Wedding Sadness, Looking for insight

[Corki]

What???

Unless the couple is from some sort of middle eastern enclave, honestly, honor is not likely to be the real issue in this day and age in the USA.

I think what was meant by “family torn apart” is that people get all bent out of shape when they get into fights and then they don’t get around to apologizing. And it sounds like the parents are having trouble recognizing the autonomy of their grown daughter, and this is sort of bringing that pre-existing problem into bright focus. This happens too.

And maybe there’s a little guilt or something too, you know…

As to your last statement, I wonder that too. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, we only know half of the story. Maybe the parents feel bad that they didn’t make more of an issue of their daughter’s choice to attend a Methodist rather than a Catholic church earlier or that they didn’t have this discussion when the dating became serious.

We have had this issue in my family and among close friends. One of my siblings married outside the Church and it was a huge deal for my parents. Ultimately my parents attended but did not actively participate. It was an uneasy truce to say the least.

Because of these incidents, I have already had conversations with my own children. They are still in high school but they know that if they chose to marry outside of the Church, **I will still love and support them **but won’t be able to celebrate with them. A generation ago, all Catholic children would have probably understood this without being told.

 

[Joan_M]

Catholic Canons and doctrine would not apply here. **This is absolutely NOT true! Once you become a Catholic, there is no way you can not be one. You may be a lapsed Catholic, or a bad Catholic - whatever, but you are not a non-Catholic. **You (OP) are a Methodist by choice, not a Catholic.
It is sad that religion divides a family like this. I wish I had something wise to say.
Prayers for you and your family.
Edit:
And the other sincere question that comes to mind, if you are Methodist by choice, why are you presenting this predicament on the CAF forum?

**The OP’s parents are perfectly right. If the OP marries outside of the Catholic Church she will not be in a valid sacramental marriage. Her marriage will be legal, but that does not mean much to her parents. She will be living in sin. Her parents will not be able to attend the wedding. They certainly should not. She will be causing them heartbreak.

The OP needs to face facts. She chose to doubt the truths of the Catholic Church. For instance she says that she cannot see how the bread and wine can become Jesus. Jesus is God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Why would anyone think that God Himself cannot give Himself to us, under the appearance of bread and wine? Such things as not wanting to wear a scapular means nothing - not everyone wears them, it is their choice, not a requirement. It all comes down to who we think Jesus is. Either He is God or He is a liar (or a mad man). He, himself told us that He is the Bread of Life.

As for advice given her to speak to her parents’ parish priest, well, any priest worth his salt will tell her that her parents are correct. That she is jeopardizing her soul doing what she intends to do.

Of course, in the end, she will decide what she will do. But before she makes any final decision she should really look at what the Catholic Faith is. Decisions we make when we are still adolescents or young adults are seldom made based on reflection and reason. They usually come out of rebellion, and should not form the foundation of our adult life.
**

 

[maltmom]

There is something that keeps running through my mine. Please don’t jump on me as I’m a new Catholic and learning.

Here goes…how culpable and is she truly Catholic…she was baptized as a baby which obviously wasn’t her decision…she stated that she didn’t believe the Church’s teachings at her confirmation and that it wasn’t her decision to be confirmed, she didn’t have a choice in the matter. I guess I’m having a problem understanding how someone who never believed in the teachings of the Church and was confirmed when she didn’t want to be can still be considered Catholic.

If she’s never believed that the Church had any authority over her how can we expect her to do so now?

 

[AnastasiaRomano]

**Decisions we make when we are still adolescents or young adults are seldom made based on reflection and reason. They usually come out of rebellion, and should not form the foundation of our adult life.
**

I decided at the age of 19 to become a Catholic, and entered the Church at 20. To be sure, my evangelical Protestant family at first said the same thing you did now – that I was only rebelling against them. Then, when shortly thereafter I began dating and then married my husband, they accused me of converting only to marry him. Should these two decisions – to enter the church and marry my husband – not form the foundation of my adult life? I think you’re generalizing quite a bit when you say that adolescent and young adult decisions should not form the foundation of one’s adult life. Certainly many adolescents and young adults can and do make bad decisions, but not every decision made during that time period is irrational.

Perhaps the OP was not well-catechized originally. But perhaps she was. We don’t know, and the speculation by several posters on OP’s understanding of Catholic teachings seems inappropriate. All we know is that she chose to leave the Catholic Church for the Methodist Church, and although she no longer believes all of what the Catholic Church teaches, she seems to still love Jesus and truly desire to follow Him.
She came here because she seems distressed about the current situation and her disagreement with her parents. She has expressed herself respectfully. So why does this thread seem to be turning into an opportunity to bash the OP and beat a dead horse?

 

[Corki]

There is something that keeps running through my mine. Please don’t jump on me as I’m a new Catholic and learning.

Here goes…how culpable and is she truly Catholic…she was baptized as a baby which obviously wasn’t her decision…she stated that she didn’t believe the Church’s teachings at her confirmation and that it wasn’t her decision to be confirmed, she didn’t have a choice in the matter.

If she’s never believed that the Church had any authority over her how can we expect her to do so now?

There are two issues here. There *could *be reduced culpability with regard to leaving the Church. There are lots of people who never really learned about their faith or were taught (explicitly or implicitly) that all Christian faith traditions are essentially equal.

However, with regard to marrying outside the Church, there is more culpability since she has clearly been told by her parents what the teaching is and how she is not fulfilling it.

In either case, culpable or not, it has no effect on the validity of the marriage.

I guess I’m having a problem understanding how someone who never believed in the teachings of the Church and was confirmed when she didn’t want to be can still be considered Catholic.

Because being Confirmed does not make one any “more” Catholic than being baptized. Even if she had never been Confirmed, or even received FHC, she is still a baptized Catholic. The three Sacraments of initiation are different in quality but not in degree.

 

[maltmom]

Thank you Corki

 

[iloveangels]

**The OP’s parents are perfectly right. If the OP marries outside of the Catholic Church she will not be in a valid sacramental marriage. Her marriage will be legal, but that does not mean much to her parents. She will be living in sin. Her parents will not be able to attend the wedding. They certainly should not. She will be causing them heartbreak.

The OP needs to face facts. She chose to doubt the truths of the Catholic Church. For instance she says that she cannot see how the bread and wine can become Jesus. Jesus is God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Why would anyone think that God Himself cannot give Himself to us, under the appearance of bread and wine? Such things as not wanting to wear a scapular means nothing - not everyone wears them, it is their choice, not a requirement. It all comes down to who we think Jesus is. Either He is God or He is a liar (or a mad man). He, himself told us that He is the Bread of Life.

As for advice given her to speak to her parents’ parish priest, well, any priest worth his salt will tell her that her parents are correct. That she is jeopardizing her soul doing what she intends to do.

Of course, in the end, she will decide what she will do. But before she makes any final decision she should really look at what the Catholic Faith is. Decisions we make when we are still adolescents or young adults are seldom made based on reflection and reason. They usually come out of rebellion, and should not form the foundation of our adult life.
**

The OP is a Methodist, and apparently has been a Methodist for some time. There are no facts for her to face. She’s not Catholic and doesn’t forsee ever being Catholic. It’s kind of surprising that her parents have pulled up and are making a big issue of this NOW.

 

[iloveangels]

I decided at the age of 19 to become a Catholic, and entered the Church at 20. To be sure, my evangelical Protestant family at first said the same thing you did now – that I was only rebelling against them. Then, when shortly thereafter I began dating and then married my husband, they accused me of converting only to marry him. Should these two decisions – to enter the church and marry my husband – not form the foundation of my adult life? I think you’re generalizing quite a bit when you say that adolescent and young adult decisions should not form the foundation of one’s adult life. Certainly many adolescents and young adults can and do make bad decisions, but not every decision made during that time period is irrational.

Perhaps the OP was not well-catechized originally. But perhaps she was. We don’t know, and the speculation by several posters on OP’s understanding of Catholic teachings seems inappropriate. All we know is that she chose to leave the Catholic Church for the Methodist Church, and although she no longer believes all of what the Catholic Church teaches, she seems to still love Jesus and truly desire to follow Him.
She came here because she seems distressed about the current situation and her disagreement with her parents. She has expressed herself respectfully. So why does this thread seem to be turning into an opportunity to bash the OP and beat a dead horse?

I agree. And I’m glad you pointed out that people come from the Methodist church without their parents consent and become Catholic. They do.

 

[dixieagle]

The OP is a Methodist, and apparently has been a Methodist for some time. There are no facts for her to face. She’s not Catholic and doesn’t forsee ever being Catholic. It’s kind of surprising that her parents have pulled up and are making a big issue of this NOW.

In her own mind she is Methodist, but as a baptized Catholic, like it or not, she is a (lapsed) Catholic. Though I can understand her bewilderment at the Church’s position that “once a baptized Catholic, always a Catholic”, that’s the way it is, and that’s the way her parents see it.

We, of course, have no idea about her faith formation, and it is up to God to judge her motivation. Her parents may have done their very best; she has pointed out that they are faithful Catholics, so it is not surprising that they are so upset. It’s a difficult situation all the way around.

 

[clem456]

**The OP’s parents are perfectly right. **

Wow!
They can be perfect? And right? All at the same time!!! With people like that around who needs Jesus!!

The OP needs to face facts. She chose to doubt the truths of the Catholic Church. For instance she says that she cannot see how the bread and wine can become Jesus. Jesus is God the Son, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Why would anyone think that God Himself cannot give Himself to us, under the appearance of bread and wine? Such things as not wanting to wear a scapular means nothing - not everyone wears them, it is their choice, not a requirement. It all comes down to who we think Jesus is. Either He is God or He is a liar (or a mad man). He, himself told us that He is the Bread of Life.

 

[27lw]

clem456 - - I call you on your sarcasm. Any point you were trying to make is lost. Was there a point?
I think everyone wishes the OP well - - any news of the outcome?

 

[iloveangels]

In her own mind she is Methodist, but as a baptized Catholic, like it or not, she is a (lapsed) Catholic. Though I can understand her bewilderment at the Church’s position that “once a baptized Catholic, always a Catholic”, that’s the way it is, and that’s the way her parents see it.

We, of course, have no idea about her faith formation, and it is up to God to judge her motivation. Her parents may have done their very best; she has pointed out that they are faithful Catholics, so it is not surprising that they are so upset. It’s a difficult situation all the way around.

Dixieeagle,

If she says she’s a METHODIST, then she’s a METHODIST. She’d ought to know.

I have this discussion with Catholics all the time. It is possible to leave the Catholic church of one’s own free will. People do it every now and then. Many of them never come back. Temper tantrums on our part when we see it don’t do either them or us any good.

I’m not really sure how her parents see it, not knowing them. There could be all kinds of things going on, trust me. WE don’t know all the details. This is only an internet forum.

 

[pbecke]

The concluding prayer for week 25 in the Divine Office reads:

‘Father, you summed up the whole law
as love of you and of our neighbour.
Grant that by keeping this commandment of love,
we may come to eternal life.
We make our prayer through our Lord.’

Summed up the whole law?!! Could they possibly mean … including Canon Law 47b, subsection II), paragraph 4, clause 6, lines 3-8? Were those people even Catholic?

Make no mistake, this siege-mentality is a hangover from the geo-political tribalism, etc acknowledged by Church leaders to have been the real cause of the martyrdoms of so many heroic Christians on both sides in the civil wars of religion, and still so shockingly evident in Scotland and Northern Ireland - and, evidently, the US. What an irony. The Pope at the time actually wanted the Protestants to win in N. Ireland, for geo-political reasons! Plus ca change… And, incidentally, for biological and historical reasons, women by nature, if not grace, tend to be by far the more fiercely tribal.

 

[pbecke]

In her own mind she is Methodist, but as a baptized Catholic, like it or not, she is a (lapsed) Catholic. Though I can understand her bewilderment at the Church’s position that “once a baptized Catholic, always a Catholic”, that’s the way it is, and that’s the way her parents see it.

We, of course, have no idea about her faith formation, and it is up to God to judge her motivation. Her parents may have done their very best; she has pointed out that they are faithful Catholics, so it is not surprising that they are so upset. It’s a difficult situation all the way around.

Do you think it possible some Protestants in good faith might get to heaven? And if they do, will the people know who was baptised a Catholic and who was baptised a Protestant? And will it matter to them? Or will the former Catholics take pride in their Catholic baptism?

 

[minkymurph]

In her own mind she is Methodist, but as a baptized Catholic, like it or not, she is a (lapsed) Catholic. Though I can understand her bewilderment at the Church’s position that “once a baptized Catholic, always a Catholic”, that’s the way it is, and that’s the way her parents see it.

We, of course, have no idea about her faith formation, and it is up to God to judge her motivation. Her parents may have done their very best; she has pointed out that they are faithful Catholics, so it is not surprising that they are so upset. It’s a difficult situation all the way around.

I have a question. Does being baptized make one Catholic? As I understand it, being validly baptized makes one validly baptized, but not necessarily Catholic. Is it not the case the CC recognizes the baptism of the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church as valid? However, being baptized into the Anglican or Methodist Church does not make one Catholic? The question then is what does make one Catholic?

I ask this because when I came became Catholic, another woman who also became Catholic did not have to be baptized because she had already been baptized Anglican, which was considered a valid baptism. However, she was not considered Catholic because of her baptism. In addition, I can remember a priest telling me there are people who say they are Catholic and there are people who are Catholic and there is a difference. Those who were baptized Catholic and raised in the Catholic faith have the right to call themselves Catholic. However, that does not make them Catholic - one reason being their faith was chosen for them, they did not choose it themselves.

 

[Elizium23]

I have a question. Does being baptized make one Catholic? As I understand it, being validly baptized makes one validly baptized, but not necessarily Catholic. Is it not the case the CC recognizes the baptism of the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church as valid? However, being baptized into the Anglican or Methodist Church does not make one Catholic? The question then is what does make one Catholic?

I ask this because when I came became Catholic, another woman who also became Catholic did not have to be baptized because she had already been baptized Anglican, which was considered a valid baptism. However, she was not considered Catholic because of her baptism. In addition, I can remember a priest telling me there are people who say they are Catholic and there are people who are Catholic and there is a difference. Those who were baptized Catholic and raised in the Catholic faith have the right to call themselves Catholic. However, that does not make them Catholic - one reason being their faith was chosen for them, they did not choose it themselves.

Please don’t cloud the issue of the OP. Start another thread if you wish to question how baptism works. The OP was baptized Catholic: she is Catholic for the rest of eternity. The OP was confirmed Catholic and received the Eucharist: she has completed all her sacraments of initiation; she is eligible to marry in the Church. This is Catholic teaching. If you want to claim that she is a Methodist then perhaps you are a Methodist too. This is the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, where we exclusively discuss Catholic Teaching. If the OP wants to start a thread on the United Methodist Layman’s Forum, then they can tell her what a good Methodist she is, but I will continue to assert that she is a Catholic and bound by the laws and precepts of the Roman Catholic Church.

I will let others explain how baptism works (again) but I will stay on-topic for this thread.

 

[Corki]

I have a question. Does being baptized make one Catholic? As I understand it, being validly baptized makes one validly baptized, but not necessarily Catholic. Is it not the case the CC recognizes the baptism of the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church as valid? However, being baptized into the Anglican or Methodist Church does not make one Catholic? The question then is what does make one Catholic?

I ask this because when I came became Catholic, another woman who also became Catholic did not have to be baptized because she had already been baptized Anglican, which was considered a valid baptism. However, she was not considered Catholic because of her baptism. In addition, I can remember a priest telling me there are people who say they are Catholic and there are people who are Catholic and there is a difference. Those who were baptized Catholic and raised in the Catholic faith have the right to call themselves Catholic. However, that does not make them Catholic - one reason being their faith was chosen for them, they did not choose it themselves.

When you are Baptized in a Catholic church, two things happen - you receive a Sacrament and you are received into the Church. The second happens automatically with the first.

When you are Baptized in a non-Catholic Christian ceremony, you still receive the Sacrament but are not received into the Church. This is the sad consequence of the division that exists in the body of Christ. A validly baptized person can still be received into the Church at another time, as with the person you described who was baptized as an Anglican, but it’s not automatic.

Becoming Catholic is not something you do, it is something that is done **for you **by the community through the Sacraments. It’s the reception into the Community that makes you Catholic.

 

[minkymurph]

When you are Baptized in a Catholic church, two things happen - you receive a Sacrament and you are received into the Church. The second happens automatically with the first.

When you are Baptized in a non-Catholic Christian ceremony, you still receive the Sacrament but are not received into the Church. This is the sad consequence of the division that exists in the body of Christ. A validly baptized person can still be received into the Church at another time, as with the person you described who was baptized as an Anglican, but it’s not automatic.

Becoming Catholic is not something you do, it is something that is done **for you **by the community through the Sacraments. It’s the reception into the Community that makes you Catholic.

Thank you for the clarification. I would also like to say you and I have encountered each other on the forums before and in spite of the fact we don’t always agree, I feel we have often had many a good discussion and I have often found your post insightful.

What you are saying relates to my point of discussion - it is done for you by the community through the Sacraments. I am not suggesting this makes anything invalid or makes someone ‘not Catholic’ for want of a better phrase. What I am saying is if a person is, rightly or wrongly, acting contrary to their own will, it can be argued they were made Catholic by others against their will. As such, it can be questioned if they were ever Catholic in the first place. The reason I bring this up is because I have seen it stated categorically in response to certain posters on more than one occasion on the forums, that they are not Catholic for a variety of reasons irrespective of receiving Sacraments etc. I stress it was not said by you or anyone else on this thread. However, it made me think.

Can it be said on one side of the coin someone is not Catholic, yet on the other say they can never be anything else? That to me seem contradictory. In relation to the thread, it the OP was not truly Catholic in the first place, she is free to marry in another Church. I would also like to stress I am posing this as a point of inquiry, and not making an assertion of what I think.

 

[Elizium23]

Now you are trying to find a loophole by which we can judge the OP not Catholic after all. She has not shared with us her exact time of baptism. If she was baptized as an infant, then it was the will of her parents which counted, not hers. The intent of her parents to baptize her into the Catholic faith was sufficient to make her a Catholic.

In the Church, intent is a very difficult thing to disprove. If a priest presides at Mass and says the prayers as prescribed, including the Words of Consecration, he can be assumed to have the intent to do as the Church does, and consecrate the Sacred Species. If a person (anyone) baptizes with water and the Trinitarian Formula, he can be assumed to have the intent to do as the Church does.

If a priest, teaching a seminary class on the Liturgy of the Eucharist, takes bread and wine and says the Words of Consecration while explaining to the class that he intends merely to teach them about the proper form of the prayer, then the Consecration does not happen. The priest has explicitly made known his intent to the contrary. It is of course more likely that the priest will not use bread or wine, but I used this as an example.

If a person of 20 years old were waiting for baptism at the Easter Vigil, and she took her father aside, and confided in him “I am really not sure I am ready to do this.” and then she stepped forward, said the responses to the Exorcism, and allowed herself to be baptized after all, you would have an extremely hard time disproving her intent. It would be her father’s word against the witnesses in that church. Now, if two thugs held her bound at gunpoint while the priest pushed her into the font and poured water over her while she struggled, that would be a clear case of intent to the contrary.

But it is very difficult to disprove intent, and I would not like to see this thread degenerate into more speculation as we assume things about the OP - I have already done so - her parents claim that she is Catholic, and we should accept their claim.

 

[Corki]

Thank you for the clarification. I would also like to say you and I have encountered each other on the forums before and in spite of the fact we don’t always agree, I feel we have often had many a good discussion and I have often found your post insightful.

What you are saying relates to my point of discussion - it is done for you by the community through the Sacraments. I am not suggesting this makes anything invalid or makes someone ‘not Catholic’ for want of a better phrase. What I am saying is if a person is, rightly or wrongly, acting contrary to their own will, it can be argued they were made Catholic by others against their will. As such, it can be questioned if they were ever Catholic in the first place.

I understand what you mean but it just doesn’t match up with the teaching of the Church. Most of the Sacraments are done for us, not by us. The only ones that depend on our own will are the Sacraments in service (marriage and holy orders). All three of the Sacraments of initiation are **received **by us rather than accomplished by our own actions.

The reason I bring this up is because I have seen it stated categorically in response to certain posters on more than one occasion on the forums, that they are not Catholic for a variety of reasons irrespective of receiving Sacraments etc. **I stress it was not said by you or anyone else on this thread. However, it made me think. **

Can it be said on one side of the coin someone is not Catholic, yet on the other say they can never be anything else? That to me seem contradictory. In relation to the thread, it the OP was not truly Catholic in the first place, she is free to marry in another Church. I would also like to stress I am posing this as a point of inquiry, and not making an assertion of what I think

Thanks for excluding me. I try very hard not to use that terminology. From everything I have ever read or studied, there is no way for someone who was Catholic to become non-Catholic. When someone says that Mr. X or Ms Y is “not Catholic” due to their actions, it really means that they aren’t behaving in any way that resembles someone who believes what the Church teaches. They may not be practicing Catholics or faithful Catholics but that’s another discussion.

The practical side of it is that a Catholic, no matter how far they stray, is never so far away from the Church that a good Confession can not bring them back. Only Catholics can validly receive the Sacrament of Confession. If someone’s sins or doubts made them non-Catholic, they could never come back through Confession. That would be tragic.

And since for Elizium23’s sake, I want to stay on topic, this is why some of us insist that the OP is Catholic. It isn’t just being stubborn. It’s that the Church never disowns her children, even if they want her to. She always keeps a place for them and wants them to return.