Wedding Sadness, Looking for insight

  • Thread starter Thread starter ToBeWedBarb
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
iloveangels said:
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!
Click to expand...
A & B, The converse is also true.

C) Actual canon law (which may vary per ritual Church) applies to all the living that have been baptized into the Catholic Church, for life, independently of apostasy, heresy, schism, formal defection, or excommunication. In fact there are many canon laws dealing with just these topics and subsequent reconciliation with the Church.

CIC Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
 
Vico said:
A & B, The converse is also true.

C) Actual canon law (which may vary per ritual Church) applies to all the living that have been baptized into the Catholic Church, for life, independently of apostasy, heresy, schism, formal defection, or excommunication. In fact there are many canon laws dealing with just these topics and subsequent reconciliation with the Church.

CIC Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Click to expand...
I’m certainly glad I’m not your kid.
 
After all this, if I were this girl, I’d plan my wedding and send my parents an invitation.

If they decided to come, fine. If not, fine. And adjust my plans from there. This is outrageous.
 
Vico said:
A & B, The converse is also true.

C) Actual canon law (which may vary per ritual Church) applies to all the living that have been baptized into the Catholic Church, for life, independently of apostasy, heresy, schism, formal defection, or excommunication. In fact there are many canon laws dealing with just these topics and subsequent reconciliation with the Church.

CIC Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Click to expand...
Canon law DOES NOT APPLY to those not trying to do something in the Catholic Church. WE DO NOT HAVE SHARIA in the Catholic Church.

This girl is not trying to get married in the Catholic Church. She’s not trying to get anything done in the Catholic Church.

If coming to the wedding is so much of an imposition for her parents that they just can’t do it without starting an all-out war, maybe they shouldn’t come. Maybe they should just stay home and wallow in self-righteousness over not having to talk to any dirty Methodists.
 
iloveangels said:
It’s all about scoring those nasty 2 little grubby points in the family religious wars. Wow!

Canon law DOES NOT APPLY to those not trying to do something in the Catholic Church. WE DO NOT HAVE SHARIA in the Catholic Church.

This girl is not trying to get married in the Catholic Church. She’s not trying to get anything done in the Catholic Church.

If coming to the wedding is so much of an imposition for her parents that they just can’t do it without starting an all-out war, maybe they shouldn’t come.
Click to expand...
What is sharia? please describe what you mean.

In such a hypothetical situation, all parties are within their rights to follow their conscience, and should not be expected to participate in any actions that are contrary to their religious beliefs.
 
iloveangels said:
Canon law DOES NOT APPLY to those not trying to do something in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has the first and last word in the administration of the sacraments, and marriage is a sacrament as understood by the Church. Therefore, only the Church can prescribe how marriage is celebrated.
Code of Canon Law:
Can. 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.
Click to expand...
A marriage without dispensation “celebrated” outside a Catholic Rite is invalid (read: it never happened) for lack of canonical form. This is the discipline of the Church. Dispensations are readily available for Catholics to marry non-Catholics, to marry without a Nuptial Mass, or even marry outside a Catholic parish and be witnessed instead by Protestant or civil authorities. In choosing to deny her faith, skip mandatory Catholic wedding preparation, and willingly marry a non-Catholic and marry outside the Church without the necessary dispensations, she is violating Canon Law, which as we have proven, governs all baptized Catholics no matter what their status.

Having said that, it would be a straightforward task to convalidate this marriage at a later date, or in fact issue a radical sanation to heal the two impediments. These impediments are lack of canonical form and a mixed marriage, that is, between her and a Christian. Those are easy impediments to overcome. It would get more complicated when she is on her second “marriage” and her first was still alive. However, the fact that it is easy to convalidate such a marriage is not a good reason to go ahead and do it.

The bottom line is that she is growing further from the Church, denying the Eucharist, and shirking her duties to observe the Precepts of the Church and the sacraments, thereby imperiling her immortal soul.
 
Vico said:
What is sharia? please describe what you mean.

In such a hypothetical situation, all parties are within their rights to follow their conscience, and should not be expected to participate in any actions that are contrary to their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
Sharia is religious legal code that seeks to exert itself over all legal code by force and coercion. Sharia is the Muslim word for this, and it usually refers to Islamic religious code. We have no counterpart. This is the point I was making. WE do not convert or enforce religious behavior by the sword. Christians don’t behave that way.

We have canon law, which is Church law, but it does not seek to replace regular legal code. We are not trying to run the whole world by force. That’s the difference. Canon law only pertains to things done inside the Church. It does not obtain if you are not Catholic or if you don’t seek to get anything done inside the Church.

There are actually some very good precedents for this, including one involving a divorce in the United States where canon law was not upheld in the state of Ohio because the person trying to force behavior was not acting inside the Church, but rather, seeking to extend the force of canon law outside the Church. It does not apply in those situations and the reason is very logical. People cannot be coerced into obeying an authority that neither they nor the law of the land recognize as an authority.
 
Elizium23 said:
The Catholic Church has the first and last word in the administration of the sacraments, and marriage is a sacrament as understood by the Church. Therefore, only the Church can prescribe how marriage is celebrated.

A marriage without dispensation “celebrated” outside a Catholic Rite is invalid (read: it never happened) for lack of canonical form. This is the discipline of the Church. Dispensations are readily available for Catholics to marry non-Catholics, to marry without a Nuptial Mass, or even marry outside a Catholic parish and be witnessed instead by Protestant or civil authorities. In choosing to deny her faith, skip mandatory Catholic wedding preparation, and willingly marry a non-Catholic and marry outside the Church without the necessary dispensations, she is violating Canon Law, which as we have proven, governs all baptized Catholics no matter what their status.

Having said that, it would be a straightforward task to convalidate this marriage at a later date, or in fact issue a radical sanation to heal the two impediments. These impediments are lack of canonical form and a mixed marriage, that is, between her and a Christian. Those are easy impediments to overcome. It would get more complicated when she is on her second “marriage” and her first was still alive. However, the fact that it is easy to convalidate such a marriage is not a good reason to go ahead and do it.

The bottom line is that she is growing further from the Church, denying the Eucharist, and shirking her duties to observe the Precepts of the Church and the sacraments, thereby imperiling her immortal soul.
Click to expand...
All this plus $1.50 can get you a cup of coffee if you’re a Methodist.
 
iloveangels said:
Canon law DOES NOT APPLY to those not trying to do something in the Catholic Church. WE DO NOT HAVE SHARIA in the Catholic Church.

This girl is not trying to get married in the Catholic Church. She’s not trying to get anything done in the Catholic Church.

If coming to the wedding is so much of an imposition for her parents that they just can’t do it without starting an all-out war, maybe they shouldn’t come. Maybe they should just stay home and wallow in self-righteousness over not having to talk to any dirty Methodists.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, this just demonstrates the fact that you haven’t really understood the points made about Catholic baptism and the obligations it places upon the baptized person.
 
iloveangels said:
No, with all due respect, this just demonstrates that you don’t understand religious freedom as defined by DIGNITATIS HUMANAE.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
Click to expand...
You seem to have missed this part:
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
Click to expand...
 
iloveangels said:
Sharia is religious legal code that seeks to exert itself over all legal code by force and coercion. Sharia is the Muslim word for this, and it usually refers to Islamic religious code. We have no counterpart. This is the point I was making. WE do not convert or enforce religious behavior by the sword. Christians don’t behave that way.

We have canon law, which is Church law, but it does not seek to replace regular legal code. We are not trying to run the whole world by force. That’s the difference. Canon law only pertains to things done inside the Church. It does not obtain if you are not Catholic or if you don’t seek to get anything done inside the Church.

There are actually some very good precedents for this, including one involving a divorce in the United States where canon law was not upheld in the state of Ohio because the person trying to force behavior was not acting inside the Church, but rather, seeking to extend the force of canon law outside the Church. It does not apply in those situations and the reason is very logical. People cannot be coerced into obeying an authority that neither they nor the law of the land recognize as an authority.
Click to expand...
Nothing I have noticed, on this thread, is suggests of use of civil force, and my comments are about being in accord with ecclesiastical law and moral law. Canon law does not cover all moral law or liturgical laws, and does have application to all baptized Catholic for the whole of their lives. Merely ecclestical law does not apply to those that were never baptized in the Catholic Church.

One example, a Catholic is married in the Church, and that decides to no longer associate with the Catholic Church, and subsequently joins another denomination, divorces the Catholic and desires to marry a Catholic. Canon law requires proof of freedom to marry but it cannot be had, in this example, because the first marriage still exists, even though divorced and having joined another denomination.
 
Vico said:
Nothing I have noticed, on this thread, is suggests of use of civil force, and my comments are about being in accord with ecclesiastical law and moral law. Canon law does not cover all moral law or liturgical laws, and does have application to all baptized Catholic for the whole of their lives. Merely ecclestical law does not apply to those that were never baptized in the Catholic Church.

One example, a Catholic is married in the Church, and that decides to no longer associate with the Catholic Church, and subsequently joins another denomination, divorces the Catholic and desires to marry a Catholic. Canon law requires proof of freedom to marry but it cannot be had, in this example, because the first marriage still exists, even though divorced and having joined another denomination.
Click to expand...
What you’ve got here is a pretty convoluted situation. You’ve got a person who’s left, and divorced, and then comes back and wants to marry somebody who’s Catholic and wants to stay Catholic.

In this case, yes, if the new spouse-to-be wants to stay Catholic, then the ex-Catholic wants something from the Catholic Church, doesn’t he? This means he has to deal with the Church’s rules again as long as the spouse-to-be is still Catholic. Which means an annulment or whatever, if he can get it.

However if the new-spouse-to-be leaves the Church too, then canon law does not apply again to either of them because they don’t want anything from the Church.
 
iloveangels said:
What you’ve got here is a pretty convoluted situation. You’ve got a person who’s left, and divorced, and then comes back and wants to marry somebody who’s Catholic and wants to stay Catholic.

In this case, yes, if the new spouse-to-be wants to stay Catholic, then the ex-Catholic wants something from the Catholic Church, doesn’t he? This means he has to deal with the Church’s rules again as long as the spouse-to-be is still Catholic.

However if the new-spouse-to-be leaves the Church too, then canon law does not apply again to either of them because they don’t want anything from the Church.
Click to expand...
Incorrect and irrelevant. The OP is not remarrying.
 
Elizium23 said:
Incorrect and irrelevant. The OP is not remarrying.
Click to expand...
We know, Elizium. We were just talking about how civil law and canon law work.

We know that the OP is not re-marrying. The bride and groom in the OP’s case are Methodist, don’t want anything from the Catholic Church, and therefore are outside the reach of Canon law.
 
Dignitatis Humanae:
The disciple is bound by a grave obligation toward Christ, his Master, ever more fully to understand the truth received from Him, faithfully to proclaim it, and vigorously to defend it, never-be it understood-having recourse to means that are incompatible with the spirit of the Gospel. At the same time, the charity of Christ urges him to love and have prudence and patience in his dealings with those who are in error or in ignorance with regard to the faith.
Click to expand...
Well, we can see what motivates Mom and Dad here.
 
iloveangels said:
Again, proof-texting is a protestant habit. :rolleyes:

Read the whole document in context for a Catholic interpretation.
Click to expand...
Your accusation of proof-texting implies that we are taking these quotes out of context. You tried to twist a quote to your purpose and failed. We are quoting the rest of the document at you, because it very clearly supports Catholicism as the True Faith and the ultimate reason for religious freedom to exist. Furthermore, it is essentially a document aimed at governments and leaders, and has limited applicability to the family unit; however, when liberally interpreted, clearly supports the position of the parents. I would invite you to refute that in any way you see fit.

Furthermore, you contend that the OP is being forced in some way, that she is being caused to act against her will, and yet we contend that her parents are merely holding firm in their belief that they have a right not to contribute in an active way to her activity. It is the OP who seeks to require her parents’ presence at the ceremony, not by physical force, but by emotional blackmail, and the OP who wishes that her parents would compromise their faith, which is the True Faith of the Catholic Church, the one defended in the document you love so dearly.
 
Elizium23 said:
Your accusation of proof-texting implies that we are taking these quotes out of context. You tried to twist a quote to your purpose and failed. We are quoting the rest of the document at you, because it very clearly supports Catholicism as the True Faith and the ultimate reason for religious freedom to exist.
Click to expand...
I’m not going to paste the entire document in here if that’s what you’re asking for. I gave you the link. You are ignoring the meaning of the whole document to fish out the sentences that please you.

The OP does have a right to religious freedom, whether you like it or not. You can’t MAKE her do what you want, any more than her parents can. Her parents can act like spoiled juveniles if they don’t get their own way, but it’s not going to help, and that’s the bottom line.

If they’d rather wallow in self-righteousness than get along with their daughter, that’s their choice and they can do it. You can’t stop them and neither can I. They have that right too.

Now, it would be better if everything didn’t turn into some kind of mess like this, but in order to avoid this stand-off, people would have to get along and work something out. You don’t like that. Okay, I get that. But if they don’t get together and work something out, it’s going to be nasty and that’s sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top