Wedding Sadness, Looking for insight

[iloveangels]

Interesting argument. The JW’s demand the same. If you want to leave you must write a letter stating your intention not to be known as a JW any longer.

The same thing happens in the Catholic church in the US. They just walk out the door.

Alternatively you can get yourself kicked out.

Yes, well, hard to do if you’re Catholic. As you can see, they don’t even want to let people out who want out!

I didn’t bother. Neither did I bother to go before their elders for one of their ‘courts.’ I remember asking the priest who catechized me if I needed to inform them, and he told me it was none of their business and the Catholic Church didn’t care what their rules were.

Actually, this is interesting because it gets to the reasons why people in Europe are wanting to sign papers to leave the Church. In Europe the church is supported by the government and if you’re Catholic you have to pay taxes to support the Church. People who no longer believe are trying to lower their tax burden by leaving the Church since they don’t believe anyway. That’s the point to that in Europe. The Church, of course, doesn’t want them leaving for all kinds of reasons, including the obvious spiritual reasons, but funding losses do come into the picture.

I prefer the way Corki explained things. The Church never abandons her children, always hopes they will come back and if they want to do so the way is open.

The Church is, and really always has been, really open to coming back if a person wants to. But that’s not really the issue. The OP views herself as Methodist and isn’t planning on coming back. It’s her parents who are having the fit.

 

[iloveangels]

I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of wishing-to-be-ex-Catholics being forcibly held in a Catholic church against their will. As far as I know, there aren’t squads of Catholic enforcers going door to door with a list. The OP - who sounds like a delightful, intelligent and thoughtful young woman - is, of course, free to worship and marry wherever she wishes. However, none of that changes the way she is regarded by the Catholic Church of her baptism.

Yes, well, according to the OP, her parents are acting pretty obnoxious about the whole thing. And I’ve heard some things like that in here too.

 

[Corki]

I know about this issue. It is a BIG MISTAKE for the Church to fight these cases when people want to leave. The Church should just let them sign and leave, creating some sort of legal class for them. They do have a right to leave if they desire to do so of their own explicit free will, aka uncompelled signature.

The Church doesn’t fight them. It just ignores the intended effect. Why should the Church create a class for people who are rejecting the Church? If they want to leave, no one is holding a gun to their heads. All the Church is saying is that going somewhere else on Sundays doesn’t change what happened in the past.

It’s the same thing as for marriage. A person can get a civil divorce and live as if he/she is unmarried but the Church stilll recognizes the marriage.

All of this round and round kind of misses the point. The Church doesn’t make judgements based on the wishes of the unfaithful but on the needs of the faithful. It serves the Church to hold to the the teaching that Baptism is permanent - in both its effects. It keeps the door open for someone who might have doubts and then come back - which is good. It removes any doubt as to whether someone is “truly Catholic”. It makes the other Sacraments more readily available.

 

[iloveangels]

Are you saying that the Church was supposed to support the protestant reformation? Are you saying that the Church should accept and formalize heresy and/or schismatic behaviors? The Church is not fighting anyone, the Church simply displays sadness to schism or apostasy.

No, actually, there’s more to this issue than this.

In the US, this is just a bit of obnoxiousness on the part of Catholics over people who leave. In Europe it’s more of the big deal, because the state supports the Church, and when people defect on paper, the Church loses their tax support.

 

[dixieagle]

There are real, life long, (name removed by moderator)lications to being Baptized.

This pretty much sums it up. When one is baptized into the Catholic Church, even as an infant, there are lifelong blessings, privileges, rights and responsibilities. One can effectively excommunicate oneself, but one is still a baptized Catholic (with reference back to my previous posts re: there no longer existing a process for formal defection.)

 

[Marie5890]

This is how you honor your parents:

I would be proud to have this woman as my daughter and would joyfully participate in her wedding.

Me, too.

God Bless Barb.
I know this is causing all of you a great deal of pain.

 

[Elizium23]

In the US, this is just a bit of obnoxiousness on the part of Catholics over people who leave.

If reminding someone of Church teaching and their obligations as a Catholic are obnoxiousness, then I am pleased to remain obnoxious. I would rather that people find me obnoxious and I save a single soul for Heaven than I would say “go ahead and do what you want”. The soul I save may not be the OP, but I know and believe that someone is quietly reading and has changed his mind about leaving the Church. If not out of love for God, then he has changed his mind out of the fear of eternal damnation. Either way is a valid way to repent.

 

[iloveangels]

They aren’t equivalent. Baptism in the Catholic Church accomplishes two things; Baptism in a non-Catholic community only accomplishes one. That’s why the person goes to RCIA and doesn’t just jump into the Communion line. That’s why a profession of faith is required. A person Baptized as a baby in a Catholic ceremony but who never had any other contact with the Church would not be required to make a profession of faith.

They are equivalent, if you’re just talking about the baptism itself. What you’re saying is precisely that there’s two conditions, not one. You said, “Baptism in the Catholic Church accomplishes two things;.” Yes, exactly. Those two things are 1) the baptism itself which is a change from being non-Christian to Christian, and 2) consent, in the case of the infant, given by his parents who are hedging their bets that the child will grow up to be Catholic.

The OP was Baptized as an infant. She didn’t receive the Sacrament “against her will” since an infant cannot form, let alone express, an intention to deny the Sacrament. By extension, it would seem that you are saying that all Catholics who were Baptized as infants are not “truly Catholic” unless they do something extra.
Which is why priests often won’t baptize babies unless there is a reasonable chance they will be brought up in the faith and why it is so wrong for “grandma” to secretely Baptise a baby against the parents’ wishes. There are real, life long, (name removed by moderator)lications to being Baptized.

Correct. Priests won’t baptise babies unless there is a reasonable chance of growing up Catholic for this very reason. They are imputing on the child consent for the child that the child is not yet capable of giving. They are betting that when the child is able to give it, that its upbringing and education will cause it to make the same choice that its parents made for it at baptism. BUT THIS DOESN’T ALWAYS HAPPEN.

 

[dixieagle]

Yes, well, according to the OP, her parents are acting pretty obnoxious about the whole thing. And I’ve heard some things like that in here too.

Her parents are lifelong Catholics, evidently believing it is the one, true Faith. They want what they believe to be best for their beloved daughter. While there may be disagreement as to whether their behavior is warranted and helpful, we cannot minimize their anguish.

 

[iloveangels]

The Church doesn’t fight them. It just ignores the intended effect. Why should the Church create a class for people who are rejecting the Church? If they want to leave, no one is holding a gun to their heads.

In the US, this is correct. All a person in the US has to put up with if they leave is the bad behavior of Catholics who want to terrorize them over it.

However, in Europe this does have a cost in Euros. The Church loses tax money when people leave there, and so it’s an additional issue.

All the Church is saying is that going somewhere else on Sundays doesn’t change what happened in the past.

I"m sure the OP wishes that it was that sanguine a deal. This is just not a happy little trip down “memory lane.”

All of this round and round kind of misses the point. The Church doesn’t make judgements based on the wishes of the unfaithful but on the needs of the faithful. It serves the Church to hold to the the teaching that Baptism is permanent - in both its effects. It keeps the door open for someone who might have doubts and then come back - which is good. It removes any doubt as to whether someone is “truly Catholic”. It makes the other Sacraments more readily available.

But some people don’t want to be forever Catholic. They can leave. Some do leave.

 

[Corki]

The same thing happens in the Catholic church in the US. They just walk out the door.

Yup. And no one stopped the OP from doing this.

The Church is, and really always has been, really open to coming back if a person wants to. But that’s not really the issue. The OP views herself as Methodist and isn’t planning on coming back. It’s her parents who are having the fit.

Maybe. We only have one side of the story, remember? The OP views herself as Methodist, fine. The OP wants to get married in a Methodist ceremony, fine. The OP wants the Catholic Church and her Catholic parents to accept that - not so fine. No one is saying her marrige would not be legally valid or that that Methodists shouldn’t accept the marriage. But it is somewhat unreasonable to expect the Church, and by extension her parents, to change her teaching in order to accomodate someone who doesn’t even believe what the Church teaches.

This whole thread isn’t about what the OP is “allowed” to do but rather about what she wants **her parents **to do. She wants them to join her in believing that she is no longer Catholic. She can believe what she wants but she can’t force her parents to believe something that is against their faith.

No, actually, there’s more to this issue than this.

In the US, this is just a bit of obnoxiousness on the part of Catholics over people who leave. In Europe it’s more of the big deal, because the state supports the Church, and when people defect on paper, the Church loses their tax support.

This isn’t a US adaptation of Church teaching. This is canon law and applicable everywhere in the world. A Catholic isn’t free to ignore the teaching of the Church just because he/she lives in the US.

 

[iloveangels]

Yup. And no one stopped the OP from doing this.

Maybe. We only have one side of the story, remember? The OP views herself as Methodist, fine. The OP wants to get married in a Methodist ceremony, fine. The OP wants the Catholic Church and her Catholic parents to accept that - not so fine. No one is saying her marrige would not be legally valid or that that Methodists shouldn’t accept the marriage. But it is somewhat unreasonable to expect the Church, and by extension her parents, to change her teaching in order to accomodate someone who doesn’t even believe what the Church teaches.

This whole thread isn’t about what the OP is “allowed” to do but rather about what she wants **her parents **to do. She wants them to join her in believing that she is no longer Catholic. She can believe what she wants but she can’t force her parents to believe something that is against their faith.

I think that, according to the OP’s original post, she not trying to get any kind of formal announcement out of her parents at all. She’s just trying to get them to stand down and stop protesting like mad to her choices because she’s an adult. Go read the original post.

This isn’t a US adaptation of Church teaching. This is canon law and applicable everywhere in the world. A Catholic isn’t free to ignore the teaching of the Church just because he/she lives in the US.

I don’t know where you get all this stuff I didn’t say. This is going on all over the world, particularly in Europe, where it’s much more serious than it is here. It’s just obnoxious here.

 

[Corki]

They are equivalent, if you’re just talking about the baptism itself. What you’re saying is precisely that there’s two conditions, not one. You said, “Baptism in the Catholic Church accomplishes two things;.” Yes, exactly. Those two things are 1) the baptism itself which is a change from being non-Christian to Christian, and 2) consent, in the case of the infant, given by his parents who are hedging their bets that the child will grow up to be Catholic.

That’s not what I said at all. I said that Baptism has two effects, not two conditions.

1. removes Original sin and makes one a member of the Body of Christ
2. accepts the person into the Catholic Church community

The effects of the Sacrament have nothing to do with intent or consent.

Correct. Priests won’t baptise babies unless there is a reasonable chance of growing up Catholic for this very reason. They are imputing on the child consent for the child that the child is not yet capable of giving.

Again, nothing to do with consent. A priest won’t baptize a child without a reasonable hope of him/her being raised Catholic because the Baptism creates obligations and responsibilties. It would be wrong to create those obligations knowing that the child may not even be taught about them properly.

They are betting that when the child is able to give it, that its upbringing and education will cause it to make the same choice that its parents made for it at baptism.

There is no point in time where the person is going to be required to give consent to what the parents asked for.

 

[Corki]

I think that, according to the OP’s original post, she not trying to get any kind of formal announcement out of her parents at all. She’s just trying to get them to stand down and stop protesting like mad to her choices because she’s an adult. Go read the original post.

I have read the OP - several times. She wants more than just an end to the “protesting”. She wants them to fully participate. She wants her father to give her away. She wants them to celebrate. She wants them to act as if her marriage is the same as if she was being married in the Church. She wants them to publically approve of the marriage.

I understand that she feels she is not Catholic and that she cannot, in good conscience, marry in the Church. But she is not going to get what she wants, it seems, without her parents going against thier own beliefs or at least pretending.

 

[dixieagle]

In the US, this is correct. All a person in the US has to put up with if they leave is the bad behavior of Catholics who want to terrorize them over it.

Terrorize them??? The Catholic Church isn’t a cult which hunts down those who leave and drags them back.

 

[Vico]

…No additional consent is required at a later age for someone to be considered Catholic. A Catholic infant remains that way for eternity. …

The virtues of faith, hope, and charity are given with baptism, and then consent at the age of reason, necessary to retain charity, lest salvation be lost.

 

[minkymurph]

Actually, this is interesting because it gets to the reasons why people in Europe are wanting to sign papers to leave the Church. In Europe the church is supported by the government and if you’re Catholic you have to pay taxes to support the Church. People who no longer believe are trying to lower their tax burden by leaving the Church since they don’t believe anyway. That’s the point to that in Europe. The Church, of course, doesn’t want them leaving for all kinds of reasons, including the obvious spiritual reasons, but funding losses do come into the picture.

I’m not sure that’s strictly true. Taxation varies greatly from country to country in Europe.

The Church is, and really always has been, really open to coming back if a person wants to. But that’s not really the issue. The OP views herself as Methodist and isn’t planning on coming back. It’s her parents who are having the fit.

She’s not planning on coming back at the moment, and she may not come back, but never is a long time. It would appear it is the OP’s parents that are having the fit. As such, as you rightly say it is not the issue.

 

[iloveangels]

That’s not what I said at all. I said that Baptism has two effects, not two conditions.

1. removes Original sin and makes one a member of the Body of Christ
2. accepts the person into the Catholic Church community
   The effects of the Sacrament have nothing to do with intent or consent.

According to this latest description of yours then, baptism then makes a person Christian. This is what my non-Catholic baptism did too–the one that was accepted as valid when I came into the Church.

Again, nothing to do with consent. A priest won’t baptize a child without a reasonable hope of him/her being raised Catholic because the Baptism creates obligations and responsibilties. It would be wrong to create those obligations knowing that the child may not even be taught about them properly.
There is no point in time where the person is going to be required to give consent to what the parents asked for.

Except that there is a matter of consent. The Church doesn’t just take all the babies that are born to parents who happen to be Catholic and baptize them automatically like a machine. The parents have to call and set it up. Questions are asked of the parents, which imply consent or they wouldn’t be asked. You said yourself that there are situations where children born to Catholic parents are not baptized automatically if their parents are not likely to raise them as Catholic. There is some consent required.

The other interesting thing is this: “A priest won’t baptize a child without a reasonable hope of him/her being raised Catholic because the Baptism creates obligations and responsibilities. It would be wrong to create those obligations knowing that the child may not even be taught about them properly.” I’m quoting you.

If you could just baptize somebody and automatically make them fully and completely catholic, then why bother with worrying that they might not get the kind of background that would make them stay? I mean, if they can’t leave anyway, what difference does it make?

 

[iloveangels]

Terrorize them??? The Catholic Church isn’t a cult which hunts down those who leave and drags them back.

You’re right. It isn’t. So her parents need to stand down.

The best thing that could probably happen is that the OP and her parents have a series of decent conversations where:

1. they recognize her right at the age of 27 (or whatever it is) to marry whom she wants where she wants,
2. that they recognize her ability to be a Methodist if she wants to be one,
3. that she respect that they have a right to be Catholics if they want to be,
4. that they come to some sort of a practical arrangement about who plays what part in the wedding, and all that,
5. that they behave like civilized human beings.

A wedding is a joyous affair, not an occasion for warfare. The OP and her parents are going to have to get past this mess they currently have. Or it’s only going to get worse. Civil, adult and decent behavior is the only way. It is what it is.

 

[minkymurph]

In Europe the church is supported by the government and if you’re Catholic you have to pay taxes to support the Church.

Sorry no I can’t go with that. Church’s, as in Catholic/Protestant are not supported by the government in every European country. There’s a huge margin of appreciation on that score. In my country you don’t have to pay taxes to support the Church if you are Catholic.