Wedding Sadness, Looking for insight

[adrift]

Has anyone noticed (or does anyone care) that amid all the bickering between posters, you seem to have lost the OP several pages ago?

No I don’t think that is the case at all.

 

[ToBeWedBarb]

Please read the OP. The OP is Catholic. She has only chosen Methodism as a way to escape the Catholic Church, which she does not understand. A baptized Catholic is obliged to observe Canon Law, and this includes the form of marriage. A baptized Catholic must receive a dispensation for lack of canonical form or she marries invalidly.

And this is where I’m going to have to disagree. If I do not believe that the Catholic Church has any authority in my life, then it doesn’t. You might believe that it does, my parents might too - but really it does not hold any authority over me at all.

I am not sure what you expect me to do - try to convince myself that I believe in the Church enough to marry in it? Remain single unless I can come to terms with the fact that I am permenantly and forever Catholic despite my desire not to be? Is Catholicism an indelible mark? I believe that the Spirit has called me to the Methodist church. Not because it is fun and warm, but because it is the best manifestation of Christ’s church available. I completely understand that many disagree. I assume everyone thinks their church is the “most right” from the Methodists to the Lutherans to the Evangelicals to the Baptists to the Catholics to the Muslims to the… on and on.

I want to clarify here that my parents are not mean, crazy people. They are great parents and overall I have always gotten along with them and we’ve had a really lovely relationship. They worked really hard to raise 5 kids and I have tons of respect for them. But just because they think I am Catholic doesn’t mean I am. I simply don’t believe that bread or wine is turned into the literal body and blood of Christ via transubstantiation. I realize that the priest does not “magically” change the host on his own - and I fully accept that God can make miracles happen - but I do not buy the Catholic story on the Eucharist. I think it is reverent to symbolically commemorate the last supper. But I don’t think that God, via some ritual facilitated by a priest, changes communion wafters and table wine into Jesus’ flesh. I respect that some people believe that it happens, but I can’t.

But back on subject - my parent’s aren’t bad at all and in fact up until now we’ve had no major road bumps. That’s why this is so shocking and heartbreaking. Part of me feels compelled to just tell the priest what he wants to hear, jump through the hoops and marry in the Church for our family’s sake and out of love for my parents. I know people who have no intention of living a Catholic lifestyle do it every day, so maybe I should too and just call it a day with the threats and the fighting. However, I long to marry in my church of 8 years and I do not want to disrespect the Catholic faith by participating in a farce just to appease my mom and dad. This is for sure the most complicated choice I’ve ever had to make and I feel like I just can’t please everyone, so I need to just please God. Too bad that everyone’s idea of what that entails is different!

 

[Elizium23]

It seems that a fromal act of defection could make the marriage valid. I think it would take a canon lawyer though to say what this canon means.

No, it can’t. Not after Omnium in mentem of 2009. There is no such legal animal since it was abolished by this motu proprio.

 

[minkymurph]

Please read the OP. The OP is Catholic. She has only chosen Methodism as a way to escape the Catholic Church, which she does not understand. A baptized Catholic is obliged to observe Canon Law, and this includes the form of marriage. A baptized Catholic must receive a dispensation for lack of canonical form or she marries invalidly.

I did read what the OP said. Yes, a Catholic must receive a dispensation if he or she marries invalidly. The question is, is a marriage in a Methodist Church invalid? What makes it invalid? If we are to assert a marriage is not valid, we must also consider what makes it valid.

Firstly I would say I am no expert on Canon Law. However, is it not the case the Church annuls marriages that were carried out in a Catholic Church and the couple had children? The reason the Church annuls the marriage is irrespective of the fact the couple were married in a Catholic Church and had children, the couple concerned were not validly married - no marriage existed. As such, being married in a Catholic Church and having children, in the eyes of the Church, does not mean your marriage was valid. Why is that? Is a marriage valid simply because one who is brought up in the Catholic faith marries in a Catholic Church and raises their children Catholic? If that is the case, how can the Church annul a marriage between two people if they were brought up Catholic, married in a Catholic Church, and brought their children up Catholic? Is a marriage valid because it was carried out by a Catholic priest, or because the couple promise to bring up their children Catholic? In addition, if someone who was raised Catholic marries outside the Church, and at a later time wants the marriage annulled, can they have it annulled on the basis they were not married in a Catholic Church? If they cannot, then one could only conclude they cannot because they were validly married.

As I said in a previous post, I had a civil marriage. When I became Catholic, my husband who was brought up Anglican did not. I asked if I needed to have my marriage convalidated. I was told I did not. I also posted this question to Father Vincent Sherpa on this forum and he said I did not have to have my marriage convalidated. It is true I was not brought up Catholic, neither was my husband. As such, neither of us were under Canon Law at the time we married. However, the reasons why we did not have to convalidate our marriage is the point. The reason I was given is because we were both baptized by the same baptism. As such, our marriage was sanctified, sacramental, as a consequence of baptism. As such, a marriage in another Church may be valid as a consequence of baptism.

Let’s say for the OP decided to return to the Catholic Church at a later time, and let’s say her prospective husband also decided to become Catholic. Would they need to convalidate their marriage? Possibly. It is also possible they may not have to. If at a future time they would not have to convalidate their marriage, then we can conclude their original marriage was not invalid, and they were married. I would say the issue here is not the validity of the marriage. The issue is the OP has chosen to become Methodist, which I can understand, but not the validity of their marriage.

 

[minkymurph]

It seems that a fromal act of defection could make the marriage valid. I think it would take a canon lawyer though to say what this canon means.

I go with you there. I think it would take a Canon lawyer on this one - to decide if the marriage is valid or invalid - if the OP has concerns about the validity of her marriage in the eyes of the Church.

 

[Elizium23]

I know that the laws and teachings on marriage are very hard to understand. It is a convoluted passageway fraught with emotion, hurt feelings, and high expectations dashed by reality. I will pray for you and I will allow others to speak about the misconceptions you hold.

Don’t get me wrong, here. If the OP and her fiancé were both born and raised Protestant, then I would thank them for their commitment to Christ, and wish them well in their marriage. If the OP and her fiancé were atheist, I would wish them well in their marriage, and kindly suggest to them that they investigate joining the Church sometime before their children are born. If the OP were born and raised Methodist, even if her parents were somehow still Catholic, the parents would not be able to raise an objection to a putatively valid, sacramental marriage between two Methodists. If this were the United Methodist Layman’s Forum, I would bid the OP welcome to the Methodist “Church” and assure her that there was no need whatsoever to obey those nice, misguided Catholics.

But the facts being as they are, I stand by my advice and will pray for the OP and her eternal soul.

 

[adrift]

I did read what the OP said. Yes, a Catholic must receive a dispensation if he or she marries invalidly. The question is, is a marriage in a Methodist Church invalid? What makes it invalid? If we are to assert a marriage is not valid, we must also consider what makes it valid.

Canon 1108.1 Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists, in accordance however with the rules set out in the following canons, and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112.1, 1116 and 1127.2-3.

at a later time wants the marriage annulled, can they have it annulled on the basis they were not married in a Catholic Church? If they cannot, then one could only conclude they cannot because they were validly married.

Marriages have the presumption of validity unless there is some obvious defect like marrying outside the Church. The Church generally does not annul a marriage outside the Church because the Church regards it as not being valid in the first place. Although the person might go through an annulment process just to state that it was not valid. So the answer is they can have declared invalid for lack of form.

As I said in a previous post, I had a civil marriage. When I became Catholic, my husband who was brought up Anglican did not. I asked if I needed to have my marriage convalidated. I was told I did not. I also posted this question to Father Vincent Sherpa on this forum and he said I did not have to have my marriage convalidated. It is true I was not brought up Catholic, neither was my husband. As such, neither of us were under Canon Law at the time we married. However, the reasons why we did not have to convalidate our marriage is the point. The reason I was given is because we were both baptized by the same baptism. As such, our marriage was sanctified, sacramental, as a consequence of baptism. As such, a marriage in another Church may be valid as a consequence of baptism.

The reason also was what I bolded and underlined. What you were told was correct according to your case but if you had been raised Catholic there would have been a different answer.

Let’s say for the OP decided to return to the Catholic Church at a later time, and let’s say her prospective husband also decided to become Catholic. Would they need to convalidate their marriage? Possibly. It is also possible they may not have to. If at a future time they would not have to convalidate their marriage, then we can conclude their original marriage was not invalid, and they were married. I would say the issue here is not the validity of the marriage. The issue is the OP has chosen to become Methodist, which I can understand, but not the validity of their marriage.

The answer is not possibly but probably it is invalid under Church laws. The issue is her respecting her parents faith as she wishes her faith decisions to be respected. I think that she does not by the way she phrase things to make her parents be in the worst light.

 

[Corki]

It seems that a fromal act of defection could make the marriage valid. I think it would take a canon lawyer though to say what this canon means.

Canon 1086 was ammended in 2009.

Article 3. The text of the can. 1086 § 1 of the Code of Canon Law is amended as follows: “It is invalid marriage between two persons, of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, and the other non-baptized.”

The phrase about formal defection was removed.

 

[daisybee]

To ToBeWedBarb:

Thank you for your reply. Being involved in farcical ceremony sounds like something to be avoided, most definitely.

Some thoughts…

After Jesus announces “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day” (John 6:53), and “…my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:55) and “…the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.” (John 6:57), his followers said, “ ‘This saying is hard; who can accept it?’ “ (John 6:60).

Then, many of them “returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.” (John 6:66)

Jesus did not in any way soften the great challenge of this announcement to try to prevent these followers from leaving…he did not try to explain to them that “eating” his flesh in a symbolic way or “drinking” his blood in a symbolic way would be acceptable.

Instead, He allowed these disciples to walk away and then turned to His Twelve apostles and said, “Do you also want to leave?” (John 6:57) He did not alter the Truth.

So…to ToBeWedBarb: Jesus is teaching that eating his flesh (literally) and drinking his body (literally) is essential to eternal life. What are the sources for your belief that it is “reverent to symbolically commemorate the last supper?” What verses of Scripture demonstrate that Christ wants his followers to commemorate the last supper only in a symbolic manner?

Or perhaps it was a Methodist minister(s) who at some point in your church’s history determined that it is reverent to symbolically commemorate the last supper? If so, who gave that minister hisauthority to make such a determination? It could not have been anyone who is a direct successor of the Twelve apostles, because such a person would have severed ties with the original Church that Christ Himself founded. So if the person did not receive authority from Christ’s Church, who would such a man have received his authority from?

Catholic priests receive their authority through the sacrament of ordination, as demonstrated in Acts and throughout the New Testament, which describes the transfer of authority through ordination. scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#apostolic-II And, as ordained leaders, the priests share in Jesus’ ministry and authority in primary way by actively making the Eucharist available to the faithful. See Father Vincent Serpa’s description here from July 4, 2011:

Jesus became incarnate and everything He did was incarnational, including the establishment of the sacraments and the establishment of His Church. He didn’t say that He would never appear on the earth. That is not in Scripture. In fact, He said that He would be with us all days. He didn’t leave any writings. All He left was His Church and the command to preach by word and sacrament. Mt. 28:18-20)

The Eucharist is the living memorial of His Passion. It is significant that when the early Protestants dropped the belief in the sacrifice of the Mass, the Eucharist became merely a symbol. Can you imagine what Christianity would be like if Christians had dropped the belief in His litteral Passion? Nothing keeps our awareness of His Passion so alive as does His Eucharistic Presence—which is why He established the Eucharist in the first place. Why would He establish the Eucharist if all it is, is a symbol? In Jn. 6: 35-71 Jesus insisted so strongly how necessary it is for us to eat His flesh and drink. Why would He be so insistent if it were only a symbol? When so many disciples left him because of His insistence that they eat His flesh and drink His blood, He didn’t go after them to explain that He was only speaking figuratively. He meant what He said. The early Church Fathers (Ignatius of Antioch, 110 AD, Irenaeus of Lions, 150 AD. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 AD) testify to this. I can give you these citations, but I don’t have room here. No one at the time understood what He was saying. But the Apostles believed Him because they trusted and loved Him.

No form of Christianity has had as consistent and developed an understanding of-and devotion to-the Passion, as does the Catholic Church—from apostolic times to the present. As for the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, the Catholic Church was the first to uphold this and still does. But it is imperative to recognize that the Passion transcends time. It covers all those who lived before Jesus came to earth and all those who were to come. The Mass simply allows us to be present at the Passion by the Eucharistic elements on the altar. It is impossible to understand the Eucharist without the Passion since it is the living sign of the Passion. The sign of the body of Christ on the altar, separate from the sign of His blood in the chalice tell us, without words, that He died. We don’t see His body and his blood as people saw them on Calvary, but we see them nonetheless under the forms of bread and wine. The Eucharist brings His Passion right into our lives and literally into us, the incarnate spirits that He and the Father designed us to be. Ours is an incarnational religion. He loves our souls and He loves our bodies which He fashioned in His own image and likeness. In our reception of the Eucharist, we are united with Him in the Holiest of Communions! Most Christians (Catholics and Orthodox) in the world have believed this for centuries. The greatest tragedy of Protestantism is its’ loss of the Eucharist as Jesus established it. We pray daily that these brothers and sisters of ours will one day receive the Eucharist with us. St. Thomas Aquinas said of it: “It was the fulfillment of ancient figures and the greatest of all His miracles, while for those who were to experience the sorrow of His departure, it was destined to be a unique and abiding consolation.”

 

[daisybee]

This is for sure the most complicated choice I’ve ever had to make and I feel like I just can’t please everyone, so I need to just please God. Too bad that everyone’s idea of what that entails is different!

John 6:53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

 

[clem456]

You make this claim from what authority?

There is no claim. The woman says “I am a Methodist”. It is irrelevant to her what the Church says.

The parents have a right to practice their faith. They rightly feel that this would be a scandal to their other children. Their beliefs should be respected by posters here and especially their child who should have known and probably did how they would react. She shouldn’t try to force her parents into accepting something that goes against their beliefs. It seems people here believe it is alright for her to force her beliefs on them but that if they stand up for their beliefs than the Church wouldn’t support them.

they have a right? ok, fine, they have rights. You win. They have rights.:clapping:
She shouldn’t try to force her parents into accepting. She is forcing her parents? SHE is forcing her parents? Have you heard yourself say that yet? SHE is forcing HER parents?
So unbelievably sad…

 

[clem456]

Your opinion.
Jesus said He came to cause division

Applying that passage to this behavior is a perversion of the Gospel.
Shame on you. Assuming you are an adult, you should know better.

 

[adrift]

There is no claim. The woman says “I am a Methodist”. It is irrelevant to her what the Church says.

You stated

Catholic Canons and doctrine would not apply here. You (OP) are a Methodist by choice, not a Catholic.

There is a difference between it being irrelevant to her and stating that Catholic Canons and doctrine would not apply. To her parents they make a difference. To her parents they are relevant. The OP is asking what to do? She asks how to fix it? She wants to be a Methodist. Her parents cannot accept this. To the parents this is the death of her soul much worst than the death of the body. How can there be a compromise? The only compromise is for one or the other to give up what they believe in.

]they have a right? ok, fine, they have rights. You win. They have rights.:clapping:
She shouldn’t try to force her parents into accepting. She is forcing her parents? SHE is forcing her parents? Have you heard yourself say that yet? SHE is forcing HER parents?
So unbelievably sad…

It is unbelievably sad that you see the parents as being wrong. It is unbelievable that these opinion statements are made as if fact

The Catholic Church does not support the behavior of your parents. Catholic Canons and doctrine would not apply here.

Authoritative statements that has no authority backing them.

Applying that passage to this behavior is a perversion of the Gospel.
Shame on you. Assuming you are an adult, you should know better.

ad hominem attacks is always the sign of a loss argument. It means that you have no argument to present only an attack on the person who has an argument.
Your statement

Originally Posted by clem456
Attributing animosity? The post speaks for itself. They are not practicing their faith they are proselytizing. They are preaching about Catholicism with no moral authority, because according to the post we’ve been given, they lack charity and basic respect even toward their own flesh and blood.

It is sickening to see the division caused in families due to pride. Enough already

It is your opinion, and after reading about your own child it becomes clear why you attack, that the Gospel has been perverted. The point that obviously was lost on you was that we are to put Jesus before all other relationships. That means you do not participate in others sins. You might attend a wedding of child and not be an occasion of scandal. The majority of times it will cause scandal.

 

[Vico]

… I long to marry in my church of 8 years and I do not want to disrespect the Catholic faith by participating in a farce just to appease my mom and dad…

When I wanted to stray from the Church my Grandmother spoke up as my godmother, and I have never forgotten that. Somebody must say something. You can do what you want but there are consequences.

You can have the Methodist marriage, but you will not meet your other other too goals at the same time. Safest thing for you now is not to marry, if you will not be reconciled to the Church. That way you can avoid sexual sin and scandal and dishonor.

Being baptized Catholic, by making an invalid attempt at matrimony, you will disrespect the Catholic Church and give a bad example, called scandal, to others and also disrespect your parents. They will be hard pressed to participate in your wedding which would cause scandal through their tacit approval, or let you and your fiancee stay at their home, and also any children that result will not be raised Catholic, which will dishonor them also. Honor you Father and Mother is one of the ten commandments, and Christ gave us a new commandment to love one another, which is violated when we set an example for others that leads astray.

 

[clem456]

You stated

we are to put Jesus before all other relationships. That means you do not participate in others sins. You might attend a wedding of child and not be an occasion of scandal. The majority of times it will cause scandal.

Exactly. Where is your confusion Adrift? Jesus and all that he stands for comes before any other relationships, including our relationship with our catechism.
You are making a common misinterpretation of the Gospel passage to justify division and strife within families. It is a perversion of the intent. It does not in any way shape or form justify the
-creation- of division. We do not create crosses for others. These parents are closing the door back to the faith, not only for the daughter but possibly for the generations to follow, due to their pride and hard heartedness. THAT is scandal, Adrift.

 

[adrift]

Exactly. Where is your confusion Adrift? Jesus and all that he stands for comes before any other relationships, including our relationship with our catechism.
You are making a common misinterpretation of the Gospel passage to justify division and strife within families. It is a perversion of the intent. It does not in any way shape or form justify the
-creation- of division. We do not create crosses for others. These parents are closing the door back to the faith, not only for the daughter but possibly for the generations to follow, due to their pride and hard heartedness. THAT is scandal, Adrift.

I have no confusion but you seem to. It is your misinformed opinion clouded by your own situation that muddles your thinking. It is their daughters actions that has closed the door to the faith not only for her but for her children. You are making a judgment that is unfounded. It is the parents faith that guides them. I think you need to find out what pride and scandal truly is. Scandal is when someone promotes sin as being good and condemns others for not promoting it.

I am now putting you on the ignore list.

 

[daisybee]

Exactly. Where is your confusion Adrift? Jesus and all that he stands for comes before any other relationships, including our relationship with our catechism.
You are making a common misinterpretation of the Gospel passage to justify division and strife within families. It is a perversion of the intent. It does not in any way shape or form justify the
-creation- of division. We do not create crosses for others. These parents are closing the door back to the faith, not only for the daughter but possibly for the generations to follow, due to their pride and hard heartedness. THAT is scandal, Adrift.

It could be that the parents’ intention is somewhere between adrift’s perspective and the one above.

Although their actions may seem hard-hearted from the limited information in the original post, it seems highly unlikely that they want to close the door to the faith on anyone. They may just not realize what options are available to them; hopefully their seeking counsel from priest or trusted, well-informed Catholic friend may help them.

The OP spoke well of her parents in one of her last posts above–she didn’t describe them as hard-hearted, vengeful, full of animosity…all descriptions/interpretations from various posters here.

On these forums, from apologists and other elderss who have consistently demonstrated good intentions over time, people in the position of the parents described above are usually given advice such as what follows. The parents may not be aware yet of the possibility described below.

See “Should I Attend?” cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=137

Quote:

There is a real concern that if a person refuses to attend the wedding, a rift in friendship could occur. This division could hinder any witness to the truth, and this concern is especially serious if the wedding involves a close friend or family member. This concern alone must not hinder our witness (cf. Lk. 12:51-53), but it can guide our actions as we fulfill our obligation to bring others to Christ. It could be that not attending would destroy any possible chance to witness the truth to the persons involved, especially if no reason is given for not attending. It could also be that not attending, and giving reasons for the absence, will help the couple choose the way of Christ. If a Catholic chooses to attend, he will want to ensure that no one considers his presence to be an affirmation of the sin.

 

[clem456]

It could be that the parents’ intention is somewhere between adrift’s perspective and the one above.

Although their actions may seem hard-hearted from the limited information in the original post, it seems highly unlikely that they want to close the door to the faith on anyone. They may just not realize what options are available to them; hopefully their seeking counsel from priest or trusted, well-informed Catholic friend may help them.

The OP spoke well of her parents in one of her last posts above–she didn’t describe them as hard-hearted, vengeful, full of animosity…all descriptions/interpretations from various posters here.

On these forums, from apologists and other elderss who have consistently demonstrated good intentions over time, people in the position of the parents described above are usually given advice such as what follows. The parents may not be aware yet of the possibility described below.

See “Should I Attend?” cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=137

Quote:

Fair enough.

There is a real concern that if a person refuses to attend the wedding, a rift in friendship could occur. This division could hinder any witness to the truth, and this concern is especially serious if the wedding involves a close friend or family member. This concern alone must not hinder our witness (cf. Lk. 12:51-53), but it can guide our actions as we fulfill our obligation to bring others to Christ. It could be that not attending would destroy any possible chance to witness the truth to the persons involved, especially if no reason is given for not attending. It could also be that not attending, and giving reasons for the absence, will help the couple choose the way of Christ. If a Catholic chooses to attend, he will want to ensure that no one considers his presence to be an affirmation of the sin.

I am going by what the OP said in her OP, how she represented her parents, and what she has them saying. As I said earlier, we only have one side of the story. The things she has them saying to her are a poor representation of Catholocism and their is no justicfication for that, with your own flesh and blood especially. Scripure passages should not bwe thrown around out of context and meaning to justify whatever…

 

[adrift]

pbecke:

I sometimes wonder whether we have Lefebvrists on here, worshipping the church, instead of Christ. Peter does not trump Christ. Christ’s words in Matthew 3:9, to the legalistic Pharisees, when they boasted of their descent from Abraham, ring in my ears as I read some of these posts:

42 And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

No-one is baptised into the Catholic church. They are baptised into the life of the Holy Trinity.

That is not what the Church teaches and not what Scripture teaches.

750 To believe that the Church is “holy” and “catholic,” and that she is “one” and “apostolic” (as the Nicene Creed adds), is inseparable from belief in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the Apostles’ Creed we profess “one Holy Church” (Credo . . . Ecclesiam), and not to believe in the Church, so as not to confuse God with his works and to attribute clearly to God’s goodness all the gifts he has bestowed on his Church.
805 The Church is the Body of Christ. Through the Spirit and his action in the sacraments, above all the Eucharist, Christ, who once was dead and is now risen, establishes the community of believers as his own Body.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of **the Church which men enter through Baptism **as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it

 

[Phemie]

I deeply feel for these parents. They are between a rock and a hard place. Do they follow their faith? Do they please their daughter?

I know their plight because it was mine 6 years ago and again a month ago. My daughter and my son both opted to marry outside the Church. She married a non-Catholic who says he’s an atheist; he married another Catholic but both are non-practicing. Both DD & DS1 opted for a civil wedding outside.

I went to both weddings, although both couples knew we did not approve – and in DS’s case the bride’s mother made that very point at the wedding rehearsal. Both knew that their marriage would not be considered valid by the Catholic Church but neither cared. DH walked DD down the ‘aisle’ and DIL’s father walked her down the aisle. We made that choice because we knew that if we didn’t go we’d alienate both children and they would consider the Church the villain thereby assuring they’d never return. It was not an easy decision and in the long run it didn’t change anything in DD’s relationship with the Church, she has opted not to have her son baptized because she doesn’t believe in anything the Church teaches. Perhaps it’ll be different with DS, I can only hope and pray.