain people are “intolerant” simply because they believe in something else is incredibly “pompous.” Anyone’s beliefs can be considered pompous by someone who doesn’t believe them.

 

[alongexpected]

Is that a complement followed by an insult, or were you addressing the second comment to someone else?

The thing is, “pompous” in the eyes of whom? To some, the belief that certain people are “intolerant” simply because they believe in something else is incredibly “pompous.” Anyone’s beliefs can be considered pompous by someone who doesn’t believe them.

To have beliefs is not pompous, but to insist that you are correct about politics, religion, whatever, and the other person is wrong, is pompous. To not go to a wedding, because of these religious views, is extremely pompous.

It’s people/thinking like this that’s giving religion a bad name. Be more open and less quick to judge.

 

[kage_ar]

To have beliefs is not pompous, but to insist that you are correct about politics, religion, whatever, and the other person is wrong, is pompous. To not go to a wedding, because of these religious views, is extremely pompous.

It’s people/thinking like this that’s giving religion a bad name. Be more open and less quick to judge.

Your devout Jewish friends, they are being “pompus” when they won’t eat a ham sandwich? How about your Mormon friends, they get married in the temple and are sooo “Pompus” that they won’t let many people in.

How about respecting the religious beliefs of your friends and family by not expecting them to do something that they believe is sinful?

 

[alongexpected]

Your devout Jewish friends, they are being “pompus” when they won’t eat a ham sandwich? How about your Mormon friends, they get married in the temple and are sooo “Pompus” that they won’t let many people in.

How about respecting the religious beliefs of your friends and family by not expecting them to do something that they believe is sinful?

Jews aren’t being arrogant when they don’t eat a sandwich, because that’s a personal choice, and it’s not affecting anyone but themselves. (I SUPPOSE you could say something like “Well, what if you (you being a Gentile) invite your Jewish uncle over to supper, and he refuses to eat your food which you worked hard on…that’s affecting someone other than himself”…True, but I think there’s a level of understanding out there. I would understand that decision. Not going to a wedding, a WEDDING for God’s sakes, would be waaaaay past that level).

As for the Mormons…well, yeah, that’s being arrogant as well. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[Joe_5859]

To have beliefs is not pompous, but to insist that you are correct about politics, religion, whatever, and the other person is wrong, is pompous. To not go to a wedding, because of these religious views, is extremely pompous.

It’s people/thinking like this that’s giving religion a bad name. Be more open and less quick to judge.

I think there are more and less pompous ways to express one’s beliefs, certainly.

I’m a bit puzzled, though. You seem to be positing openness and non-judgmentalism as the superior worldview. Doesn’t that mean that you are insisting that you are correct and those who do not view openness or non-judgmentalism as particularly important are wrong? (And wouldn’t such a proposition violate both principles?)

If someone does not insist they are correct and another person is incorrect when two beliefs are mutually exclusive, can they really be said to believe in anything?

I’m not trying to be snarky here (honestly! ). These are genuine questions I would like to hear your thoughts on.

 

[daeve]

Even if that IS the case, many will see it as both hateful and outrageous. I know that if someone declined an invitation to my wedding because of their religious beliefs I would take it VERY personally and it would certainly effect my relationship with that person.

You’ve never declined an invitation to a wedding. Maybe you have other plans…who would even know?

You can’t see our point of view because you don’t believe that a Catholic marrying outside the Church is endangering his immortal soul. How could anyone celebrate something that could lead to eternal damnation?

 

[alongexpected]

Doesn’t that mean that you are insisting that you are correct and those who do not view openness or non-judgmentalism as particularly important are wrong? (And wouldn’t such a proposition violate both principles?)

If someone does not insist they are correct and another person is incorrect when two beliefs are mutually exclusive, can they really be said to believe in anything?

Well…if we start thinking like this, then, yea, humans really can’t believe in anything. So, if I have to believe in something/have one worldview, I’ll live a more tolerant and less arrogant life. And I’d go to the damn wedding, haha.

 

[Joe_5859]

Well…if we start thinking like this, then, yea, humans really can’t believe in anything. So, if I have to believe in something/have one worldview, I’ll live a more tolerant and less arrogant life. And I’d go to the damn wedding, haha.

I guess my main point is that concepts like “tolerance” and “arrogance” are frequently relative. In your view, you may be extremely tolerant and not the least bit arrogant, but someone who disagrees with you might find you to be extremely intolerant of their view and very arrogant about the fact that your view is better. And vice versa.

It’s easy to think that we ourselves are so tolerant and not at all arrogant, but that doesn’t mean we are successful in working towards that end.