Skip to comments.
Radio Replies First Volume - Protestant services
Celledoor.com ^
| 1938
| Fathers Rumble & Carty
Posted on 11/03/2009 8:12:02 PM PST by GonzoII
Protestant services
1089. Is it a sin for a Catholic to attend weddings in Protestant churches?
The law of the Catholic Church forbids participation in a religious service that is not Catholic because it is an implied repudiation of the faith which a Catholic professes to be the only true faith. It is good for non-Catholics to realize this so that, knowing that Catholics must refuse, they will not ask them to assist at the religious ceremony itself and then be offended as if refusal were due to lack of friendship.
1090. May a Catholic act as best man or bridesmaid at a non-Catholic wedding?
A Catholic may not act as an official witness. A wedding in a church is not a merely social event; it is also a religious ceremony. Though non-Catholics may not see it, the Catholic position is alone logical. Protestants should choose witnesses of their own faith and spare Catholics the pain of having to refuse.
1091. Why is the Catholic Church so severe in her law in this matter?
For very good reasons. Firstly, loyalty to Christ forbids our sanctioning in any way a false form of religion, and Protestantism is a corruption of Christ's religion. If one may attend any religious services, irrespective of creed, then a Christian could assist at pagan rites. There must be a limit somewhere, and the Catholic Church says that those limits exclude any false form of religion, even though it be an adulterated form of Christianity. The presence of a Catholic at Protestant services is a silent approval of the error that one religion is as good as another. St. Paul says, "A man that is a heretic avoid." Titus 3:10. St. John says, "If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, nor say to him: 'God speed you.'" 2 Jn 1: 10. The law of the Church, too, protects the faith of Catholics. If they attend Protestant services, there is always a danger that they will participate actively in a shamefaced way, and also a danger of their drifting into indifferentism and weakening in their own faith. Their presence, also, can be a cause of scandal to other Catholics who may begin to think that it is right for them also to attend at non-Catholic Churches. Nor is such attendance a kindness to Protestants. The abstention of Catholics from their services is a lesson of the utmost importance to them. Our attendance would sanction to a certain extent their idea that their religion also is as good as our own. But our absence from their Churches gives them food for thought. An Anglican might say, "Well, I have seen Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and people of many other religions at our services; but I have never yet seen a Catholic associated with us." And the fact that the vast Catholic Church denies their claims has led many a man from the chaos of the different Protestant Churches to the true religion.
1092. Catholics will be despised as narrow-minded Pharisees.
Would a Christian who refused to attend pagan rites be a Pharisee? And is it narrow-minded to limit one's conduct according to the dictates of conscience? If so, it is better not to be what you would term broad-minded. And it is rather absurd to suggest that you despise Catholics for being true to their convictions. You should rather despise them if they were not.
1093. They will certainly lose their friends by such neglect of civil duties, and the causing of such discord.
If any discord arise, it is unavoidable. It is good to have peace, but not peace at any price; above all when the price is the violation of conscience. If Protestants are angry because Catholics will not do what the Catholic conscience forbids, then it is not the fault of Catholics. In any case, are not religious obligations greater than civil obligations? And is not the loss of earthly friends better than the loss of the friendship of Christ — if the worst should happen?
1094. But your attitude is an insult to Protestants. You even compare their religion with paganism.
It is not an insult to Protestants that a Catholic cannot attend a Protestant service. Every man must be guided by his own conscience. How far would one have to give up having any convictions at all, lest he insult those with whom he has to disagree? Nor do I compare Protestantism with paganism. I compared the unlawfulness of a Protestant assisting at pagan rites with the unlawfulness of a Catholic assisting at Protestant rites. A Catholic would be as justified in acting according to Catholic principles as a Protestant would be justified in fidelity to his own. That was the whole of my comparison.
1095. Are not Protestants good and sincere people?
It is not a question of their goodness, but of the religious system they support. No Catholic may give the impression by his presence that Protestantism as a system is a lawful substitute for the true Church.
1096. Protestants often attend Catholic services.
You must not think that Catholics can do with their conscience what you can do with your conscience. A Protestant should say, "If Catholics really believe that their religion is the only form sanctioned by Christ, then I do not blame them for living up to their convictions. I would blame them did they seek to please men rather than God. And if I had their ideas I would do just as they do."
1097. Do Protestants sin in attending Catholic services?
That would depend upon their convictions. We do not judge Protestants on principles they do not hold. If they think one religion as good as any other, I suppose they could attend almost any religion with a good conscience. But if an Anglican, for example, thought his to be the only true Church, and that all others were wrong, he would sin by attending other forms of worship. Objectively, of course, a Protestant does not sin by attending Catholic services. One who has the wrong religion may attend services of the right religion. But he who has the right religion certainly cannot attend the services of a wrong religion. Catholics may not assist at any but Catholic services.
1098. You must do to others as you would have them do to you.
That cannot apply in matters of conscience. If so, I could say, "Well now, if I were a murderer I would like him to help me to strangle that man. And since he is a murderer, I must do to him as I would like him to do to me in similar circumstances, and help him to strangle his victim." That is absurd. In all matters where we can do it with a good conscience we must do to others as we would have them do to us. In any case, we Catholics do not wish any Protestant to violate his conscience and offend God in order to please us.
1099. Let me give you a concrete case. You are a convert to the Catholic Church and a Priest. Now if your own mother died, would you attend her Protestant burial?
Happily my own mother also became a Catholic. However, had she died as a Protestant, I would have attended her funeral, but would have taken part in none of the religious ceremonies associated with that funeral.
1100. God says, "Honor thy father and thy mother."
That commandment comes after the commandments dealing with God's personal rights, and it is to be observed for the love of God. It never demands that I dishonor God in order to honor my parents.
1101. You would love your mother so little while pretending to love God!
Love of my mother would take me to the funeral; love of God would prevent me from joining in the rites of a false religion.
1102. There must be something radically wrong with your conscience!
There would be, if I could take part in a religious service conducted in the name of a religion opposed to the Church established by Christ. It would be disloyalty to Christ, and I cannot sin even for the sake of my mother. She would not be my mother but for the love of God, and the more we appreciate God's gifts the less right we have to offend Him because of them.
1103. Is it because she could not believe what you believe?
As I remarked, she received the grace of the Catholic faith before she died. But had she not, it would rather have been because I could not believe what she believed, and could not honestly pretend to do so, that I would have refrained from any part in the rites of a non-Catholic religion. And my particular mother would have been the last in the world to expect me to do so. Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Moral Issues; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; radiorepliesvolone; religion; theology
"1090. May a Catholic act as best man or bridesmaid at a non-Catholic wedding?" Catholics should check with their Pastor on some of these replies regarding Protestant services, some of the disciplines have changed as I know we can attend and Ecumenical service.
Here is a more recent answer given by Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P:
"Hi,
In the first place a Catholic has no business attending Protestant church services even occasionally. To participate in a heretical worship service and especially a communion service can be sinful for a Catholic because such an act is an affirmation of what we believe to be untrue. To attend an ecumenical service or a wedding or baptism is allowed, but Catholics are not allowed to attend such churches for the main reason of worship. Now if there are no Catholic churches in the vicinity on a Sunday, Catholics are allowed to participate in the Liturgy of Churches whose clergy are validly ordained such as the Eastern Orthodox Churches—including the reception of the Eucharist. Although we consider them to be in schism (not in union with the Pope) with the Catholic Church, such Churches are not heretical and share our basic beliefs."
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P."
1
posted on
11/03/2009 8:12:03 PM PST
by
GonzoII
To: All
Historical Context of "Radio Replies"
By markomalleyIf one recalls the time frame from which Radio Replies emerged, it can explain some of the frankness and lack of tact in the nature of the responses provided.
It was during this timeframe that a considerable amount of anti-Catholic rhetoric came to the forefront, particularly in this country. Much of this developed during the Presidential campaign of Al Smith in 1928, but had its roots in the publication of Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, originally published in book form in 1919 and also published in pamphlet form in 1853.
While in Britain (and consequently Australia), the other fellow would surely have experienced the effects of the Popery Act, the Act of Settlement, the Disenfranchising Act, the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, and many others since the reformation (that basically boiled down to saying, "We won't kill you if you just be good, quiet little Catholics"). Even the so-called Catholic Relief Acts (1778, 1791, 1829, 1851, 1871) still had huge barriers placed in the way.
And of course, they'd both remember the American Protective Association, "Guy Fawkes Days" (which included burning the Pontiff in effigy), the positions of the Whigs and Ultra-Torries, and so on.
A strong degree of "in your face" from people in the position of authoritativeness was required back in the 1930s, as there was a large contingent of the populations of both the US and the British Empire who were not at all shy about being "in your face" toward Catholics in the first place (in other words, a particularly contentious day on Free Republic would be considered a mild day in some circles back then). Sure, in polite, educated circles, contention was avoided (thus the little ditty about it not being polite to discuss religion in public, along with sex and politics), but it would be naive to assume that we all got along, or anything resembling that, back in the day.
Having said all of the above, reading the articles from the modern mindset and without the historical context that I tried to briefly summarize above, they make challenging reading, due to their bluntness.
The reader should also keep in mind that the official teaching of the Church takes a completely different tone, best summed up in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:
Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271
818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324
269 UR 3 § 1.
270 Cf. CIC, can. 751.
271 Origen, Hom. in Ezech. 9,1:PG 13,732.
272 UR 3 § 1.
273 LG 8 § 2.
274 UR 3 § 2; cf. LG 15.
275 Cf. UR 3.
276 Cf. LG 8.
322 LG 15.
323 UR 3.
324 Paul VI, Discourse, December 14, 1975; cf. UR 13-18.
Rev. Dr. Leslie Rumble, M.S.C.
"I was brought up as a Protestant, probably with more inherited prejudices than most non-Catholics of these days. My parents were Anglican and taught me the Angelican faith. My 'broad-minded' protestant teachers taught me to dislike the Catholic Church intensely. I later tried Protestantism in various other forms, and it is some thirty years since, in God's providence, I became a Catholic. As for the 'open, free, sincere worship' of a Protestant Church, I tasted it, but for me it proved in the end to be not only open, but empty; it was altogether too free from God's prescriptions."
Eventually, Leslie became a priest of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.
In 1928, Fr. Rumble began a one-hour 'Question Box' program on 2SM Sydney, N.S.W. radio on Sunday evenings that was heard all over Australia and New Zealand. For five years he answered questions on every subject imaginable that had been written to him from all over that part of the globe. His first show began with a classic introduction:
"Good evening, listeners all. For some time I have been promising to give a session dealing with questions of religion and morality, in which the listeners themselves should decide what is of interest to them. Such a session will commence next Sunday evening, and I invite you to send in any questions you wish on these subjects . . . So now I invite you, non-Catholics above all, to send in any questions you wish on religion, or morality, or the Catholic Church, and I shall explain exactly the Catholic position, and give the reasons for it. In fact I almost demand those questions. Many hard things have been said, and are still being said, about the Catholic Church, though no criminal, has been so abused, that she has a right to be heard. I do not ask that you give your name and address. A nom de plume will do. Call yourself Voltaire, Confucius, X.Y.Z., what you like, so long as you give indication enough to recognize your answer."
"By the summer of 1937, the first edition of Radio Replies was already in print in Australia, financed by Rt. Rev. Monsignor James Meany, P.P. - the director of Station 2SM of whom I am greatly indebted."
"I have often been mistaken, as most men at times. And it is precisely to make sure that I will not be mistaken in the supremely important matter of religion that I cling to a Church which cannot be mistaken, but must be right where I might be wrong. God knew that so many sincere men would make mistakes that He deliberately established an infallible Church to preserve them from error where it was most important that they should not go wrong."
Rev. Charles Mortimer Carty
I broadcast my radio program, the Catholic Radio Hour, from St. Paul, Minnesota.
I was also carrying on as a Catholic Campaigner for Christ, the Apostolate to the man in the street through the medium of my trailer and loud-speaking system. In the distribution of pamphlets and books on the Catholic Faith, Radio Replies proved the most talked of book carried in my trailer display of Catholic literature. As many of us street preachers have learned, it is not so much what you say over the microphone in answer to questions from open air listeners, but what you get into their hands to read. The questions Fr. Rumble had to answer on the other side of the planet are same the questions I had to answer before friendly and hostile audiences throughout my summer campaign."
I realized that this priest in Australia was doing exactly the same work I was doing here in St. Paul. Because of the success of his book, plus the delay in getting copies from Sydney and the prohibitive cost of the book on this side of the universe, I got in contact with him to publish a cheap American edition.
It doesn't take long for the imagination to start thinking about how much we could actually do. We began the Radio Replies Press Society Publishing Company, finished the American edition of what was to be the first volume of Radio Replies, recieved the necessary imprimatur, and Msgr. Fulton J. Sheen agreed to write a preface. About a year after the publication of the first edition in Australia, we had the American edition out and in people's hands.
The book turned into a phenomena. Letters began pouring into my office from every corner of the United States; Protestant Publishing Houses are requesting copies for distribution to Protestant Seminaries; a few Catholic Seminaries have adopted it as an official textbook - and I had still never met Dr. Rumble in person.
To keep a long story short, we finally got a chance to meet, published volumes two and three of Radio Replies, printed a set of ten booklets on subjects people most often asked about, and a few other pamphlets on subjects of interest to us.
Fr. Carty died on May 22, 1964 in Connecticut.
"Firstly, since God is the Author of all truth, nothing that is definitely true can every really contradict anything else that is definitely true. Secondly, the Catholic Church is definitely true. It therefore follows that no objection or difficulty, whether drawn from history, Scripture, science, or philosophy, can provide a valid argument against the truth of the Catholic religion."
Biographies compiled from the introductions to Radio Replies, volumes 1, 2 and 3.
Source: www.catholicauthors.com
2
posted on
11/03/2009 8:13:08 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: fidelis; Atomic Vomit; MI; Sir_Humphrey; dsc; annalex; Citizen Soldier; bdeaner; CatQuilt; ...
Radio Replies Ping
FReep-mail me to get on or off
“The Radio Replies Ping-List”
ON / OFF
3
posted on
11/03/2009 8:18:56 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: All
4
posted on
11/03/2009 8:21:24 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
Glad to see all this. The 70, 80 and 90 year olds in my family are all Catholics and my young Presbyterian cousins and I are sick of being pall bearers.
We will let them hire some next time.
5
posted on
11/03/2009 8:24:46 PM PST
by
TWfromTEXAS
(Life is the one choice that pro choicers will not support.)
To: TWfromTEXAS
1097. Do Protestants sin in attending Catholic services? That would depend upon their convictions. We do not judge Protestants on principles they do not hold. If they think one religion as good as any other, I suppose they could attend almost any religion with a good conscience. But if an Anglican, for example, thought his to be the only true Church, and that all others were wrong, he would sin by attending other forms of worship. Objectively, of course, a Protestant does not sin by attending Catholic services. One who has the wrong religion may attend services of the right religion. But he who has the right religion certainly cannot attend the services of a wrong religion. Catholics may not assist at any but Catholic services.
"The 70, 80 and 90 year olds in my family are all Catholics and my young Presbyterian cousins and I are sick of being pall bearers. We will let them hire some next time."
Your elderly relatives are old enough that they might have heard these radio broadcasts. Remind them what these lectures say about your Presbyterianism, and tell them that the Catholic Church of their day considered you a fiendish heretic. Ask them if they trust a heretic to handle their casket.
Then buy them a DVD of Kennedy's funeral, and teach them the meaning of "irony".
6
posted on
11/03/2009 8:37:02 PM PST
by
Alex Murphy
("Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - Job 13:15)
To: Alex Murphy
I assure you my Catholic family have no idea what a DVD is.
7
posted on
11/03/2009 8:42:51 PM PST
by
TWfromTEXAS
(Life is the one choice that pro choicers will not support.)
To: GonzoII
I am not sure about canon law in the 1920’s when Fathers Rumble & Carty were writing this. However, there is certainly nothing in current canon law forbidding Catholics from attending Protestant services, provided that the Catholic does not participate in a non-sacramental communion service.
http://www.dwc.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=225&func=view&id=175&catid=5
“”Re:Can Catholics attend Protestant Services?
Yes, Catholics may attend Protestant Services. In fact, there are many occasions on which it is appropriate to gather with our separated brothers and sisters in Christ and pray with them, such as at Thanksgiving or other civic gatherings.
However, Catholics should be mindful of a couple of things. First, we should avoid any false ecumenism or appearance that there does not exist between us a real separation. While we can pray together, it is inappropriate for Catholics to receive sacraments for non-Catholic ministers. The Code of Canon Law says, “Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ’s faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2. “§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ’s faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid. “ As this canon makes clear, Catholics are to receive the sacraments only from Catholic ministers, unless it is a matter of true necessity or real spiritual need and usefulness. In that case, the Catholic may receive penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid. For all intents and purposes, only the Orthodox Churches have valid Eucharist because only they preserve valid apostolic succession and valid priestly ordination. So, if it is a Protestant or Episcopalian Church, you may pray with them but you make not partake of their communion.
Second, Catholics should fulfill their Sunday obligation (and Holy Days of Obligation) in Catholic Churches. While reception of the Eucharist is not necessary to fulfill the Sunday obligation (mindful that Catholics are required by law to take Holy Communion at least once a year, and at that time between Easter and Pentecost - in the Dioceses of the United States, we have lengthened the time period somewhat), Catholics who are properly disposed ought to receive the Eucharist as part of the Sunday celebration and every Mass at which they assist. Moreover, the Sunday celebration is a reminder of the communal nature of our faith and ought to be celebrate with those with whom we hold the faith in common. Finally, the celebration of the Mass is also meant to be catechetical - to teach one something - so, especially on Sundays and Holy Days - one ought to attend a Catholic Church in order to receive hear the Word of God proclaimed according to the faith Christ has revealed and which the Church has sought to explain through the centuries.
The bottom line, one can attend other Christian services and there certainly are times when this is appropriate. However, the regular celebration of one’s faith in a Catholic Church ought not to be interrupted, especially on Sundays and Holy Days. And Catholics should not partake in communion in other Churches, because we do not share a common faith in the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ.
Answer provided by:
Very Rev. Kevin Michael Quirk, JCD
Judicial Vicar””
8
posted on
11/03/2009 8:46:31 PM PST
by
iowamark
(certified by Michael Steele as "ugly and incendiary")
To: GonzoII
9
posted on
11/03/2009 9:02:47 PM PST
by
Marysecretary
(GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
To: TWfromTEXAS
LOL. When I got married 51 years ago, my maid of honor was a Catholic. Lightning didn’t strike her as she walked down the aisle, cheez.
10
posted on
11/03/2009 9:03:55 PM PST
by
Marysecretary
(GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
To: TWfromTEXAS
I assure you my Catholic family have no idea what a DVD is. I know what you mean. I have a relative who just recently bought an HDTV. He's watching VHS tapes of I Love Lucy on it. He's never owned a DVD player.
11
posted on
11/03/2009 9:16:56 PM PST
by
Alex Murphy
("Though He slay me, yet will I trust Him" - Job 13:15)
To: TWfromTEXAS
A pity that your Catholic grandchildren won’t be anything but pall bearers at your generation’s funerals.
To: iowamark
Thanks for that input, I new things had changed somewhat.
13
posted on
11/04/2009 5:33:23 AM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
This is your classic, pre-Vatican II RC-ism, right?
14
posted on
11/04/2009 6:59:52 AM PST
by
Lee N. Field
(An armed society is a polite society. So keep your rambling soi-disant "prophets" off my lawn.)
To: GonzoII
Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.” But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.
-Luke 9:49-50
15
posted on
11/04/2009 7:24:27 AM PST
by
bobjam
To: Marysecretary
Nor would lightning have struck her. Let's be real here. Nevertheless, the discipline in force at the time was that she should not have participated in the wedding, especially in a maid of honor role which is part of the official order of the service. Perhaps she simply didn't know any better. Even in 1958, there were some Catholics who just might not have known about such things. The cracks in the foundation of proper catechesis were already forming in some places. God “probably” wouldn't bother wasting His ammunition hurling lightning at your friend at any rate, but the Catholic understanding of culpability makes the assumption that God considers ignorance in mitigating actual responsibility. So your friend, under such circumstances, was doubtless off the “target list” for that particular day. ;-)
Anyway, to get serious here, since your wedding day, the discipline of the Church has changed somewhat in these matters. There has been a relaxation on the mere attendance of Catholics at non-Catholic Christian weddings. This is due in part to a modified understanding of ecumenism, and it is also due to a more realistic outlook on how human nature works in an increasingly secular modern world. Marriages between two baptized Protestants are sacramental as far as the Catholic Church is concerned (and it has always considered them to be so), the couple confers the Sacrament on each other, the specific rites surrounding the vows are of secondary importance, and, in any case, the couple, being Protestant, is outside of Catholic jurisdiction anyway. Adding all of that up, the Church has, since the 70’s, reassessed Catholic attendance at such weddings, and allows such attendance. It is still the case, however, that Catholics shouldn't be attending with any official duties at the wedding, though.
Doubtless, some people will still criticize this as far too restrictive. Perhaps there might even be some truth to that. But this is not a matter of doctrine so much as it is a matter of internal discipline. Lines have to be drawn somewhere. This should not be all that hard for non-Catholics to understand. I doubt a good Presbyterian like yourself would attend the wedding of a Hindu friend at all, and certainly not take on any active role in the ceremony. You, thereby, will have drawn a line. Where is the tipping point of that line? I wouldn't presume to know, but the fact is, as a practical matter, there is, in fact, a line you would draw and not cross.
Catholics are called to draw lines, too. Ours are drawn perhaps a little closer in. In no way am I implying that a Presbyterian wedding is no different from a Hindu one! I merely used an “extreme case” to more easily show that almost any Christian draws a line somewhere. Ours is drawn closer in, in large part because we Catholics consider a valid Christian marriage to be a Sacrament, even when, in many cases, the non-Catholic couple and their church do not. Since divorce is, effectively, universally legitimized within Protestantism, it is not a good thing for a Catholic to attend, in an official capacity, a Sacramental wedding that the couple does not doctrinally see as incapable of being dissolved. Some might chafe at this, but it is hoped that non-Catholics might at least understand the need for the Catholic to be clear about his or her “line.” Again, it's a matter of degree, not kind, you all have your own lines to draw, if Christian doctrine would mean anything to you.
As an aside to this, surely you can also see that, as a matter of doctrinal consistency, no Catholic who knows any better would even attend, never mind officially participate in, the wedding of a divorced person of any denomination, Catholic or other. All Christian marriages are Sacramental, and therefore unbreakable bonds exist while both parties still live.
I know, I know. What about “annulments”? In the question of an annulled marriage, the determination is that the marriage never really existed due to several types of circumstances preexisting the wedding ceremony; in such cases, the person is free to marry “again,” because, in the eyes of the Church, it is for the first time. And an invited guest is free to attend. But there aren't really all that many such marriages to worry about.
You may think this is mumbo-jumbo, and no amount of “dialogue” is likely to change your assessment. Even so, a sincere and reasonably knowledgeable Catholic will not participate in any official capacity in a non-Catholic wedding, even if he or she might otherwise legitimately attend it. A sincere and reasonably knowledgeable Catholic will not attend “attempted marriages” between couples where one or both are divorced from valid preexisting marriages. This, in our understanding, is in fidelity to Christ Himself. We draw the line where it is drawn, because, as the Hebrew National hot dog folks might say: “We don't We can't. We have to answer to an even higher...Authority.” You guys generally think along similar lines, at least when it comes to non-Christian marriages. Again, it is a matter of degree, not kind. So the professed “wonderment” that usually attends these discussions is often a bit insincere. I hope you, at least, can see the logic here, even if you disagree with it, or with the exact placement of that “line.”
To: magisterium
Thank you for your explanation. I appreciate your taking the time. Mary
17
posted on
11/04/2009 8:12:47 AM PST
by
Marysecretary
(GOD IS STILL IN CONTROL!)
To: Marysecretary
To: magisterium; Marysecretary
I'm happy to be corrected on this, but AFAIK the Catholic Church has no problem with a Catholic participating in a Protestant wedding
as long as neither the bride nor groom are Catholics (because such a wedding is invalid due to invalid form).
If both parties are validly baptized "cradle Protestants," I don't see that there's an issue.
(Of course, if communion is offered, a Catholic guest or member of the wedding party must decline it.)
19
posted on
11/04/2009 8:31:45 AM PST
by
Campion
("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
To: Alex Murphy
Your elderly relatives are old enough that they might have heard these radio broadcasts. Unlikely, unless they're Australians.
20
posted on
11/04/2009 8:33:12 AM PST
by
Campion
("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
To: Campion
That is correct. My scenarios involved situations where both of the parties are non-Catholic Christians.
Even in “mixed marriages,” where one person is Catholic and the other is not, a dispensation to marry is routinely given by the Catholic bishops these days. Attending such weddings is perfectly okay. Even if the non-Catholic is non-Christian, attending the wedding is not a problem as long as the dispensation has been granted. Of course, it would be probable that such a wedding would not involve a Nuptial Mass (though I have seen exceptions), because a wedding between a Catholic and non-Christian is not a sacramental marriage, but is merely a “natural marriage.” Valid, yes. Just like any natural marriage between two Moslems or two Jews or a Hindu and Buddhist. But only two baptized persons can enter into a sacramental marriage. Two Catholics, two baptized Protestants, or a Catholic and baptized Protestant can enter into a sacramental marriage. No one else can, even if the Church recognizes those of other faiths as “valid” natural marriages. In the event of a person previously entering into a natural marriage and subsequently converting to the Faith, the marriage becomes sacramental at that point. People in these circumstances often have a ceremony where they renew their vows in church, but that is not the same as saying that they are only sacramentally married at that point. Those ceremonies are not a second wedding. The marriage became a Sacramental one, with all of the attendant graces at its disposal, the moment both parties became Christians.
I know most of this is off the track of your point, but I wanted to head-off a few derived scenarios some of the non-Catholics here might think about.
To: Alex Murphy
Remind them what these lectures say about your Presbyterianism, and tell them that the Catholic Church of their day considered you a fiendish heretic. Ask them if they trust a heretic to handle their casket. Then buy them a DVD of Kennedy's funeral, and teach them the meaning of "irony". Oh, c'mon, Alex. Maybe they should read-up on needlessly divisive, hyperventilating hyperbole first.
You can be sure that no one is more outraged than I am by the gigantic send off Teddy-Boy got. I was both a violation of canon 1184 in the current D+code of canon Law, and a massive miscalculation in "prudential judgment" from a pastoral perspective. Cardianl O'Malley and a few other clerics should be ashamed of themselves for that debacle. I live in the Boston area, and the screeching about hypocrisy around here is still deafening. And, to a great extent, I agree with its bottom-line. But the screeching should direct itself at the hypocrisy of the individuals involved, not with the Church as a whole. Here is what canon law has to say about circumstances related to the Kennedy scenario, including canon 1184 which I already cited:
"THOSE TO WHOM ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS MUST BE GRANTED OR DENIED Can. 1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful. §2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals. §3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available. Can. 1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals: 1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics; 2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith; 3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful. §2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed. Can. 1185 Any funeral Mass must also be denied a person who is excluded from ecclesiastical funerals."
Section "c" of canon 1184 applies here. It is objectively relevant to Kennedy's circumstances. The stuff about heresy and apostasy might apply, too, but that is far more subjective. He never explicitly disavowed the Catholic Faith, even while many of his public actions in life did not seem to be particularly "informed" by that faith. So we'll give him the benefit of the doubt about heresy and apostasy, as the Church itself would wish.
However, it is certain that Teddy K. should have been dealt with pursuant to the intent of subsection "c" of section 1 of canon 1184. Just on the abortion issue alone. Here are some scenarios:
Scenario 1: Kennedy repents and confesses on his deathbed. Great! Though such an action might be derisively dismissed as "too convenient," the fact remains that no one is beyond the forgiveness of God provided he accepts the grace of repentance while still in this life. Now, confession in the Catholic Church often can entail a post-confession attempt to "make good the harm" that certain sins may have caused others. Surely, if at all possible, Kennedy, in this scenario, should have issued a public statement to the effect that he repented of the wrong he helped bring about with his voting record on certain issues. Since he would be dealing with mere moments to live, little more could be expected. Did this happen? Well, we don't even know if he confessed to the attending priest at all. The priest himself said that, in his final lucid hours, Kennedy was just talking up conversations about old times with him. But, even if he made a confession, there is no record about any statement that could help defuse the wrong he had done. And the priest would be forbidden to discuss the matters brought up in the sacrament. So the public would be prone to taking the very scandal canon 1184 warns against creating. It is equally wrong to give scandal as to take scandal. The Church would be ill-served giving Kennedy a funeral Mass under the circumstances of subsection "c." Therefore, there should not have been such a funeral.
Scenario 2: Kennedy repents without sacramental confession. This one's a lot more subjective for those of us still metabolizing. Right to his last moment, Kennedy could have repented, even beyond the time where he might have asked to confess. But, by definition almost, only God would know about this. And the repentance of his sins, in these circumstances, must involve what is known as "perfect contrition." "Imperfect contrition," where at least some of the motives involves fear of hell and its punishments, might suffice when a regular confession is made, provided at least some of the motivation is, in fact, sorrow that an all-good God was offended. But, barring that ability to engage in the "ordinary means" of forgiveness that Jesus entrusted to the Church in John 20, one's contrition for mortal sin must be "perfect contrition," sorrow for sins motivated through considerations that focus on the fact that God was offended by them. Certainly, it is possible that this was Kennedy's situation, but we have no way of knowing this in this life. Therefore, again considering canon 1184, there is none of the required evidence about "repentance," and the part about avoiding scandal doubly applies. No funeral Mass.
Scenario 3: Kennedy gets it right. Okay. Teddy repents, confesses and tries to do what he can to right the wrongs. Outstanding! Yup. He can have his funeral. But there is still the stuff about scandal. Inevitably, people will have a very jaundiced view of a Catholic funeral for a man like Kennedy. The Church says "Too bad!" up to a point. Again, it is a sin to take scandal, just as it is to give scandal. People will have to answer to God for the scandal they take over the funeral of notorious sinners who appear to have sincerely repented. But the Church also has enough common sense to see the inevitability of such scandalmongering, and some common sense remedies are at hand. Kennedy could have been given a simple funeral in his own parish in Hyannis, MA, without all of the bombastic display. Certainly, it only fuels scandalmongering to give him a huge send-off in the largest, most ornate church in the Archdiocese of Boston (I believe the Basilica of Our Lady of Perpetual Help, where the funeral took place, is even larger than the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston). And it only makes things worse to consider that Kennedy was a resident of Hyannis, which is part of the Diocese of Fall River, and not even a part of the Archdiocese of Boston! He had no particular claim on securing the Basilica at all!
Yes. The Cardinal blew it. He violated canon law's intent if not its actual letter (unfortunately, section 2 of 1184 sort of gives him an "out"), and seems to this day to be oblivious to the scandal caused throughout the whole sordid affair. But you seem to paint the whole Church with a pretty broad brush of condemnation. Kennedy was a manifest, objective sinner. But he might have repented. We are all sinners, and the Church is supposed to be here to heal sinners and bring them to repentance and God's grace. The clerics involved seem to have blown their pastoral responsibilities, even to the point, perhaps, of sinful culpability. But they did so as individuals.
I love the reaction of so many non-Catholic folks involving this Kennedy business! On the one hand, there will be no Popery, no yielding to the authority of Rome! Yet, on the other hand, there have been endless cries from the same quarters calling for the pope himself to have intervened in what is essentially a local matter of a diocese 4000 miles from Rome. The pope should have micromanaged the authority of the local ordinary (the local bishop)! Doubtless, if he really had, there would have been cries about poor Cardinal O'Malley having his authority crushed under the boot of mean old Rome! Ya can't win!
Some folks love to equate the sins of individuals with a condemnation of the entire Church! Unchurched people love to do this with respect to individual Christians and all denominations lumped together ("I will never be a Christian; Christianity is full of hypocrisy!"). Non-Catholics often make the same lapse of logic, just a rung or two further down ("So-and-so the alleged Catholic did such-and-such; Catholicism is full of hypocrisy!"). The Church is chock-full of hypocrites, as the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares should inform you. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church has no gigantic monopoly on hypocrisy. Hypocrisy seems to run pretty evenly through all denominational lines. I guess that's par for the course for churches, whose mission is akin to being spiritual hospitals for sinners.
To: magisterium
"D+ code"? Never heard of it! That's a typo. Sorry. Neither was "I" a violation of the code, in the same sentence. Another typo. I might be many things, but an i=embodied violation of canon law is, to the best of my knowledge,
not one of them!
Note to self: Proofreading and spell check are your friends!
To: Lee N. Field
"This is your classic, pre-Vatican II RC-ism, right?" We could say that as regards Church discipline in some matters, as attending Protestant services.
But there is no pre-Vatican II Catholicism and post-Vatican II Catholicism when it comes to Doctrine, because the Church doesn't change in that regard.
24
posted on
11/04/2009 12:40:30 PM PST
by
GonzoII
("That they may be one...Father")
To: GonzoII
Not all of us remember that.
25
posted on
11/04/2009 1:22:22 PM PST
by
Lee N. Field
(An armed society is a polite society. So keep your rambling soi-disant "prophets" off my lawn.)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
