AmericanPapist Comments
many mistakenly believe that a non-Catholic spouse must promise to raise the couple's children as Catholic
That has not changed, as far as I know. If you know that it has indeed changed, can you point me to vatican documentation that clarifies this?
That form of words is not present in the Rite of Marriage, but its meaning is. The last question prior to consent in the Rite of Marriage is "Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?" If it is somehow possible to raise a child "according to the law of Christ and his Church" without "raising the child Catholic," I'd like to know how.
Having gone through the flames and trial of divorce and the anguish of annulment, I can say how surprised I was when I found out how little I learned during my "encounter" weekend. I think marriage formation is a joke in the church. I am now happily married again these last 5 years in the church and I am still shocked at how bad and trivial our marriage formation was. There seems to be more attention payed to the wedding prep for "the day" than for the life you are going to have together. If the Church doesn't take it seriously, how is are the young who haven't been properly cathechisted in their life ever going to tak i t seriously
The bishops are disturbed! What a hoot. Everyone I know who has been through their diocesan pre-cana meetings in the last 5 years (myself included) would tell you that those meetings did nothing to illuminate the Church's teachings on marriage and sexuality. In fact, the 25 or so couples at my pre-cana were treated to the lovely advice that it is OK to use artificial contraception as long as you have 'discussed it and prayed about it together'. I wrote a long, polite letter describing this travesty to my bishop, but never received even a form letter in reply.
If they don't clean house, Catholics will not stop playing on the dirty floors. It's that simple.
peace
about the survey. i have not read it yet, but I will say one thing: if the pool of those surveyed is "self-designated" as Catholics, the results will be almost worthless.
Tony, the pertinent law on that issue is now canon 1125 in the 1983 Code (c. 814 in the Eastern Code), which requires that the Catholic party promise to do "all in his or her power (omnia pro viribus) in order that all the children be baptizes and brought up in the Catholic Church." The non-Catholic party no longer makes these promises, but merely needs to be made aware that the Catholic party has made these promises, and what they mean.
Not for nothing, but why would the Church change that canon...I mean isn't that just stupid? Judism and Islam require that, why wouldn't we from a self preservation mode? If a non-believer isn't willing to do that why would the church want some one marrying them?
We don't need to be in self-preservation mode, since we know from our Founder that the gates of hell shall not prevail against us. The Church is more interested in saving souls than simply collecting or preserving membership rolls.
The Church also recognizes the freedom of individuals who have not placed themselves under the bonds of the Church.
The Church doesn't exactly want non-Catholics to marry Catholics, but it allows Catholics to request permission to marry a non-Catholic, and grants that permission (or dispensation, in the case of the non-baptized) when the Catholic party provides an assurance that the marriage will not be a hindrance to his or her practice of the faith.
Thanks for your sensible response, Tim.
And I would add that simply as a prudential matter, it is not all clear that imposing the requirement suggested by CPT Tom would result in more Catholics; it could easily lead to the opposite.
Tim, hadn't thought of it that way. That makes sense explained that way. Actually a moment before hitting the enter key was warranted on my side.
Mike, it's not clear that your comment was necessary. Sorry if my question seemed dumb to you, but, since it wasn't directed to you, maybe some charity on your end was called for?
CPT,
I think you're being unnecessarily sensitive here. I didn't think your question was dumb, and my point was different than Tim's in that I was simply observing that even to the extent that self-preservation mode was a prudential value, it wasn't clear which way the canon change would cut. And finally, I didn't read your post as being a private one. I certainly meant no offence.
Thanks Mike...appreciate that. Case of plain text not being read effectively. Sorry for over reacting.
No harm no foul, Tom.
Problem--
Young people are ignorant of their Catholic Faith. They think the Catholic Church is just like all the other churches, and it's all a matter of personal preference.
Solution--
Bishops start standing up and defending the Faith. Priests start preaching the truth. Schools start educating instead of indoctrinating.
Man, I just saved the Bishops a fortune.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
