Wife takes kids to Protestant church classes

[TheLittleLady]

Yes, when I acknowledge that my spouse has made a promise, that means out of love and respect I will respect his promise, I promise him to honor him.

 

[TC3033]

That’s where I wonder what changed (or was commanded) to change…?

 

[TheLittleLady]

My spidey senses say that over the past decades the Church has found ways to make mixed marriage processes a bit easier to encourage people to marry in the Church instead of saying “too hard, let’s go to the JP”.

 

[TC3033]

I meant in their relationship…

 

[Jimbo]

I thought the OP said that she had? Maybe I misunderstood.

But, one thing I’ve seen a couple of times here, and with my non-Catholic in laws, seems to be the idea that ‘Well, no one can make me take my kids/go to a Catholic Church! That’s Crazy! I’ll take them where I feel fed!’ yet not have any problem with doing just that to their Catholic spouse ‘He can still go to mass I guess…’. The Catholic spouse isn’t being unreasonable (well, okay, I’m not comfortable with the idea of ‘commanding’ my spouse, but that’s me) any more than a Protestant spouse would if the roles were reversed.

It seems that the protestants I have met/known have no problem if their kids go to Congregational/Methodist/Lutheran/Non denominational or even sometimes Anglican but by golly they can’t go to Catholic Church.

 

[Jimbo]

They are made aware that the Catholic is making a promise to do their best to raise them Catholic. They are not made to promise anything.

But hey, that can be viewed as splitting hairs too.

I think that’s probably a problem that should have maybe (and here maybe was, not entirely sure) been thoroughly dealt with prior to the wedding.

Suppose you married a Muslim or a Buddhist and they were ‘aware that you were making a promise to raise your child Christian’; but then later took them on ‘church days’ to the local mosque or temple?

If you knew your spouse had made a promise that was life long and binding and you were doing actions that undercut them, I could totally see them feeling betrayed.

But again, I think the only way around that is early on. If ‘I made a promise to raise the kids (catholic/protestant/buddhist/etc.)’ is met with ‘I don’t really feel bound by that and will raise them how I feel’ that may well be a deal breaker for the marriage. And that’s okay; neither party would be the bad person; they just can’t agree on a pillar of their marriage.

Just IMHO

 

[TC3033]

I thought the OP said that she had? Maybe I misunderstood.

That’s what I was asking about/clearing up. If poster was pointing at making a promise to the Church, which used to be a thing.

But, one thing I’ve seen a couple of times here, and with my non-Catholic in laws, seems to be the idea that ‘Well, no one can make me take my kids/go to a Catholic Church!

What do your inlaws have to do with it? Are you saying that your in-laws take them someplace else when they stay with them?

TBH, I’ve seen and read the role reversed as well when it came to going to a NC Church.

The Catholic spouse isn’t being unreasonable (well, okay, I’m not comfortable with the idea of ‘commanding’ my spouse, but that’s me) any more than a Protestant spouse would if the roles were reversed.

Agreed, I don’t think anyone said any different. I even said there was a solid compromise upthread.

It seems that the protestants I have met/known have no problem if their kids go to Congregational/Methodist/Lutheran/Non denominational or even sometimes Anglican but by golly they can’t go to Catholic Church.

I can see that…, but I also don’t get it…

 

[TC3033]

I think that’s probably a problem that should have maybe (and here maybe was, not entirely sure) been thoroughly dealt with prior to the wedding.

If they had a Catholic Wedding, it is.

Suppose you married a Muslim or a Buddhist and they were ‘aware that you were making a promise to raise your child Christian’; but then later took them on ‘church days’ to the local mosque or temple?

I’m not Catholic. I’ve been up and down the “mixed”-marriage street a couple of times.

If you knew your spouse had made a promise that was life long and binding and you were doing actions that undercut them, I could totally see them feeling betrayed.

Sure, I’ve had the same feeling about other things we “promised” each other. I can understand that same feeling when one person in the marriage converts too… It’s a sticky wicket.

If ‘I made a promise to raise the kids (catholic/protestant/buddhist/etc.)’ is met with ‘I don’t really feel bound by that and will raise them how I feel’ that may well be a deal breaker for the marriage.

Sure could be.

 

[Jimbo]

What do your inlaws have to do with it? Are you saying that your in-laws take them someplace else when they stay with them?

TBH, I’ve seen and read the role reversed as well when it came to going to a NC Church.

No no. Sorry, that was confusing.

Some of my in-laws have an ‘Any Church but Catholic Church’ view. The patriarch was terrified his daughter was going to marry a Catholic.

When we were dating I kind of scandalized the family by not going to church with the patriarch and going to the Catholic Church down the street. Some thought I was a bad guy. It is what it is. Ironically, I think I won the respect of the patriarch.

It’s a super touchy issue. I honestly couldn’t marry a person who wasn’t going to help me raise the kids as Catholics. That’s who I am. I love the Church. I think she is the true Church.

That said, I also respect someone who feels that strongly about a non-Catholic church. They aren’t bad people. We obviously disagree. It would just be a really bad idea to get married.

 

[Jimbo]

Dr. David Anders has a show called ‘Called to Communion’ where he deals with this alot and mentions how he talked his wife out of the Catholic Church… then converted back into it later in life. It certainly sounds like a sticky wicket. I don’t know that I would deal with it well, though I hope I would. It would take alot of strength and understanding to try to save the marriage.

 

[JMMJ]

It seems that the protestants I have met/known have no problem if their kids go to Congregational/Methodist/Lutheran/Non denominational or even sometimes Anglican but by golly they can’t go to Catholic Church

to be fair, I’m sure there are a lot of reasons that are valid for this. The Catholic church is not exactly like the other churches you mentioned.

 

[TC3033]

Now that I have had a chance to re-read, I think that there can be some validity to it.

For instance all three of those listed could (would) practice open communion. If they practice open communion, I could see them being more open those that practice it. Personally, I’m always uneasy at communion at Mass with my family.

So ya, I could see that preference making sense as well.

 

[aleoje]

I want to thank each and everyone that has taken time out of your busy days to provide me with suggestions and advice. It is greatly appreciated and valued. There is much truth and insight into what everyone is commenting. If I am able to, I will try to clarify some of the doubts that were expressed. God bless you all and thank you for your prayers for my family.

 

[Jimbo]

Yes. The more I thought of it later the more I realized this and saw why it might be understandable. I suppose the bee in my bonnet came from the fact that alot of the non Catholics I met just expected that I would acknowledge the Church as somehow being medieval and inferior. ‘You don’t really believe in…’

But to be fair, and to be more understanding, for most of those Churches their own beliefs in the Bible alone in most cases provides a very strong bright line separation. Further, many had poor understanding of the faith.

 

[CatholicSooner]

OK. There was a time where the NC was required to make the same promise, but I do not believe that is the practice anymore (at least widely).

I think it still is in Oklahoma. During the Baptismal rite, the parent promise to raise the Child in the faith. I can’t imagine this rite being changed or that a priest would baptism a child unless both parents agreed

 

[TC3033]

Maybe…

I’ve never made such promise. I had to know in pre-cana that my wife was making a promise to “do the best she can”.

We never met with the Priest…we had a meeting with another couple. Once they figured out I wasn’t Catholic I might as well not have been there.

 

[1ke]

I think it still is in Oklahoma. During the Baptismal rite, the parent promise to raise the Child in the faith. I can’t imagine this rite being changed or that a priest would baptism a child unless both parents agreed

Only the Catholic makes promises regarding raising the children in the faith. The non Catholic parent is informed of the promise, and what it means.

For Baptism of an infant, only one parent’s consent is required.

 

[TC3033]

only one parent’s consent is required.

Huh…well that explains that then.

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

I think it still is in Oklahoma. During the Baptismal rite, the parent promise to raise the Child in the faith. I can’t imagine this rite being changed or that a priest would baptism a child unless both parents agreed

Only the Catholic makes promises regarding raising the children in the faith. The non Catholic parent is informed of the promise, and what it means.

For Baptism of an infant, only one parent’s consent is required.

I have never heard this.

This is directly from the rite

You have asked to have your child baptized. In doing so you are accepting the responsibility of training him (her) in the practice of the faith. It will be your duty to bring him (her) up to keep God’s commandments as Christ taught us, by loving God and our neighbor. Do you clearly understand what you are undertaking?

 

[1ke]

I have never heard this.

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

This is directly from the rite

Only the Catholic party need respond.

The non-Catholic party certainly could respond, but isn’t required to.