Atheist and Catholic

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hi, I hope you will be able to help me. I am most definitely an atheist, considering the future with my Catholic boyfriend. I was christened in the Church of England, just because that was what was done then in my community.

We talk a lot about the future but are a bit confused about what is allowed and what isn't. My boyfriend is a practising Catholic and I know that he wants a Catholic wedding and would prefer to bring his children up in the Catholic Church. We have agreed to disagree on the subject of our own religious status - we both think the other is incorrect but we have many interesting discussions. In the future I will be happy for him to continue to practice his religion, I know how important it is to him. I will not convert though, and I know that he would prefer me to, but knows that it will not happen and he doesn't put any pressure on me. I can cope with the religious figures and pictures as we already share a house (as housemates, not a couple).

I had been wondering how we could get married anyway (we are also different nationalities and different languages, although we are both fluent in the other - our families less so). I never wanted to get married at all, as to me it is just a bit of paper, but I know that it is very important for my boyfriend. I will marry for him, that is my first compromise, but I do not want to get married in a church as it would be a lie for me to promise or pray to a God I don't believe in. (By the way, I've seen earlier comments, I am using capitals out of politeness, this does not mean I am at all likely to convert.) However my boyfriend would prefer to marry in a Catholic Church. The other day though I found out that in the Church apparently I would have to promise to have children (this is OK, as I probably will have them in 5 or so years time- by the way if the woman turns out to be infertile can the marriage be annulled? This is not the case, as far as I know, but I wondered). I also found out that I would have to promise to bring them up in the Catholic Church.

I would marry in a Catholic Church if I could do so without any promises to a God I don't believe in, or if we could have a sort of mingled ceremony, but the children bit is rather a show stopper. We had agreed, and I've seen it work out well elsewhere, that the children were not to be brought up in one religion - he could take them to Mass and I could talk to them about my feelings and when old enough they can make their own decision. However, the baptism worried me as I felt sure that my boyfriend would be very unhappy if his children were not baptised as he would feel that if they died they would not go to Heaven, I am not sure if this is right? So I had come to the point where they could maybe be baptised, but then left to make up their own mind.

Now this seems to make the church marriage impossible as I can not promise to bring the children up Catholics, neither can my boyfriend claim that I had forced them to be atheists, as I am happy to let them make their own decisions, attend church etc... (Although really, I would prefer it if they were atheists). I thought about a humanist marriage, but would my boyfriend be able to consider himself married then?

Please does anyone have any advice on how we can manage to be together and both of us to feel happy that we have not lied, or in his case committed a sin? I am getting so upset about this, I am heartbroken as it seems the only way we can be together is for one of us to have to lie/sin? I would in some ways rather not marry my boyfriend at all if it had to be done in a way that would make him feel bad, but I do want to be with him and he wants me to be with him.

Please someone give me advice - by the way he's not a fundamentalist and would disagree with some of the posters on the forum, so he'd probably ignore that anyway, what we're looking for is a nice friendly, sympathetic priest to give us advice. Anyone who tried to convert me wouldn't go down well with either of us, as my boyfriend knows I wouldn't be happy in this position.

Thanks for your help. Alice

-- Alice T (alice67t@hotmail.com), July 17, 2004

Answers

The only promise you'll have to make is that you agree that your children will be raised in the Catholic Church.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), July 17, 2004.

What an interesting situation! I am a cradle Catholic who is, with great sadness, beginning to believe that you atheists may be right.

To answer your question: You must be married in a church. Since you don't belong to any church then it must be your boyfriend's church, a Catholic church. You must agree to have children and your boyfriend must promise to do the best he can to bring them up in the Catholic faith. But you do not have to promise to help him or refrain from letting your children know your own views.

If you want to delay having children then you must only use natural family planning (formerly known as the rhythym method). No artificial birth control and no onanism. However, there are so many liberal priests and bishops around today that this teaching is often ignored.

Your marriage can be annulled if one of you is infertile only if you are aware of it before the marriage and do not disclose it to your future spouse.

I'm curious about how you will handle Christmas and Easter once you have children. I don't think that you'll want to stomp on their joy and wonderment. Love will win out over ideology.

Unless you are a militant atheist I don't think that you are doing anything wrong by getting married in a Catholic Church. After all, you are not hostile to God. You just don't believe that there is anything there. Your boyfriend is aware of your position and understands that you are doing it out of your love for him. You are not forcing him to choose between his love for you and his love for God. And that's a good thing.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 17, 2004.


Oops! I forgot to mention one major obstacle: If you do not intend for your marriage to last and that you will be faithful to your spouse "until death do us part," then no marriage has taken place.

I bring this up only because you said that you do not want to get married because "it's only a piece of paper." Paper has nothing to do with it. It's your vows to each other that effects the marriage.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 17, 2004.


"You must agree to have children"

A: No. You must agree to be open to having children, since this is a primary purpose of marriage. Whether or not you actually will have children is up to God. It is not something you can promise.

"But you do not have to promise to help him or refrain from letting your children know your own views."

A: No, you do not have to promise this. However, if Daddy is telling the children they must pray to God and Mommy is telling them God doesn't exist, the result is going to be very confused, troubled children. Why should they believe anything Mommy and Daddy say if Mommy and Daddy are not even in agreement about the most essential truth of all?

"If you want to delay having children then you must only use natural family planning (formerly known as the rhythym method)."

A: Natural Family Planning didn't even exist when the rhythym method was in use. They are entirely separate approaches to family planning, with very little in common.

"However, there are so many liberal priests and bishops around today that this teaching is often ignored."

A: So what? The fact that some priests sin cannot be taken as an excuse for your sin. When you meet God face to face He won't ask you if your priest followed the teaching of the Church. He will ask you if YOU followed it.

"Love will win out over ideology."

A: Faith isn't about ideology. It is about truth; and real love cannot exist apart from truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 17, 2004.


Natural Family Planning didn't even exist when the rhythm method was in use. They are entirely separate approaches to family planning, with very little in common.

They both involve abstinence during a woman's fertile period. NFP is simply a more accurate way of assessing when that period is.

"But you do not have to promise to help him or refrain from letting your children know your own views."

A: No, you do not have to promise this. However, if Daddy is telling the children they must pray to God and Mommy is telling them God doesn't exist, the result is going to be very confused, troubled children. Why should they believe anything Mommy and Daddy say if Mommy and Daddy are not even in agreement about the most essential truth of all?

Tell it to the Church. She is the one who has reversed herself and now allows Catholics to marry atheists without a promise from the atheist to raise the children in the Catholic faith.

Faith isn't about ideology. It is about truth;...

Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition. Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

...and real love cannot exist apart from truth.

Loving someone often involves protecting them from the brutality of the truth.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 18, 2004.



DC,

The truth may be "brutal." But even with children, true love means helping them to grow into responsible adults. God is the Truth. Eventually he will present a cross to every believer. It's only then that it will be apparent how true that believer actually is.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), July 18, 2004.


But even with children, true love means helping them to grow into responsible adults.

And how responsible is it to put one's faith in God? If I am bitten by a rattlesnake should I pray to God or go to the hospital? To be responsible means not counting on God for anything. In other words, it means acting as if God does not exist.

Even Christians agree with this. You've heard the expressions, "God helps those who help themselves," and "God works His miracles through men." The only difference is that they attribute to an unseen God all good things which from an objective standpoint we can only see coming from man and nature.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 18, 2004.


"If I am bitten by a rattlesnake should I pray to God or go to the hospital?"

A: Obviously, both. Even the medical profession is now recognizing that those who pray are more likely to recover from illness than those who don't.

"To be responsible means not counting on God for anything. In other words, it means acting as if God does not exist."

A: Egocentric is not the same thing as responsible. Every person is dependent upon many others. Have you ever heard "he who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client"? So it isn't a matter of being self-sufficient, since no-one is. It's simply a matter of recognizing or being ignorant of the ultimate source of all that is good.

"God helps those who help themselves," and "God works His miracles through men."

A: Actually, God helps many people who don't even recognize His existence. And yes, He frequently, though not always, acts through human instruments. Especially when we ask Him to.

"The only difference is that they attribute to an unseen God all good things which from an objective standpoint we can only see coming from man and nature."

A: And from an objective standpoint, where did man and nature come from??

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 18, 2004.


Even the medical profession is now recognizing that those who pray are more likely to recover from illness than those who don't.

The placebo effect is an established fact in medicine.

And from an objective standpoint, where did man and nature come from??

From an objective standpoint, I don't know and neither do you. If you say that they came from God then where did God come from? From an objective standpoint God came from man.

It is man who tells us that there is a God. It is man who hands us a book and says, "This is the word of God," even though that book was written by man himself; it didn't fall down from the heavens. It is man who says that Jesus had God as His Father and rose from the dead. If Jesus rose from the dead then why is there no historical record of it? And why didn't millions of people convert en masse?

I have never met God, have you? So for me to believe in God really means for me to believe in men who tell me about God. But I know that men are untrustworthy. They tell tall tales. They are manipulative. They can be gullible, superstitious, and delusional. So it's not that I don't believe in God, it's that I don't believe in men who tell me to believe in God.

The way I see it, if God wants me to acknowledge His existence, let alone worship Him, then it is up to God to reveal Himself to me. The fact that He hasn't done so means that either He does not exist or He does not care whether I believe in Him or not.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 18, 2004.


"The placebo effect is an established fact in medicine."

A: True. But placebo effect cannot apply when third parties pray for an ill person, often without his/her knowledge, and the person miraculously recovers. Also, placebo effect cannot cause a tumor to disappear overnight, as has happened many times as a direct result of prayer. When the doctors are there shaking their heads in disbelief, don't tell them it was probably placebo effect. They would laugh you out of the place.

"From an objective standpoint, I don't know and neither do you. If you say that they came from God then where did God come from? From an objective standpoint God came from man."

A: Actually, I do know. God Himself has revealed the origins of the universe, nature, and man. Science has also contributed by demonstrating that matter and energy could not have come into existence by any natural means, thereby necessitating a supernatural source. Logic dictates that any series of finite causes and effects cannot be infinite, and must therefore have had an initial cause. When the series of events you are considering is the history of the universe itself, logic dictates that the physical universe cannot be eternal, and must therefore have had an origin. In order to have had an origin it must have had a cause. That cause was necessarily distinct from the universe itself - distinct from and unrelated to matter, energy, and time. That necessary source, that uncaused cause, is God.

"It is man who tells us that there is a God."

A: To a point, correct. Every human civilization we know of has recognized the necessity for a god or gods. Man is universally competent to rationally reach that conclusion. What man is not capable of however, is to identify the true God, which is why ancient men devised so many "gods" in their futile attempts to fulfill that rational necessity. The true God could be known by men only if He Himself took the initiative and revealed Himself to men, which He did. The history of salvation is a record of that revelation to men.

"It is man who hands us a book and says, "This is the word of God," even though that book was written by man himself"

A: Well, not exactly. A Protestant would tell you that. However, the Catholic Church didn't receive the Word of God as a book. It received the Word of God from the lips of Jesus Christ Himself, Who proved He was God every day of His earthly life by doing things only God could do. The Bible came later, and is simply a written record of God's revelation to His Church. But the Word of God would exist in its fullness whether portions of it were ever written down or not.

"It is man who says that Jesus had God as His Father and rose from the dead."

A: Yes and no. It was Jesus Christ who said that, and Jesus was indeed fully man. But He was also fully God, and that is the reason He was able to reveal such truths to us.

"If Jesus rose from the dead then why is there no historical record of it?"

A: There is. There are records by a number of different witnesses who saw Him and spoke with Him after He had risen - on one occasion more than 500 such witnesses at once.

"I have never met God, have you?"

A: Yes, I have. I know Him intimately, at least as well as I know my wife and family.

"So for me to believe in God really means for me to believe in men who tell me about God."

A: Well yes. At the moment, the only means you have to believe in the existence of my wife is my word. On the other hand, it is not rational to hear thousands of people tell you they know a particular person, and to respond by telling them the person they all know doesn't exist - on no basis other than the fact that you personally have not yet met that person.

"The way I see it, if God wants me to acknowledge His existence, let alone worship Him, then it is up to God to reveal Himself to me"

A: Absolutely RIGHT! As I already said, men cannot come to know the true God unless He reveals Himself. Why don't you ask Him to? He hears you and He loves you ...

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)

Countless millions have found this promise of Christ to be true. Can you presume to tell them they are all wrong, simply because you yourself have not knocked?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 18, 2004.



Paul,

First time visiting in a while and just wanted to tell you I believe you are STILL doing a wonderful job. If all the threads are similar to this one, I'll be back more often. I left when the forum was hijacked by the trads.

-- Glenn (Glenn@nospam.com), July 18, 2004.


Welcome back Glenn and thanks for your comments. I hope you find the forum helpful and uplifting. There is now a second moderator, Ed, who has played a major role in keeping us on course. We have weathered a few storms since the "trad tempest" but hopefully are moving forward on a (reasonably) even keel.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 18, 2004.

I'll be back more often. I left when the forum was hijacked by the trads.

****What exactly is a trad and are they all the same?

God Bless.

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), July 19, 2004.


By "trad" is meant a so-called "Traditionalist Catholic". This movement, like most movements, has its more balanced adherents and its extremists. The more balanced "Traditionalists" prefer the Tridentine Rite of Mass, and love the wonderful devotions which were more popular in the past, like Eucharistic Adoration and Benediction, and they know where they can find such liturgies, fully approved by their bishop. They also bemoan the many abuses of the teaching of Vatican II that have occurred since the Council, though in my opinion many of them seem unable to distinguish between the actual teaching of the Council and the rampant abuses of such teaching. The more radical "Traditionalists" on the other hand simply reject the authority of the Second Vatican Council outright, and ignore everything that has been taught by the Church since then. The more extreme among them will tell you that the new rite of Mass approved by the Magisterium and the Holy Father is not a "real" Mass, but only a thinly velied Protestant service. And the most extreme offshoot of the Traditionalist movement are the sedevacantists, who claim that John Paul II is not the real Pope, and some of whom have even elected their own Pope. All of these folks of course consider themselves Catholics in good standing; and the more balanced Traditionalists ARE of course Catholics in good standing. But many of the more extreme elements of the movement are frankly schismatic, though they will fight you tooth and nail if you point that out to them. And that is what all the hubbub on the forum was about for a matter of some months.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 19, 2004.

Paul,

Glenn hasn't been away that long. I think he rembers Ed as Mod. :-)

Hello, Mr. K.

-- - (David@excite.com), July 19, 2004.



"I have never met God, have you?"

A: Yes, I have. I know Him intimately, at least as well as I know my wife and family.

Oh, brother. It’s clear that I can’t have a productive exchange with you. Why? Because you’re not being honest. You’re not being honest with me and, I think, you’re not being honest with yourself. I should have realized that in your response to my post in another thread where I criticized your definition of atheism. Another poster, ZAROVE, understood my point. At the time I thought that you were just being stubborn.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 19, 2004.


Dear Dis,

Ask Him. That's all I can say. Once you meet Him, you will understand. Until then it would be like trying to explain color to a blind person.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 19, 2004.


Thanks for answering Paul. Just from reading a few post it doesn't seem like "trads" are welcome here or a few have a bad reputation causing Glenn to make the statement he did. Traditionals do have many beliefs and a few are extreme, but in my experience I have found them to have a great love for our Catholic Faith.

God Bless.

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), July 20, 2004.


I also know many Tradionalist Catholics, and likewise find them very devout. There are a few who post here regularly, and they most certainly are as welcome as anyone else. However, as the rules of the forum clearly state, this is not the place to denounce the Church, the Pope, the Magisterium, or the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. People who do so are not welcome here, whether they call themselves "Catholic" or not.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 20, 2004.

DC, how was Paul M. not being honest? Because he said he knows God like his wife? LOL. Yes, to the NATURAL mind spiritual things seem ridiculous! But understanding them with FAITH...TRUE FAITH they are beautiful and truthful.

So DC, if I understand you correctly, your not sure if you believe in God anymore? Why? because He hasn't showed Himself? Why would He? I ask myself that. Why would God show Himself to me (when in a way He has through His creation, word, and most of all JESUS CHRIST)! We are so full of sin it's pitiful before God. But He loves us and a study of Catholic Christianity, questions like this can be understood. I understand it and you know what, I was at one time an athiest too. My main reason though was because of hard trials I faced. Yet practily every Biblical person suffered a great deal but always come out knowing the Lord stronger each time.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), July 23, 2004.


DC, how was Paul M. not being honest? Because he said he knows God like his wife?

I said to Paul, “I’ve never met God, have you?”

Paul replied, “Yes, I have. I know Him intimately, at least as well as I know my wife and family.”

Is Paul claiming to see, touch, and converse with God as he does with his wife and family? I doubt it. He’s just playing games with the words “met” and “know.” He’s speaking abstractly whereas I am speaking concretely.

It’s like the priest I heard in a sermon saying, “I see Jesus in the Eucharist. I see Jesus in the Bible. I see Jesus in the faces of the street urchins in Mexico.” All he’s really seeing, of course, is bread, a book, and some kids.

You cannot have a fruitful discussion with someone if he refuses to agree with you on the meanings of the words you are using.

For example, when I asked why there was no historical record of the Resurrection Paul replied, "There is. There are records by a number of different witnesses who saw Him and spoke with Him after He had risen - on one occasion more than 500 such witnesses at once."

By "historical record" I obviously meant records other than the Bible. Paul is deliberately refusing to use words in the same sense that I am using them in order to avoid conceding the points that I am making.

Yes, to the NATURAL mind spiritual things seem ridiculous! But understanding them with FAITH...TRUE FAITH they are beautiful and truthful.

I’ve heard the same thing from people who’ve taken LSD. Your drug of choice is faith.

So DC, if I understand you correctly, your not sure if you believe in God anymore? Why? because He hasn't showed Himself?

No, although it would be nice if He did.

Mainly, though, it’s because of my disillusionment with the Catholic Church. As I wrote in another thread, the Church is to a Catholic what the Bible is to a Protestant. When the Church loses credibility in the eyes of a Catholic it’s like the Bible losing credibility in the eyes of a Protestant. What would happen to a Protestant who came to the conclusion that the Bible was not the inspired word of God, but simply the product of human authors engaging in storytelling and propagandizing? A Protestant’s faith in God pretty much rests on the credibility of the Bible. Once the Bible loses its credibility to him then he will most likely lose his faith in God.

As a Catholic, my faith in God pretty much rests on the credibility of the Catholic Church. It is becoming increasingly difficult for me to see the Church as the divinely created, divinely guided institution she claims to be. In fact, I’m not sure she even claims to be that anymore -- certainly not in the triumphalist, exclusivist manner that she once did.

As the Church loses her credibility my faith in the existence of God weakens. I don’t think I could ever be an atheist but I could see myself as an agnostic. The existence of God is like the existence of life on other planets. There’s no evidence one way or the other.

-- Disillusioned Catholic (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 24, 2004.


As the Church loses her credibility my faith in the existence of God weakens.

so what youre saying is that satan tries to crush your spirit, and youre giving in?

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 24, 2004.


The Church used to help us do battle against Satan. But no longer. Example: suppressing the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel to defend us in battle, which used to be said after every Low Mass. Now it's just love, love, love.

-- DC (skeptickk@yahoo.com), July 24, 2004.

The Church used to help us do battle against Satan. But no longer. Example: suppressing the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel to defend us in battle, which used to be said after every Low Mass. Now it's just love, love, love.

***You can still pray this prayer by yourself after a low Mass. I pray many prayers before the NO Mass and after (when we can't make it to the TLM). Why don't you see if they have a FSSP TLM in your area. They will have all that you think is lost. Remember that there will always be human error, but this does not mean that the one true Church of Christ our Savior is not the one for you. I've been through hell and back and thought I was in a scary dream trying to find a priest to tell me according to the Bible and especially Catholic teaching. I thought God was trying to tell me that the Catholic Church was not His. When I was crying outside of Church asking God what it was He was trying to tell me I left to go back home. I took a wrong turn and started yelling at God. I was frustrated and didn't know what He wanted from me plus I hate driving/getting lost in the city. I saw the name of the road where I was told a TLM would be (six months ealier). I decided to see if a priest was present. Some men were working at the Church and told me that no priest was there. They told me normally they aren't (Church hadn't opened to the public yet) and as I was leaving the other man told me a priest had just pulled up. He was heaven sent! I found a priest who not only knew the truth, but also directed me. He asked if I wanted to do a general confession. I had no idea what that was. An hour and half later I no longer felt empty. My soul had been fed. It is sad, but true, in this day and age you will have to know more about your faith (not a bad thing, but now it is a must) and try your best to go to a Catholic Church that will feed you spiritually the way it is suppose to.

The existence of God is like the existence of life on other planets. There’s no evidence one way or the other.

***It is there if you truly look. Faith is what we must have and there will be periods in our life where we question more and fall away. Allow God to enter your heart. Start praying again and go to Mass. Don't let what is going on around you dictate what you will believe in. Sin will always be around us. Don't let satan win.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), July 24, 2004.


DC,

Jalapeno gave some good advice. If you wish to attend an approved Latin mass, here are some sites where you can find out more information if you live in the US or Canada.

FSSP: http://www.fssp.com/main/u scan.html

All approved Latin masses: http:// web2.airmail.net/~carlsch/MaterDei/churches.htm

Jalapeno, I'm going to try to visit one of these when I get the chance. I've heard that the Latin mass is beautiful.

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), July 24, 2004.


DC, I don’t believe the Church has “suppressed” the prayer you speak of. OK, it doesn’t use it in its public liturgy, but if you and any like-minded friends said this prayer in church no-one would or could force you to stop. The Catholic Church has always been, at its basis, “just love, love, love” (Matt 23:36-40). As times change, the Church has shown us various ways of putting this command into practice. The Church certainly still claims to be divinely created and guided and you will find nothing in Church documents to deny this. Yes there is less triumphalism and exclusivism, because these can often turn people away from the true faith instead of towards it. We are a pilgrim Church making ourselves, like St Paul, “all things to all men”, to lead them to our true home in Heaven.

Jalapeno, sorry if it sounds like I’m nitpicking you, but when you say “NO Mass” , I assume you mean “Novus Ordo”, that is, the standard approved text and rubrics of the Mass as it has been for the last 40 years. But people who don’t know this might think that by “NO Mass” you are saying that it is not a real Mass, which as Paul M has pointed out, is against the rules of the forum, and may mislead and harm the faith of others. I suggest you use the term “vernacular” or “in English” or “standard” or “modern” etc.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 25, 2004.


I'm going to try to visit one of these when I get the chance. I've heard that the Latin mass is beautiful.

***Oh Emily, you will love it! :o) Please let us know when you do get a chance to go. If you can go to the High Mass.

***Steve, you nitpick? Never! LOL If someone thought I was meaning "NO Mass" they would have asked or at least I would hope they would ask. Whenever I do speak of the Novus Ordo Mass I will say it just like that not as you stated, being you didn't ask politely. ;o) Plus Novus Ordo isn't a bad word so no need to say, “vernacular” or “in English” or “standard” or “modern”.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), July 26, 2004.


I thought I WAS being polite. Did I leave out “please”? I know our regulars here know what you mean by NO or Novus Ordo. But probably 90% of the Catholics who read this, and probably 99% of the non- Catholics, have no idea what “Novus Ordo” means. Do we want to educate and convert them or confuse and repel them?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), July 27, 2004.

Do we want to educate and convert them or confuse and repel them?

***Steve, you do make me laugh and I thank you for that. :o) And yes, you forgot the magic word. ;o) If a person is wanting to convert they are always full of questions. I don't think people are stupid enough to just read NO Mass and think we mean no Mass, feel repelled, confused, and leave this board.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), July 27, 2004.


Dear Alice

Its a challenge a catholic marrying a non catholic but it can be worked around. Respecting each others views is important and you have that. The gift you may be able to give your children is being tolerant of different views/religions/cultures, using their minds to discover, question and make their own decisions.

So much violence/war that happens today seems to be because of intolerance of other peoples beliefs I think.

The church may have different rules in different countries.

I was married in New Zealand about 18 months ago. I was raised a catholic, by husband is not. We had some very interesting conversations with the priest who was great at dealing with my husbands very definite (no organised religion) views!

We married in a beautiful vineyard and a Monsignor (priest from my childhood) married us conducting a simple ceremony (no mass). He asked us if we were open to having children and we said yes. - We didn't have to get married in a church, but I think in the UK for example you do if you want a catholic ceremony.

I had to sign a form that said I will raise children according to the teachings of the church. But my husband didn't have to sign anything.

The wedding was wonderful and we have a great marriage. He is a loving caring person, more so in all honesty, than some catholics I have met in my life.

The challenge will come when we have children and how we both express our views and explaining the differences without confusing them or making them feel like they're taking sides. I haven't figured it out yet but will have too soon!

But I think children get that to some degree anyway, I was taught all about Adam and Eve etc then when I was older was told - the church is more sure of the New Testament but thinks some of the stories in the old (adam and eve etc) may not be factual but rather stories to illustrate the point like a parable.

So I thought no Father Christmas, no easter bunny or tooth fairy, and Adam and Eve might not be true?

There are many things I don't agree with about the Cathloic Church too which I need to sort out in my own mind before having children, which will hopefully be very soon! Family pressure (parents/grandparents) is often placed on catholics to follow in the family tradition of catholisim. Your fiance may or may not have that pressure too. Some things are ingrained and its hard to explain why - like having a child christened just feels like an important thing to do for your child. In reality I think its more for the parents, and their families. The child is none the wiser at such a young age.

I was forced to go to church as a child whether I wanted to or not - up to the age of 17 when I promptly stopped. It means so much more if you chose to go than are forced to go.

I promised myself I would never do this to my children. I think its very important to instill moral values in children, however going to church and the religion you follow/don't follow should be a personal choice.

Afterall none of us will really know what the true story is until we die. So many people are devout in their different faiths (hindu, jewish, catholic, muslim), it would be naieve for anyone to think they have got it 100% right.

The important thing is that you both love each other, respect each others views and communicate. I'd suggest also discussing with your husband how you'll approach discussing your different views with your children so they don't get too confused or think they need to take sides.

All the best with your future marriage.

Rachel

-- rachel prendergast (rach_prend@yahoo.com), August 10, 2004.


“I don't think people are stupid enough to just read NO Mass and think we mean no Mass” (Jalapeno). Well call me stupid but I’m a reasonably well-read cradle Catholic and that’s exactly what I did think when I first read it. And yes I think it’s quite possible that if someone looking for the truth sees Catholics apparently saying that Mass said according to the standard rite is “NO Mass”, then he will be both confused and conclude that Catholics are confused and are not the true faith he is looking for.

Rachel, you’re right, you’ve got a lot of things to sort out. If you’re going to be a Catholic I’m afraid you have to accept that the Catholic Church does have it “100% right”, at least as far as the dogmas of the faith. And if you do believe in the Catholic faith you would be a hypocrite if you did not practice the faith and regularly receive the sacraments and do all in your power to ensure your children (should you be blessed with any) are baptized and brought up in the faith. You’re right, having a baby baptized is, while the child is young, more important for the parents than the baby. It means YOU making a commitment to bring the child up as a Catholic. As your husband is a loving, caring man he will respect that.

“I was forced to go to church as a child whether I wanted to or not - up to the age of 17 when I promptly stopped. It means so much more if you chose to go than are forced to go. I promised myself I would never do this to my children. I think its very important to instill moral values in children, however going to church and the religion you follow/don't follow should be a personal choice. “

What if a parent said “I think it’s very important for children to be educated, but going to school should be the child’s personal choice.”? I know it sounds harsh before you have children, but there are many things parents must “force” their children to do for their own good. Yes you gave up practising your faith, but at least you knew what you were rejecting. If your children don't practice the faith, all they will know about the Church is some half-baked ideas.

“Family pressure (parents/grandparents) is often placed on catholics to follow in the family tradition of catholisim.” Yes, because the parents/grandparents are concerned for the immortal soul of their children and grandchildren. It’s quite different to wanting to have a child follow “family traditions” like their parents’ career or hobbies. “So much violence/war that happens today seems to be because of intolerance of other peoples beliefs I think. “

Violence and war are nearly always caused by greed. Sometimes people use religious differences as an excuse (not a reason). Sometimes they use racial differences as an excuse. Does that mean we must abolish all racial differences and forbid people to take pride in and celebrate the unique characteristics and traditions of their own race? Of course not. Neither should we reduce all religions to an indeterminate amorphous nothingness.

Yes we must be tolerant of others’ beliefs. But not to the absurd extent of saying that all beliefs are relative and that none is better than any other. It's a very short step from that to say "religion doesn't matter at all" and from that to "we would be better off without any religion". It’s fashionable to say that one is Christian but is opposed to “organised religion”. If religion isn’t organised it’s just a bunch of platitudes that will be brushed aside at the first serious challenge.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 11, 2004.


"going to church and the religion you follow/don't follow should be a personal choice"

A: God Himself didn't come to earth and found a Church so that people could choose between His Church and some watered-down imitation created by men in rebellion against His Church. Jesus told the leaders of the Church He personally founded, and no other, "the Holy Spirit will guide you to ALL TRUTH"; and "whatsoever you bind upon eaerth is bound in heaven". We have the obligation to teach our children the TRUTH. God has told us where that truth can be found - in His Church, which the Bible calls "the pillar and foundation of truth". Our children still have free will, and eventually they will indeed make a personal choice to either follow the truth or be seduced into untruth by some simplistic manmade religion. If they make the wrong choice in spite of our raising them in the truth, they will have to answer to God for their decision. If they make the wrong choice because we never taught them that there is one true Church founded by God for all men, then we will have to answer to God for their decision.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 11, 2004.


Interesting.

I find myself in the same situation as Alice here. Unfortunately, I end up with the same vapid, off-topic and unhelpful answers. Alice (and I) would be better served if you take your religious debate elsewhere and, instead, answer the question posed.

How can an atheist-catholic marriage succeed? How can an interfaith marriage even take place without one person having to lie/sin/betray their true faith? What exactly do you tell your children? How do you offer them the choice between two religions, when each of you believe only one to be right?

Looking forward to your answers...

ps. Alice, for the record, I've researched Catholic requirements. Like an earlier, but quickly buried post said:

The post-1980s consensus says the Catholic must reaffirm his faith. He must also agree to raise the children (which are of course not mandatory - would they come to your house and routinely check?) in the Catholic tradition. You don't have to sign a thing.

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 16, 2004.


"How can an atheist-catholic marriage succeed?"

A: In my opinion, it cannot. God must be at the very heart of a Catholic marriage, and if He is not, the marriage will most likely fail. Since God cannot be at the heart of a relationship when one of the parties denies His very existence, such a marriage should never be attempted. It is doomed from the start.

"How can an interfaith marriage even take place without one person having to lie/sin/betray their true faith?"

A: I know many interfaith couples who keep God at the heart of their marriage, each worshiping Him according to their own tradition, who have healthy, happy, long-standing marriages.

"What exactly do you tell your children? How do you offer them the choice between two religions, when each of you believe only one to be right?"

A: You don't. It must be clear from the start that the Catholic party has a solemn responsibility to raise the children Catholic. Unless a non-Catholic can accept that, he/she should not marry a Catholic.

"The post-1980s consensus says the Catholic must reaffirm his faith. He must also agree to raise the children (which are of course not mandatory - would they come to your house and routinely check?) in the Catholic tradition. You don't have to sign a thing."

A: Keeping a solemn promise made to God Himself is not mandatory unless it is in writing? The Church doesn't come to your house to check on any kind of sin you may be committing. However, entering into marriage under false pretenses, including making spurious promises you never intended to fulfill, can render your marriage invalid.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 16, 2004.


"How can an atheist-catholic marriage succeed?"

Louise,

What would you consider "success" -better yet when would this success happen? -- ahhhh.... there's the rub....

-awaiting your non-vapid answer(s)...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 16, 2004.


Paul: I meant that the atheist has no promise to uphold with God. She doesn't have to sign anything, nor does she have to commit to raising her children one way or the other. She is not accountable to another's belief structure. Sorry to be unclear.

Daniel: Success is not a goal that can be fulfilled or checked off a to-do list. Success is an on-going process towards which a couple must always strive. When must this success happen? Constantly.

I would consider a successful marriage one that has honesty and communication at its heart. One that takes two people, two ideologies, two world perspectives, and somehow makes sense of them together. I'd say this requires an inordinate amount of tolerance on both sides, as well as a solemn committment to respect each other. Simply because I love lima beans does not require my spouse to love them. I'll give him freedom to put what he chooses on his plate. We can still enjoy dinner. I believe this metaphor extends to spirituality too.

As to the requirement that all marriages be bonded by a God, I'm not convinced that daily life together requires daily prayer. I know that this can certainly strengthen a marriage; I do not discount that. And, obviously from my concerns stated, similar beliefs would ease conflict when raising a child. However, religion has never been central to any of my relationships (family and current beau included), many of which I consider deep and fulfilling.

I suppose a better question is, how can I allow him his right to raise the children Catholic (I realize he is bound by this), while still exercising my right to introduce another belief structure? I would never attempt to draw him from his religion, nor violate key tenant of it. I would expect, however, that he equally respect the values I hold dear.

Another question: do your responses change if I am Buddhist instead of atheist? Pagan? A follower of Egyptian religion? If a Christian God, capital G, is not central, is there no other option? What if we have already been together for over 6 yrs with no qualms? Does your analysis change?

LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 17, 2004.


Paul, I might owe you an apology. After some researching, I learned that Catholics must both consummate their marriage and refuse contraception. This implies the promise of children - is this "the solemn promise" you referred to in your last post? If so, I am sorry to have misread your comment.

LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 17, 2004.


Hi Louise,

No apology necessary. You are right in saying that the non-Catholic does not have to make any specific promises. The problem here is that the Catholic DOES have to make such a binding promise. Also, it is required that the non-Catholic be fully informed of that binding promise. The Catholic cannot in good conscience promise to do all in his/her power to raise the children in the Catholic faith unless he/she has been led to believe, whether rightly or wrongly, that their partner is willing to support them in that promise. If a Catholic makes such a promise knowing full well that their partner absolutely intends to prevent them from honoring it, then the promise itself is meaningless, and the marriage is based on false pretenses from the start.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 17, 2004.


“religion has never been central to any of my relationships (family and current beau included)”

Louise, your beau’s love for you is derived from, and is part of, God’s love. (So is your love for him, though I appreciate you don’t see it this way). If you deprive him of an essential part of his Catholic religion, namely bringing up his children as Catholics, then you are also limiting his love for you.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 17, 2004.


Dear Alice,

May the Lord have mercy on you because you seem Spiritually blind as you don't seem to realise and belive in our Awsome God. Just take a glance at the Creation and you will see. If you don't you certainly do not realise what you are deprived of. Our Friends of Christ and I can only pray for you hoping that Our Merciful God will show you that HE ALONE IS THE WAY TRUTH AND LIFE. Everthing else falls way behind.

God Bless, Ramanie.

-- Ramanie Weerasinghe (lilanw@yahoo.com), August 17, 2004.


Understanding the promise he must make as a Catholic, I want to ask a few more questions then (if you don't mind entertaining my ignorance):

What is the spiritual importance of a valid Catholic marriage? (i.e. what benefits does it confer upon the believer and/or his spouse) What if the Catholic does not feel strongly about having a "valid" marriage?

Also, what happens to the believer if he marries someone who can not suuport him in raising Catholic children? What if she neither supports, nor hinders? Is her non-participation as bad as thwarting his efforts? (the difference is between active and passive support I suppose)

Thanks for your thorough & thoughtful answers. LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 18, 2004.


"What is the spiritual importance of a valid Catholic marriage?"

A: It is a sacrament which not only binds two people together in an absolutely indissoluble bond until death, but also provides the graces necessary to successfully live out the covenant the couple have made with each other and with God.

"What if the Catholic does not feel strongly about having a "valid" marriage?"

A: A "valid marriage" is synonymous with "a marriage". If a Catholic does not feel strongly about marrying, he/she should not marry.

"Also, what happens to the believer if he marries someone who can not support him in raising Catholic children?"

A: Marriage to a non-Catholic requires that he promise to do his best to raise the children of the marriage in the Catholic faith. If he knows the person he hopes to marry cannot or will not support him in that solemn responsibity, he should find a marriage partner who can and will do so.

"What if she neither supports, nor hinders? Is her non-participation as bad as thwarting his efforts?"

A: "Support" here does not mean that the non-Catholic parent must play an active role in raising the children Catholic. That would really be too much to ask of a person of another belief system. Freedom from hindrance would meet the requirement for "support". It is the Catholic parent's promise, not the non-Catholic parent's promise. Respecting the promise he has made and allowing him to honor it is all that is expected.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 18, 2004.


What do you make of civil marriages that exist essentially outside of religious covenants? They are obviously not valid by Catholic standards (or Christian for that matter), but can they not symbolize an earthly non-transcendental committment between two people? Even though you might think it inferior, is this type of committment automatically doomed?

Even more challenging: do you think God would promote love and committment among his children, even in a "lesser" form? Would He prefer no marriage to a marriage that is not religious at its root?

Again, I really appreciate you offering your Catholic view on these questions. You are the first person I've met willing to give me information rather than harassment. My curiosity thanks you. LB

-- Louise B (elbrinke@ecologyfund.net), August 18, 2004.


The Church's position on marriages between non-Catholics is presumption of validity unless and until there is specific evidence of invalidity. Presumption of validity is not exactly the same as official acceptance of validity. I see it as roughly analygous to the legal concept of "presumed innocent until proven guilty". "Presumed innocent" doesn't mean the person necessarily is innocent. It doesn't even mean that anyone believes the person is innocent. It just means that we relate to the person as though they are innocent until evidence to the contrary is heard and justly considered.

I'm not suggesting here that non-Catholic marriages are a matter of "guilt" or "innocence". I'm just trying to clarify "presumption" by way of analogy. In the same way the Church relates to married couples of other faiths as though they are in fact validly married (which they may very well be) until such time as specific evidence indicates the opposite. Such evidence is very unlikely to arise unless there is a specific investigation by a marriage tribunal; and that will not happen unless the couple, or one of them, either enters the Catholic Church, or divorces and then wishes to marry a Catholic. At that time the "presumption" is set aside, the facts surrounding the marriage are carefully examined by the tribunal, and a finding of validity or nullity is issued.

Yes, I believe that love and commitment can both be expressed in a non- sacramental (civil) marriage.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), August 18, 2004.


All marriages, whether a Catholic sacrament, a civil marriage, or according to the rites of some other religion, are “made in Heaven” and God blesses and participates in them (presuming, as Paul said, that they are valid). However if a Catholic marries outside the Church in a ceremony which is not sacramental marriage, he is, from the Church’s point of view, doing little better than simply fornicating without any type of marriage ceremony. Your beau may say now that this doesn’t worry him much, but if he does do this, it will very likely gnaw at his conscience in years to come and cast a pall over the relationship between you.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 18, 2004.

I don't know what the official position on these issues is, but my mother is an extremely liberal Catholic and my father is a Jewish agnostic. They have been happily married for twenty-one years. They were married in a church by both a priest and a rabbi. I was raised Catholic and went to church every Sunday with my mother. We celebrated the Christian holidays (and sometimes Hannukah as well) in a rather secular manner. I always knew that my father isn't religious and my mother is, and I can never recall religion causing any problems between them whatsoever. I recently left the church and became agnostic, but I can't say I really regret my Catholic upbringing. I don't suppose there's much point to this story, other than to let you know that it can be done.

-- Elena MacKenzie (EM798@hotmail.com), October 29, 2004.

Elena,

What does your "extremely liberal Catholic" mother think of you being an agnostic? I don't think its too surprising that a daughter of a liberal Catholic (which I interpret to mean not real adherent to the faith) and an agnostic would turn out to be an agnostic herself. So yes, a Catholic and an agnostic can be happy together. But can they raise children to be faithfully Catholic? That's a very, very difficult task IMO. I hope God's grace will guide you back to the Church soon.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), October 30, 2004.


Alice, Whats your email address? I tried contacting you but yours bounced :( I know its likely you wont check this thread now, but if you do, please contact me as i am in the exact same situation as you and would love to chat.

-- Reb (sonicrc98@hotmail.com), February 01, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ