Wedding Sadness, Looking for insight

[Cristiano]

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.

How many countries are in Europe? How many countries go through that procedure? I think that you are making generalizations that are quite false? I also see quite a generalization about obnoxiousness in the USA, what is the percentage of Catholics that are concerned at all of other Catholics leave the Church? How many in percentage , out of the concerned ones, are obnoxious?

Again the method that you propose now is of acceptance of people that are objectively schismatic and heretic. What about the protestant reform, should have the Church blessed the ones that left at the time? These are exactly the same behaviors, this is the main issue.

 

[Vico]

I don’t want my parents to fake anything. I accept that they want me to marry in a Catholic church instead of the Methodist church. I accept that they will not see my marriage as sacramental or valid due to their Catholic beliefs I would love for them to attend my wedding, if they can find it in their hearts to do so. Even if they are disappointed in me. If they can’t come, they can’t. I am not asking them to be overjoyed that I’ve had a conversion to another religion. I am asking them to attend our wedding. My fiance is an amazing man who is hard-working, so respectful of me, thoughtful, generous, patient, kind, intelligent, chaste, devoted… There is no reason that they should not be happy that I’m marrying such a quality man. In no way am I asking my parents to fake being okay with my conversion. I am asking them to attend my wedding and be has happy for me as they can, enjoy themselves and support us as we start a new life and family together.

And OF COURSE I told my fiance that my family is Catholic and that I was raised as a Catholic! That information was shared on date one, many years ago. My fiance has spent a lot of time around my parents, siblings and grandparents including having joined them for Mass on MANY occasions (we happily attend Mass with my family on holidays and if we’re with them on Sunday.) My fiance knows everything about me that could possibly ever be important in our marriage. He knows my conversion story and all about my parents’ faith.

Hypothetically, if a Catholic parent believes that their child is making an invalid attempt of marriage, how could they be happy, regardless of the good quality of the man?

Such a Catholic parent can create scandal by even attending an invalid attempt, because it may lead others into sin, being perceived as tacit approval.

Then how can those hypothetical parents enjoy and support a family that results from an invalid attempt, when believed to be an objective state of fornication, although legal?

 

[Cristiano]

Yeah, asking her to fake it and go through a Catholic ceremony–like a great big lie–is pretty ripe. I can’t imagine how they expect her to do that with a straight face. That’s immoral.

Not to mention her poor fiance, who’s never been Catholic, but who’s caught in this river of craziness. How is he supposed to stand there and pretend this is all perfectly all right?

I think that this summarizes the whole thing in an intelligent manner. I still think that the OP should make her own decisions and let her parents to make their own decisions. Everybody is going to be unhappy but if they choose to avoid resentment they can get over it pretty fast and start practicing Christian love toward each other as soon as possible. I still think that between the OP and the parents there is a lot of hiding behind religious statements do be able to mask disappointments that things do not go their own way.

 

[iloveangels]

But don’t forget, she wants them to “fake it” too.

As for her fiance, if she didn’t tell him her parents were Catholic and that she herself was brought up Catholic, they have other problems besides the wedding.

They don’t have to fake anything. They’re not getting married. She Is.

 

[iloveangels]

Sorry, but you’re wrong on this one.

During the ceremony, after the Renunciation of Sin and the Profession of Faith, the parents are specifically asked “Is it your will that N. be baptized?” Should their reply be ‘No," the Baptism would not go ahead. The Church says that unless they are in danger of death we may not baptize ‘infants’ against their parents’ will.

This is correct. These are real questions. This is not just text that gets read for a photo op.

 

[iloveangels]

But don’t forget, she wants them to “fake it” too.

As for her fiance, if she didn’t tell him her parents were Catholic and that she herself was brought up Catholic, they have other problems besides the wedding.

If she didn’t tell her fiance that she was originally catholic and she’s now Methodist, cause she is, she has a bigger problem. Luckily that’s not the case. He knows. He’s Methodist too. Read the original post.

 

[iloveangels]

I know it is a semantic difference but the poster was saying that without affirmative consent the person is not “truly Catholic”. That’s not exactly the same as saying that a baptism will not go forward against the parents wishes. If for some reason, that question was ommitted, the Baptism would be completely valid if illicit.

(But we were talking about the questions asked when calling to set up the Baptism, not during the rite itself anyway)

Then according to you, the exorcism questions during baptism are rhetorical questions–meaning questions that aren’t really questions, but just text that has to be read to get to the end of the ceremony.

 

[iloveangels]

They don’t get to choose whether to be Catholics, they are Catholics by virtue of their Baptism. They are free to not practice their faith.

Until they find the door. And then they choose.

 

[iloveangels]

But they are free to choose. It’s just that choices have consequences and sometimes those consequences involve conflict with loved ones.

And now you say they’re free to choose. ROFLOL.

Yes, they are. And they do. Some decide to stay and some don’t.

 

[iloveangels]

I think that this summarizes the whole thing in an intelligent manner. I still think that the OP should make her own decisions and let her parents to make their own decisions. Everybody is going to be unhappy but if they choose to avoid resentment they can get over it pretty fast and start practicing Christian love toward each other as soon as possible. I still think that between the OP and the parents there is a lot of hiding behind religious statements do be able to mask disappointments that things do not go their own way.

You got it, Christiano.

They’re going to have to agree to disagree and find some ways to manage this wedding so that no one has to proclaim anything out loud except “I do!” It’s perfectly manageable for mature adults. But all parties are going to have to be HONEST and CHARITABLE with each other.

All of these attempts to pull the love rug or the financial rug out from underneath each other have got to stop. They’re threats, pure and simple. And they lead nowhere but unhappiness and resentment all the way around. Unhappiness and resentment are counterproductive for the present and counterproductive for the future.

 

[iloveangels]

Hypothetically, if a Catholic parent believes that their child is making an invalid attempt of marriage, how could they be happy, regardless of the good quality of the man?

Such a Catholic parent can create scandal by even attending an invalid attempt, because it may lead others into sin, being perceived as tacit approval.

Then how can those hypothetical parents enjoy and support a family that results from an invalid attempt, when believed to be an objective state of fornication, although legal?

A) She’s not a child. She’s 27 years old.

B) She’s not a machine for making her parents happy. They don’t own her like they own the dog.

C) Canon law does not apply to those outside the church, even those who’ve left the Church, IF they aren’t trying to do anything in the Church. Canon law only applies to those who are trying to do something INSIDE the Church. Do you know why this is??? Because we don’t have our own version of SHARIA, that’s why!

Read: DIGNITATIS HUMANAE, paragraph 2. All the way through, with a genuinely inquiring mind to see what it actually SAYS.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

 

[Phemie]

Until they find the door. And then they choose.

They can’t choose whether to BE Catholic. They are and will always be by virtue of their Baptism. They can only choose not to pay attention to the fact that they are Catholic (like my brothers have both done and my three kids are doing) but that doesn’t make them any less Catholic, it just makes them poor Catholics.

 

[Cristiano]

…All of these attempts to pull the love rug or the financial rug out from underneath each other have got to stop. They’re threats, pure and simple. And they lead nowhere but unhappiness and resentment all the way around. Unhappiness and resentment are counterproductive for the present and counterproductive for the future.

Isn’t that what families are supposed to do?

 

[iloveangels]

They can’t choose whether to BE Catholic. They are and will always be by virtue of their Baptism. They can only choose not to pay attention to the fact that they are Catholic (like my brothers have both done and my three kids are doing) but that doesn’t make them any less Catholic, it just makes them poor Catholics.

Dignitatus Humanae

Paragraph #2:
…"However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Even Catholics within the Church are allowed the exercise of their own free will. Those outside are also allowed this freedom. You cannot MAKE people do what you want them to do by FORCE. We do not convert people by the sword.

 

[iloveangels]

Isn’t that what families are supposed to do?

To look at some families, you’d think so, Christiano.

 

[Elizium23]

Holy Multiple Posts, Batman! Even I try to keep everything consolidated in an edit.

Can you cite for me where in Dignitatis Humanae it says that parents should be forced to fund and accept and participate in the simulation of a sacrament, just to keep peace with their daughter?

 

[iloveangels]

Dignitatus Humanae

Paragraph #2:
…"However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be observed.

Even Catholics within the Church are allowed the exercise of their own free will. Those outside are also allowed this freedom. You cannot MAKE people do what you want them to do by FORCE. We do not convert people by the sword.

The right to freedom of religion belongs to this young woman “not in the subjective disposition of (her) person, but in (her) very nature.” And whether she comes out Catholic or not which you would define as “living up to some obligation”, “the exercise of this right is not to be impeded.”

Holy Multiple Posts, Batman! Even I try to keep everything consolidated in an edit.

Can you cite for me where in Dignitatis Humanae it says that parents should be forced to fund and accept and participate in the simulation of a sacrament, just to keep peace with their faithless daughter?

The parents can fail “to keep peace,” as you call it, and declare all-out war, but that’s not going to solve anything. Pretty far from it. It’s completely counterproductive in every single way.

 

[Elizium23]

Her parents aren’t impeding her right to heresy, does she report that they are holding her at gunpoint, locked in the cellar? Have they forbidden her to see this young Methodist fiancé? Have they forbidden her to set foot in the Methodist building? Are they stalking her email and web browser looking for evil Methodist influence?

Her parents are merely sticking to their rights. They have the right to cut her off, as she is an adult as we have all pointed out. She has no right to financial support, she has no right to have them participate, and she has no right to enjoy their company for as long as she is in a state of fornication with her non-husband. These are the rights afforded to parents by the state and by the Church. None are threatening war. The parents are merely promising silence in the face of betrayal. So each is receiving the proper treatment according to rights. It is you who are insisting that the parents must violate their conscience and religious freedom. If any religious freedom must be protected, it is that of faithful Catholics.

 

[iloveangels]

Her parents aren’t impeding her right to heresy, does she report that they are holding her at gunpoint, locked in the cellar? Have they forbidden her to see this young Methodist fiancé? Have they forbidden her to set foot in the Methodist building? Are they stalking her email and web browser looking for evil Methodist influence?

Well, you know, she’s 27 years old. They probably can’t physically manage any of that as a matter of practical ability, and they wouldn’t have the right to do it anyway. That’s the kind of BS that goes on in 3rd world countries. That kind of coercion and force isn’t permitted here. It would be a very simple matter to get a peace bond from the local police department under the conditions you describe because what you describe is not civilized behavior.

Her parents are merely sticking to their rights. They have the right to cut her off, as she is an adult as we have all pointed out. She has no right to financial support, she has no right to have them participate, and she has no right to enjoy their company for as long as she is in a state of fornication with her non-husband. These are the rights afforded to parents by the state and by the Church. So each is receiving the proper treatment according to rights. It is you who are insisting that the parents must violate their conscience and religious freedom. If any religious freedom must be protected, it is that of faithful Catholics.

They do have the right to utterly refuse to attend, or even to associate with their daughter, and take the consequences, yes. That would be sad, disgusting and uncivilized, but yes, they could do it.

And what’s really silly is that after all that savagery, they would still be in violation of Church teaching:

Paragraph 2 of DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

…“However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

They would however have SCORED their ugly grubby little 2 points in the Family Wars.

 

[Corki]

Then according to you, the exorcism questions during baptism are rhetorical questions–meaning questions that aren’t really questions, but just text that has to be read to get to the end of the ceremony.

I think you need to look up the meaning of rhetorical. No, those are not rhetorical questions. They are real questions that are required for the licitness of the rite but not for its validity.

And the questions are asked of the parents and godparents. These are questions about their own faith, a reminder of their responsibilities. They aren’t answering “for” the child.

They don’t have to fake anything. They’re not getting married. She Is.

Did you read the OP’s most recent post? She wants her parents to come to the wedding, enjoy and be happy. The OP’s original question was what would we do if we were the parents in this situation. I know that I could not go to an invalid wedding of one of my children and “be happy” without faking it.

I don’t want my parents to fake anything. I accept that they want me to marry in a Catholic church instead of the Methodist church. I accept that they will not see my marriage as sacramental or valid due to their Catholic beliefs I would love for them to attend my wedding, if they can find it in their hearts to do so. Even if they are disappointed in me. If they can’t come, they can’t. I am not asking them to be overjoyed that I’ve had a conversion to another religion. I am asking them to attend our wedding. My fiance is an amazing man who is hard-working, so respectful of me, thoughtful, generous, patient, kind, intelligent, chaste, devoted… There is no reason that they should not be happy that I’m marrying such a quality man. In no way am I asking my parents to fake being okay with my conversion. ** I am asking them to attend my wedding and be has happy for me as they can, enjoy themselves and support us as we start a new life and family together.**