My stepmom is a baptist, and wants my brother and I (both Catholic) to go to church with her on sundays. It's not that she wants to convert us, and we wouldn't even if she wanted us to, but she just wants to go to church with her family. Is it wrong as long my brother and I go to Mass as well?

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.

not wrong, as long as you remain in attendance at mass. HOWEVER, you are only to be there as a polite observor. you may NOT take part in any ritual sacraments that may be distributed such as a false communion.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 03, 2004.

It is acceptable to attend a non-Catholic service provided you don't take any official role (doing a reading, distributing communion, responding to an "altar call", etc.). You may attend as "an observer in the pew". Also of course if they have any form of "Communion" or "the Lord's Supper" as some churches call it, you must refrain from participating in that.

The above applies to one isolated attendance for a specific reason. However, regular attendance at a non-Catholic service is not recommended. Why expose yourself to a constant barrage of false theology, and quite possibly anti-Catholic sentiment, subtle or otherwise? Your step mom might not "want to convert you" (though I wouldn't take that at face value), but you can bet her pastor will want to convert you. Stick with the truth. Jesus provided us with everything we need spiritually, in the Church He personally founded. Why flirt with disaster?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 03, 2004.

Paul M, my brother (nominal Catholic) and his wife (nominal protestant) got married in a protestant church (which I think they chose mainly because that particular building would look nice in the photos). They asked me to do a reading at the ceremony and I agreed. It was 1 Corinthians 13. I delivered it to the best of my ability in the hope that it would have some benefit to the couple and the others present. I don’t think I did anything wrong, in fact I think I did something good. But I know some would say I shouldn’t have even been there because it endorses my brother’s decision not to get married in the Catholic Church.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 05, 2004.

Steve,

It sounds to me as if you rewarded your brothers sinful decesion and disrespected your Catholic faith. Two wrongs don't make a right.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 05, 2004.

I don’t think I did anything wrong, in fact I think I did something good. But I know some would say I shouldn’t have even been there because it endorses my brother’s decision not to get married in the Catholic Church.

***Steve, I will look for the Canon Law for this (give me a few days...maybe..tomorrow is Monday). We are not to attend any Catholic's marriage if it is in another church. I myself did not know this until a few years ago. So being you did what you did and read what you read, will not have the impact you had hoped. There was no good from it. Instead you showed them you gave your full approval of their marriage and where it took place. We all learn from mistakes, and I only wish I had skipped out on a few weddings.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno 52000@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.

Very charitable, I must say, David.

Jalapeno, yes I know (I think) what Canon Law says. I also know that I did not “show them I gave my full approval of their marriage and where it took place.” I was not about to tell my brother to choose another wife. I told them both very clearly that they should be getting married in the Catholic Church. But I can’t MAKE them. The situation was, they had decided to get married in a protestant church. I believe they only decided to get married AT ALL rather than cohabit, to avoid upsetting my parents. The denomination as far as I can tell was not virulently anti-Catholic. Neither of them had seen the inside of ANY church for a decade except for weddings, funerals and baptisms. I discussed the matter with my devout Catholic parents and we decided to make the best of a bad situation. The protestant minister seemed surprised to find that a Catholic like me instantly recognized and was thoroughly familiar with the reading, and was able to deliver it effectively. I believe he is now a bit more favorably disposed towards Catholics. At the reception, one of my brother’s friends told me how impressed he was with the reading. He had been cohabiting with a woman for several years. Soon after they announced their wedding date. I’m not claiming the credit, but maybe I helped prod them, and I believe there WAS good flowing from my actions.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 06, 2004.

Cameron, how old are you? Not to be nosy at all, but one way to handle this would be to find a Mass time that is at the same time as the Baptist service.

How do your Dad and real Mom feel about it?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 06, 2004.

I'm 18 years old. I know I'm old enough to make my own decisions, but I'm still under my parents' roof(ves) at the moment, so they still have some say. That's a good idea about finding a Mass at the same time. My dad doesn't care about religion at all, and my mom is vehemently Catholic. She pretty much told me it was a sin to go to another church service. By the way, I just found out that my stepmom goes to a Presbyterian church now, but I imagine the scenario will be the same when I get back.

Glory be to God in the highest and peace to His people on Earth!

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.

Sorry I didn't agree with you Steve! Would it of been better if I would of said, "..GOOD JOB"!

I just hope your brother is not receiving the Holy Eucharist until he repents and and gets married in the Catholic Church if it wasn't. Was this marriage blessed by the Catholic Church?

Getting married in a Protestant Church becauses it looks good in a picture is good for you???

You mention the good of it( you preaching)[ a little test] Is your brother married Catholic?

-- - (David@excite.com), December 07, 2004.

David, you will find the answers to all your questions in what I said above, but I will repeat them more clearly for you:

“Would it of been better if I would of said, "..GOOD JOB"!” Yes, obviously.

“I just hope your brother is not receiving the Holy Eucharist until he repents and and gets married in the Catholic Church if it wasn't. Was this marriage blessed by the Catholic Church?… Is your brother married Catholic?” Obviously NO to all 3 questions, since I had said he hasn’t been to a Catholic church for many years.

“Getting married in a Protestant Church becauses it looks good in a picture is good for you???“ You have mistakenly attributed to ME the reason which I perhaps rather uncharitably attributed by conjecture to my brother and his wife.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 07, 2004.

The situation was, they had decided to get married in a protestant church. I believe they only decided to get married AT ALL rather than cohabit, to avoid upsetting my parents.

So they didn't want to risk shacking up for fear of upsetting your parents but they decided to risk upsetting your parents by getting married in a protestant church? Or were your parents not upset? If they were willing to get married so as to not upset your parents, I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to marry in the Catholic Church. If they got married in a protestant church because it was pretty, couldn't you have found a pretty Catholic Church?

The denomination as far as I can tell was not virulently anti- Catholic... The protestant minister seemed surprised to find that a Catholic like me instantly recognized and was thoroughly familiar with the reading, and was able to deliver it effectively.

HeHeHe. I'm sorry Steve, this just strikes me funny. So the denomination was polite and the minister was surprised to see that a Catholic was familiar with a bible passage that probably any atheist who has been to a wedding is familiar with, and was able to pronounce all the words. Praise the Lord!

I believe there WAS good flowing from my actions.

Hopefully Steve, but it sounds like you are trying to justify something you shouldn't have done. If one of your arguments is: "the denomination as far as I can tell was not virulently anti- Catholic," your case is not looking too good. But hey, I've been in your position before and done pretty much what you did. The difference is that I regret doing it, big time. Like Jalapeno, there are some weddings I wish I had not attended.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 07, 2004.

"..I believe there was GOOD flowing from my actions.."

It wasn't Catholic Steve! Have these sinners married in the true Church yet?

Your brother is heading straight to hell unless he repents.You should no this as a Catholic. What good comes from this?

-- - (David@excite.com), December 07, 2004.

David, we are all “sinners”, and I think you should be a lot more careful about declaring forthrightly that someone you don’t even know “is heading straight to hell”. No, as far as I know they haven’t married in the Catholic Church in the two hours since I last answered you that question.

Brian, yes, I put all those arguments to them at the time, including finding them a pretty Catholic church, but as I said I can’t MAKE them do the right thing. My parents didn’t want to complain too much for fear of putting them off the whole idea of getting married. Yes I found the minister’s surprise very funny too.

No I’m not trying to justify my actions after the event, I chose to do it hoping there would be benefits and I believe there were. Yes it would be great if we lived in a perfect world where no-one ever had sexual intercourse outside marriage and Catholics only got married in the Catholic church. But many don’t. They have to live with the consequences of their actions. And I believe I have to draw what good I can out of the messy situations this creates, rather than avoiding any association with the marriage ceremony to keep myself ritually pure like some latter-day Pharisee.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 07, 2004.

It's sometimes very difficult to make a choice which recognizes that , indeed, people do have to live with the consequences of their actions. When a close friend or relative who is Catholic makes a choice to "marry" outside of the Church, since the Church teaches that there IS NO marriage taking place, our presence at that ceremony serves to reinforce their choice of sin.

Just saying that "many Catholics" marry outside the Church doesn't make it right that family members should endorse that by their participation. Church teaching is that living together or being "married" outside the Church is one and the same, since there is NO marriage either way. So a wedding ceremony for a Catholic in another Church means nothing.

The answer is not to posture with religious indignation, but with sincere sadness that one's friend or loved one is going down the wrong path. Promise them love and prayers, yet tell them gently that you cannot be a part of ANYTHING which denies the Church, and therefore Christ's teaching.

One of our daughters decided to live with her boyfriend. Same thing applies. We love our daughter very much. So much so that we refuse to behave in any way that gives her the message that "it's OK" to sin in this manner. We do not visit them in their apartment, nor are they permitted to visit at our home as a "married" couple. If they visit here, they must sleep separately or not visit at all. Our daughter chooses not to see us because of this. That's her decision. This life is short..eternal life is forever. I'd rather my daughter had a good example of following the Church from us so that perhaps some day she may make better choices and gain eternal life, than to have us be more concerned with the here and now and teach her it's OK to sin. She knows she is loved, yet she also knows that we love God more...and we love Him more than ourselves.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.

Lesley, we have exactly the same situation with our daughter and we handle it exactly the same way. But I believe you’re wrong about the protestant wedding.

They may not have received the graces of the Sacrament of Matrimony, but the Church presumes they are validly married. If my brother (God forbid) ever wanted to divorce his wife and marry another, the Church would require proof that the marriage was invalid. The mere fact that he is Catholic and the ceremony was protestant is NOT accepted as proof that the marriage is invalid. It IS a different thing from mere cohabitation. I don’t see how in reading aloud the very same scripture passage which is authorised to be, and usually is, used in Catholic Nuptial Masses, I was doing anything “which denies the Church and therefore Christ’s teaching.”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

That's incorrect Steve. The Church asumes that two Protestants married in their own Church are validly married. But a Catholic married in a non-Catholic ceremony is not validly married, and is not assumed to be, as indicated by the fact that a person in such a situation is excluded from the sacraments. You are correct in saying that a tribunal would have to formally affirm the invalidity of such a marriage before the couple could remarry. But this would be a formality. There would be nothing to decide.

Canon 1108 states: "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 canon 144, 1112 §1, 1116 and 1127 §2­3".

Reference is made here to certain possible exceptions; however such exceptions are exceedingly rare, and do not apply to Catholic persons who simply decide to be married in a non-Catholic ceremony.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 08, 2004.

That may be, Paul, but I still maintain that their position is not one of mere cohabitation.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

"That may be..but I think.."

Steve, so what you are saying is: Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that when a Catholic has a wedding ceremony outside of the Church the marriage is not a valid one. BUT in my own mind, I choose to believe that there IS a valid marriage which took place. So I will decide which canon law of the Church to agree with and which I will not. In your view, there is some sort of difference between a Catholic who went through a ceremony in another Church and a Catholic who is "cohabitating" without benefit of marriage. There is a difference, but it is a secular one. Legally, one has a civil marriage and one does not. For Catholics, neither is married.

Holy Mother Church gives us canon law..we don't interpret it ourselves to suit our own needs as they arise, or to say to ourselves, "that may be, but I think.."

In this thread, Cameron, at a very young age has a decision to make. How does he keep faithful to the Church while understanding his stepmother's need to have the family worship together on Sunday? That's a tough one. The easy answer is for Cameron to attend Mass Saturday and go to his stepmother's church on Sunday. The harder answer is for Cameron to not become involved in the other church except for an occassional visit because it is MORE important for a person to more deeply involved in their own faith..to grow in it, to become a witness to others..to be FIRM in their faith. Not as the Pharisees, but as loving witnesses of the Word.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.

They are married, even if it had been in a civil ceremony. If you don't believe me, just try to get an annullment.

As to why not in a Catholic Church? Probably because of the Pre-Cana requirements. They are no guarantee that a marriage is going be a success.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 08, 2004.

Lesley, you misunderstand the nature of canon law. Canon law is simply the rules and regulations the Church has for the smooth internal working of the Church. It is not Catholic doctrine, let alone infallible dogma requiring definitive and total assent from all Catholics.

My case, concerning a one-off occasion, by no means undermines the excellent advice given to Cameron not to attend protestant services on a regular ongoing basis. I assure you this was the only time in my life I have visited that protestant church, and I could count on my fingers the number of times in my life I have visited ANY protestant church. Don't worry they'll never lure me away!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 08, 2004.

Steve..The Dogma on marriage is clear. Catholics cannot "marry" outside of the Church with no priest present..if they do, there is no valid marriage. Read about this Dogma of the Sacrament of marriage, formulated at the Council of Trent. There is an excellent review online at Catholic New Advent Encyclopedia.

regarding Canon law..Canon law is DIVINELY inspired..personally,I wouldn't take it upon myself to say, "That may be, but..."

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.

In my opinion, it sounds as though Steve's brother doesn't want to be Catholic anymore, if he hasn't been practicing for years. Is it more of a sin to quit believing or to cohabitate under the pretense of a false marriage? They are both mortal sins. Or maybe it isn't a false marriage. Maybe since he presumably doesn't want to be Catholic anymore, due to not practicing, he decided to be protestant. It was stated above that protestant marriages between protestants are seen as valid by the Church. So wouldn't Steve's brother be considered a protestant in this instance?

Steve, I would probably do the same thing in your situation. I don't know if I would do a reading, but if my brother decided to get married in a protestant church I would still be his best man. The fact that he doesn't believe anymore doesn't make him not my brother anymore. I would definitely say that I didn't approve, but my brother is my brother. It would not be my decision, just as it wasn't yours. I do believe you made the best of a situation, if you let him know that you didn't approve. Or maybe it's just my youthful naivete.

-- Cameron (shaolin__phoenix@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.

Maybe since he presumably doesn't want to be Catholic anymore, due to not practicing, he decided to be protestant. It was stated above that protestant marriages between protestants are seen as valid by the Church. So wouldn't Steve's brother be considered a protestant in this instance?

"Under the new Code of Canon Law (1983), if a Catholic joins another religion by some formal act, e.g., submitting to baptism or public profession in his new religion, he ceases to be a Catholic and is not bound by our marriage laws. If, then, he is otherwise free to marry and the other party is also free to marry, the marriage will be valid. Catholic relatives may attend.

If, however, a person is fallen-away in that he has simply ceased to practice the Catholic faith, he is still a Catholic and is bound by Catholic marriage laws. Hence a marriage attempted before a non-Catholic minister or a judge will be invalid. Catholics should not attend such ceremonies.

But if the strain within the family is foreseen to be very great, if you attend, care must be taken to avoid scandal, the appearance of approving an invalid union. The couple (or at least the fallen-away person) should be kindly told that your attendance signifies family affection, but not approval of the union. Other relatives and friends who might be scandalized should also be so informed."

Sincerely in Christ,

Father Mateo

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 09, 2004.

Sorry Lesley, canon law is NOT divinely inspired, nor is it dogma.

Brian, with due respect to Father Mateo, whoever he may be, his is an extreme position which I do not share.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 09, 2004.

Steve..did you read the Catholic Encylopedia concerning the DOGMA on the Sacrament of Marriage? If you were to do so, you would read that the DOGMA speaks clearly concerning Catholics "marrying" outside of the Church.

Also, if you take the time to read up on the origins of canon law, you will read that "...Canon law comprises Divine law,including natural law, based on the nature of things and on the constitution given by Jesus Christ to His church; and human, or positive law, formulated by the legislator, in conformity with the Divine Law."

and if you read further, you will find this quote. "The ultimate source of canon law is God." Hardly a vague statement IMHO. again, both of the above quotes are from the easily found online Catholic Encyclopedia.

I do not believe I said that canon is dogma..one flows from the other. I did say that the Church teaching is that if a Catholic "marries" outside of the Church it is not a marriage..there is no valid marriage. There is no difference between that situation and two persons living together, since neither couple is married as far as the Church is concerned. When Paul M. presnted the facts and posted the relevant canon, your response was "That may be, but I maintain that there is a difference..."

What difference do you see there which is compatible with the teaching of the Holy Mother Church Steve?

A Catholic chooses to ignore the Dogma of the Sacrament of Marriage, has a wedding ceremony outside of the Church and is therefore not married at all, and living in mortal sin with a woman not his true wife, unable to receive the sacraments.

A Catholic chooses to live with a woman as if they were married and is therefore living in a state of mortal sin with a woman not his true wife, unable to receive the sacraments.

Aside from the first couple having a civil recognition of their marriage, please explain how as a Catholic you can reconcile your view that there is some sort of "difference" between the two examples with either canon law or the Dogma of the Sacrament of Marriage.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 09, 2004.

Lesley, for one thing I think you will find that the “online Catholic encyclopedia” you refer to is a copy of an unauthorized document almost 100 years old (even before the publication of the first Code of Canon Law in 1917) and reflects a very outdated and sectarian view of canon law. Neither canon law nor this encyclopedia is infallible (though they may contain articles of faith which are infallible for other reasons).

In my brother’s case, there was a defect of canonical form. That does not mean that the sacrament of marriage was not administered. It is quite common for bishops to give dispensation from canonical form to allow protestant ministers to officiate at the marriage of a Catholic and a baptised protestant. The two baptised people administer the sacrament to each other. The priest, deacon, or protestant minister, doesn’t administer the sacrament, he is there merely as an official witness. In my brother’s case the dispensation was not obtained, making the marriage canonically illicit, but a marriage of two baptised Christians in a protestant church is still the sacrament of Christian marriage. If the canon law saying that a Catholic is to be married in the Catholic Church was in fact Divine Law, it would not be possible for a bishop to give permission to ignore it. Canon law is made, as you say, “in conformity with Divine Law”, but that is a very different thing from saying that (every part of) canon law IS Divine Law. It is not.

And seeing as I have said several times now that my brother has not practised his faith for many years, the question of his receiving Communion does not occur. If (God grant) he were to resume attending Mass, I would be more concerned that he confess sins such as his missing Mass for decades, before receiving communion, rather than getting hung up about the lack of canonical form in his marriage.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 12, 2004.

btw he is not "unable to receive the sacraments" (plural). His situation does not impede him receiving any other sacrament except the Eucharist.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 13, 2004.

According to the U.S Catholic Bishops office for the Catechism:

Vatican II.. 1625 "The parties to a marriage covenant are a baptized man and woman, free to contract marriage, who freely express their consent. To "be free" means:

Not being under constraint; Not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law."

Since any Catholic who has NOT formally renounced the Church is still a Catholic, that Catholic IS not "free" to marry outside of the Church. If he does so, no true marriage has taken place Steve. There is no sacrament between the two baptized persons..there cannot be, since one of them was NOT "free" to marry. The Ecclesiastical law of the Church was an impediment to the marriage.

Bishops can, indeed, give permission for Catholics to have a marriage ceremony in another church, yet a Catholic priest is always present.

There's no denying the laws of the Holy Mother Church.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.

Steve,

I would think that God would bless any action that was done with charity in ones heart, almost no matter the outcome. God bless you for makeing the best of a bad situation.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.

All,

There is some good in having laws and standards against behavior must be judged. But when a case of flawed charity in a flawed world brings forth good fruits, is seems perilous to condemn it. In trying to toe the legal line in our path to holiness, we come close to those rules-lawers that Jesus condemned. They too were trying the same thing: follow the rules and go to heaven. Jesus tried, it seems to me, to expand the whole, and go for the spirit of the law, not the words. And we must also test the spirt of the thing. For if the spirit of the law is mean-spirited, can it come from God?

It is not the mean-ness and petty-ness of such laws that keep me away from the Church, it is the lack of available feedback to the lawgivers about the suffering that the laws provide that concerns me.

But between the demands of a perfection based theology and a flawed world, there is both a need to acknowlege the justice of the perfection, and ask for mercy for the flaws. This produces a tension and anywhere one is, is usually wrong. I belong to a church that overly errs on the side of feedback, mercy, reconcillation, and forgiveness. These are errors, just as too much law and perfection and justice are errors.

Steve to me seems to be asking, if his request was raised to a more general level, is it possible to be a legal Catholic and be charitable toward non-Catholic neighbors. (who are your neighbors? goodness! the citations for steve's behavior seem to just roll off. But the citations against are mostly in Church law, and the citations for are mostly in the bible. I am not a complete sola scripture person, but the Bible should trump the law.) He seems to be saying that it is a flawed attempt, but it produced good if less than perfect fruits. And you seem to be saying that since it is illegal that it must be wrong. I think you have more problems than he does.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.

I can give other examples of going against Church law which would make people more happy, and in the end appear to provide them with lots of "good"..one that comes immediately to mind would be an instance where two people marry validly in the Catholic Church; years later, the husband turns to being drunk and abusive. He beats his wife..she divorces him. She then meets another man who is kind and gentle and truly loves her. She marries him. For the first time in years she is happy. Her "first" husband is neither repentant nor "reformed"..he continues to abuse alcohol. According to the Church laws, this woman, who is re-married, is living in a state of mortal sin..according to the world, she is "entitiled" to her happiness with her new husband.

The Church teaches that a spouse is NOT to endure abuse, but may separate themselves physically from the other spouse. The husband would be guilty of grave sin for abusing his wife. Yet there is noting which can sever the HOLY covenant of marriage. People are bound together forever. The "world" may see it differently, that "good" came out of the woman leaving one husband and finding a happier life with another one.

The Church laws are not in existence to make us more comfortable or to make things fit in with what we desire to be the truth. Jesus said that we must be as "little children"..Little children often don't recognize or accept what is best for them..God speaks to us through Holy Mother Church..it IS our choice to either listen or to turn away.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.

Leslie, That little children quote and arguement would serve any repressive arguement.

Changing topic a bit -- do you have a savings account? The penulty for usery used to be death. And you are participating in this sin by collecting interest. Things do change.

Sean

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.

Sean..we can go round and round until the cows come home..the world may change it's values, world powers may come and go..there is one thing which shall never change and that is the Word of God..my own personal opinion is of no value whatsoever..none.It is the never- ending TRUTH of the Word that matters, and the Word comes to us through the Holy Mother Church. "What you bind on earth is bound in heaven......." I too am a sinner..you bet. So much so that I will share that there is no sin known that I have not committed it myself. I completely understand and am so grateful for the mercy and love of God that I have insufficient words to express it. All the more reason to be vigilant so as not to offend Him more..not to take His mercy lightly..not to ignore His laws because they make us uncomfortable, or they appear to be "unjust" or simply because we do not fully comprehend them. Of course I have empathy with people who must choose between following the canons of the Church and disappointing or alienating loved ones. Yet IF a choice is to be made, who is to come first? A Father, a Mother, Sister, Brother, Child or God? On the day we face HIM will we say we chose Him last so as not to offend our fellows, hoping that "good" will come of it?

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 13, 2004.

Leslie,

Yes, maybe we should soon end this conversation on some note.

Your point is that of the Jews: they were surrounded by cultures that would subvert their values. Their response was to obey the Law and to put a fence arround that law, so that no one could trangress accidentally. Jesus and St. Paul were strongly for expanding contact, not limiting contact with the others. Do you need the citations?

It is good that there is an organization that does post these standards. But to prohibit mingling with non-Catholics seems to go a bit too far, IMO.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

"On the day we face HIM will we say we chose Him last so as not to offend our fellows, hoping that "good" will come of it?"

The parable not from the bible of the man who dreamed one night that a list of those who loved God most was made and his name was not on it, but on the second night dreamed of those who loved their neighbor most and was on the top of the list. -- I'll take that, even if I would not rate so high.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

consider these small things like paragraphs ...

"there is one thing which shall never change and that is the Word of God..my own personal opinion is of no value whatsoever..none.It is the never- ending TRUTH of the Word that matters, and the Word comes to us through the Holy Mother Church"

And when the laws of the HMC are counter to huge numbers of NT citations, then what? Bible vs HMC law, some of which are not covered by papal infalibility? I'd like to bet on the Bible in that case.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

the no-divorce law has NT citations from Jesus for it. That is why it stands, even against cultural norms. The snub your non-C neighbor law has NT citations against it.

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

if the spirit of the law is mean-spirited, can it come from God?

What "mean-spirited" law are you talking about Sean?

It is not the mean-ness and petty-ness of such laws that keep me away from the Church, it is the lack of available feedback to the lawgivers about the suffering that the laws provide that concerns me.

I don't know to what you are referring but suffice it to say the administration of the Church has faults, alway has and always will, but it contains the Truth. Whether the Church is administered well or poorly and whether there is "available feedback" or not, the Truth remains and one should not separate himself from Her.

is it possible to be a legal Catholic and be charitable toward non-Catholic neighbors. (who are your neighbors? goodness! the citations for steve's behavior seem to just roll off.

This loaded question is along the lines of "when did you stop beating your wife?" What Catholic legality precludes charity toward our non-Catholic brothers? There's no law I know of that prohibits a Catholic like Steve from attending his brother's wedding. There may be a law prohibiting him from participating (as opposed to passively attending) in a Protestant ceremony, but so what? What does that have to do with charity?

But to prohibit mingling with non-Catholics seems to go a bit too far, IMO

To suggest that there is such a prohibition is to be deluded, IMO.

The snub your non-C neighbor law has NT citations against it.

Good grief, what a litany of sins Sean is attaching to Catholicism and Catholic law: "meanness," "pettiness," lacking charity toward neighbors, "snubbing non-Catholics blah, blah, blah, all without factual basis. To demonstrate my Catholic charity, I will pray for you today Sean.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 14, 2004.

Brian Crane,

A quick recap of the whole thing.

Steve goes to brothers wedding. States several good things that came of him doing so, and states the unlikelyness of anything better happening if any other way was done. Then asks if he did wrong. Gets jumped on for going to the wedding and reading a bit of scripture.

I look at Steve's action as a charitable one, and defend it. Similar HMC person defends the same position that they used to jump on Steve's case. I reply. The HMC person's (Lesley's) position is that Catholics should not take part in christian rituals of other churches, as this might lead someone astray. Which is not true, as most protestants could not care, except that you are disrespecting their practices. Which in turn leads to my charges of mean-spirited-ness and the like.

Now I did not mean it as a 'when have you stopped beating your wife' statement. "possible to be a legal Catholic and be charitable toward non-Catholic neighbors" could have been answered 'yes it is possible" without any further problems. "What Catholic legality precludes charity toward our non-Catholic brothers?", how about the ones cited by Lesley et all? "To suggest that there is such a prohibition is to be deluded, IMO." well then, what have they been saying that I and Steve have been arguing against? Could you re-read the thread and get a feel for this??

-- Sean Cleary (seanearlyaug@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

Sean..there are actually THREE issues being discussed here...the first involves Cameron asking if he ought to attend his stepmother's non-Catholic church every Sunday as she requested because she desires to have her family worship together. Cameron made it clear that he is a devoted Catholic. My suggestion was that he attend her church occassionaly, yet not "every Sunday" since he is a young man and needs to grow in his own faith if that is his desire. At no time did I suggest he "snub" or look down on his stepmother's request.

The second issue was Steve's statement that he not only attended his Catholic brother's wedding ceremony in a Protestant church, but actively participated in it. When it was pointed out to Steve that actively participating in a wedding ceremony of this kind is against the teachings of the church, Steve said "That may be but ..."

My point was that as Catholics, it is not our place to say, "That may be but....". This is not MY opinion, it is the church which says that Catholics are to follow church teachings in everything, unless the church GIVES us a choice. In this particular matter, the church does not give us a choice.

The 3rd issue arose when Steve asserted that his brother's marriage is a valid one. For Steve to say this is incorrect, again not according to MY opinion, but according to the teachings of the church. Steve is a Catholic. As a Catholic posting on a Catholic forum, it is very important to have the facts correctly about what the church teaches. Steve and anyone else may THINK what they like, yet as Catholics who are true to the church, they are bound to FOLLOW what the church teaches.

In other Christian churches, the individual members may or may not agree with whatever the Pastor says, or the synod says..people may interpret the scripture for themselves and follow what they feel is best to "do" in any given situation after prayer and reflection.

In the Catholic church, it is the Magesterium..canon law..The Church itself has the Authority directly from Jesus Christ to make "rules" for her people to follow. As I said before, to be as little children is a good thing, and little children often do not fully comprehend why they need rules.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 14, 2004.

Lesley, the document refers to “baptized persons”, not “baptized Catholics”.

“Bishops can, indeed, give permission for Catholics to have a marriage ceremony in another church, yet a Catholic priest is always present.” WRONG.

“Pastoral Manual, 1997 edition, Diocese of Rockville Center:

Catholics celebrate marriage in the parish church of the bride or of the groom. When the sacrament of marriage is celebrated between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic, the marriage takes place in the parish church or in a church edifice. Permission may be granted for the wedding to take place in a non- Catholic church edifice. When the Catholic is dispensed from canonical form, the non-Catholic clergyperson takes the consent and signs the license. ... the paperwork is submitted by the ... pastoral minister to obtain the proper permissions, dispensations, or delegation...The marriage of a Catholic and baptized non-Catholic is a sacrament. When the consent is exchanged it takes place in the parish church of the Catholic or in a non-Catholic church edifice. ... Permission may be given to celebrate such a marriage in church edifice of another Christian denomination. ... The dispensation from canonical form will be granted so that the non- Catholic minister can perform the wedding. Usually the non-Catholic minister takes the consent. ... When the dispensation from canonical form is granted, it is not necessary that a Catholic priest or deacon be present. ... Parishes are encouraged to be as accommodating as possible.“

Or from a UK diocese: “For a proportionate reason, the Bishop can grant a dispensation from the canonical form of marriage, so that a Catholic may marry elsewhere than a Catholic church. What would be a proportionate reason? Examples would be that the non-Catholic party was a regular churchgoer, but the Catholic party was not; or the non- Catholic party had a strong link with a particular non-Catholic minister; or the non-Catholic party's family was virulently anti- Catholic.”

I deeply resent your accusation that I “take His mercy lightly... ignore God’s laws because they make (me) uncomfortable, or they appear to be "unjust" or simply because (I) do not fully comprehend them”; and that I chose others ahead of God; and that I “do not follow what the Church teaches”. I think I comprehend God’s Laws if anything more fully than you do. As I told you, canon law is not “God’s Law”. And it would have made me a lot more “comfortable” to just sit in the back row not saying anything, but I chose the LESS comfortable but, I believe, more charitable option. My decision to read the passage from 1 Corinthians had NO bearing on my brother’s decision to marry outside the Catholic church. He had already decided that months before.

“actively participating in a wedding ceremony of this kind is against the teachings of the church” Wrong. It is against the canon law of the Church. If it was a TEACHING of the Church there is no way a bishop could make exceptions to it without the bishop himself becoming a heretic.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 14, 2004.

Steve goes to brothers wedding. States several good things that came of him doing so, and states the unlikelyness of anything better happening if any other way was done. Then asks if he did wrong. Gets jumped on for going to the wedding and reading a bit of scripture.

He got "jumped on" for reading the scripture. He actively participated in a Protestant wedding ceremony. If he felt he had to attend the wedding for the sake of harmony or whatever, fine, and he is allowed to do so. And just to clarify, he didn't ask if he did anything wrong, nor did he specify what good things came of him participating in his brother's wedding. He did say that one of his brother's friends decided to get married perhaps due to his excellent scripture reading. We can't be sure. But that must have been quite a reading to even entertain the thought. We will be left wondering if this friend would have continued shacking up if not for Steve being able to effectively read a bible passage.

I look at Steve's action as a charitable one, and defend it....

Steve's motives are his own. I don't question his intent, but I disagree with his decision to participate in the wedding. His brother's friend aside, I don't see what good it did, but if Steve thinks it did do good and if it brings his brother back to the Catholic faith, I guess we can all be thankful, but its not how I would go about it.

(Lesley's) position is that Catholics should not take part in christian rituals of other churches, as this might lead someone astray. Which is not true, as most protestants could not care, except that you are disrespecting their practices. Which in turn leads to my charges of mean-spirited-ness and the like.

Well, I think she's speaking of Steve's Catholic brother being led astray, and not the Protestant wedding attendees at the Protestant church. She is trying to be charitable to Steve's brother.

"What Catholic legality precludes charity toward our non-Catholic brothers?", how about the ones cited by Lesley et all?

Well, it is "legal" for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic. It is "legal" for a Catholic to attend a non-Catholic wedding. It is even legal, with permission, to marry in a non-Catholic Church. The only legality cited by Lesley was that a priest must be present at a Catholic wedding. If this seems uncharitable, mean, or petty to you, then I suggest you have a thin skin.

"To suggest that there is such a prohibition is to be deluded, IMO." well then, what have they been saying that I and Steve have been arguing against?

Sean, you said that mingling with non-Catholics is prohibited. Since that flat statement is clearly untrue, you must have meant it in the context of this specific instance. Ok, but it is still untrue in this example. Steve's brother "mingled" with his non- Catholic wife. Steve and his parents "mingled" with Protestants at the wedding ceremony. Some may wish to debate whether or not they should have, but they were free to do so, without prohibition.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 14, 2004.

Steve..the "document" which I quoted from is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This definetly teaches that a Catholic who is impeded by ecclesiastical law from marrying is not free to marry.

Canon law is a blend of both Divine and man-made and Natural law..depending upon which canon one looks at.

According to Pope John Paul II "The Code is in no way intended to be a substitute for faith, grace, charisms and especially not for charity in the life of the Church. On the contrary, the purpose of the Code is to create such an order that, while giving primacy to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their entire development easier, both for the ecclesial society and for the individual persons who belong to it." Apostolic Constitution Sacrae Disciplinae Legis

I am sorry Steve that you were hurt by my comments. That was not my intention. My intentions were, and remain so, to correct any misunderstanding that non-Catholics may have concerning what Catholics are permitted to "do" by the Church, as well as what the Catholic Church teaches concerning marriage outside of the Church.

You have provided instances where a Bishop may give dispensation and permit a Catholic to marry outside the Church and have no priest present at the marriage and have the marriage be a valid one. I stand corrected. Thank you. I truly love to grow in knowledge of what the Church permits in unusual circumstances.

That does not alter the fact that it is "with the Church's permission" that these things take place..which is my point. To go against the Church, whether against Dogma, or against canon law, or against any part of what constitutes the Church can never be a "good thing".

You said earlier that you see a difference between mere cohabitation of a couple and those persons being in a "marriage" which the Catholic Church does not recognize as a marriage at all. This is not just canon law Steve..this is Catholic Dogma concerning the Sacrament of marriage.

It is not to "hear the sound of my own voice" that I persist with this..this forum is filled with annulment questions each month..there is no question usually on what constitutes a lack of form for a Catholic marriage. How confusing is it for people to read that it's "different" for a Catholic to be in a marriage which is NOT a marriage than to be cohabiting?

According to the Church,in both instances, there is NO marriage, yet you, as a Catholic, say there is .

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 15, 2004.

“How confusing is it for people to read that it's "different" for a Catholic to be in a marriage which is NOT a marriage than to be cohabiting? According to the Church,in both instances, there is NO marriage”

Sorry Lesley, you’ve just added to the confusion. According to the Church, cohabitation is not marriage, but marriage outside the Catholic Church may well be a marriage and IS in fact presumed to be a marriage until proven otherwise. In addition, the Church states that the marriage of two baptised persons, regardless of whether both, one, or neither of them is a Catholic, or whether the marriage occurs in a Catholic or non-Catholic church, is the Sacrament of Matrimony.

I did not say that my brother’s failure to seek or obtain permission from the bishop was a “good thing”. (And these permissions are not “unusual” but quite common.) But given that he had made his decision, the proclamation of Holy Scripture must surely be a good thing. Especially when it is exactly the same passage used in Catholic Nuptial Masses!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 15, 2004.

Steve, as I said on another thread, I am done responding to your posts, since you refuse to answer questions without either ignoring the gist of the subject, or twisting it to meet your own agenda.

For me to continue to do so prompts me to be tempted sorely to be uncharitable.

If it means that much to you to have the "last word" you are welcomed to it.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 15, 2004.

Lesley, I assure you that if I have "twisted" your words in any way it was unintentional. If I have inadvertently ignored or failed to answer any question you have asked me, I apologize. If you would like to ask it again I will answer it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 15, 2004.

Yes Lesley the "spin doctor" can be frustrating. I admire your self control in dealing with him. He'll jump on the first word you MISPELL and talk about the embarrasement(sic) you caused yourself. The man grasps at anything to get the last word. I thinks its an addiction.

Have a blessed Advent season.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 16, 2004.

Hey, my spelling is as bad as anyone’s (except David and Zarove). And if I wanted the last word I wouldn’t have invited Lesley to reply to me.

What embarrasses you, Davey boy, is not your misspellings, hilarious as they are, but your aggression to anyone who dares to disagree with your ultra-right-wing views, your obvious ignorance of Catholicism despite your insistence you are a better Catholic than anyone else, your bigoted intolerance, your wild and sweeping exaggerations, your obsession with sexual matters, your constant repetition of calumnies against others who have repeatedly and patiently pointed out the untruth of your accusations, your egregious lack of charity, and the hypocritical “blessing” you always finish with after flaming someone.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 16, 2004.

To anyone that may read this thread in the future -Canon Law is to be followed regarding Marriage. Unless of course you seek an invalid Marriage that could be declared invalid per the same Canon Law you chose not to follow.

Morally relative argument does not absolve one from Church teaching, Catholic norms, Catholic rights and or Catholic duties. Code of Canon Law - INTRODUCTION

Now, however, the law can no longer be unknown. Pastors have at their disposal secure norms by which they may correctly direct the exercise of the sacred ministry. To each person is given a source of knowing his or her own proper rights and duties. Arbitrariness in acting can be precluded. Abuses which perhaps have crept into ecclesiastical discipline because of a lack of legislation can be more easily rooted out and prevented. Finally, all the works, institutes and initiatives of the apostolate may progress expeditiously and may be promoted since a healthy juridic organization is quite necessary for the ecclesiastical community to live, grow and flourish. May our most gracious God grant this through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of the Church, her spouse St. Joseph, Patron of the Church, and Saints Peter and Paul.

"The canonical norms, are inspired by a reality that transcends them." - Pope John Paul II

"a dangerous reductionism that attempts to interpret and apply the ecclesiastical laws, separating them from the doctrine of the Magisterium. If this were to happen, the doctrinal pronouncements would have no disciplinary value, and only the formally legislative acts would have to recognized." However, he continued, "the juridical dimension, being theologically intrinsic to the ecclesiastical realities, can be the object of magisterial teachings, including definitive teachings."- Pope John Paul II

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 22, 2004.

Sweet, Daniel, nice post!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.

Karl,

Thank you -we all benefit in each one not be led astray.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 22, 2004.