Can I be a Godparent even if I am not Catholic?

Peregrinus · 13-11-2014 11:32AM

Infant baptism has been the dominant mode of baptism in both Eastern and Western Christianity pretty much from the get-go, precisely because they don't see it's signficance as being limited to a personal profession of faith. Whether you share that view or not, I don't see it disappearing in Ireland in a generation or two. If the Irish people haven't embraced the Anabaptist position any time in the last four hundred years, what makes you think they're about to now?

Even in the US, where "believer's baptism" is strongest, only about 20 or 25% of Christians belong to traditions which practice believer's baptism.

homer911 · 13-11-2014 11:44AM

My apologies, I didnt mean to take this tread off on a tangent. I meant that with fewer people engaging with the church, next generations wont see the need for infant baptism (of whatever denomination) as its something initiated by the parents. Therefore adult baptism (when baptism is exercised at all) will become more normative.

This was a general comment on infant baptism (all denominations) and not intended as a Protestant/Catholic thing. This does not take away from the Godparent issue and their role. There are some churches that have no formal Godparent role when it comes to infant baptism and perhaps this makes sense. Some understanding of the origin of the role might help

Peregrinus · 13-11-2014 12:02PM

Oh, I take your point.

Still, I dunno. The broader European experience suggests that secularisation takes two forms:

Some people disassociate themelves completely from whatever church their families identified with, do not associated with any other church, do not descibe themselves as religious or claim a denominational affiliation in the census, and raise their children to be either indifferent to or hostile to religion. Relatively few of the children so raised will choose to be baptised later, atheist brainwashing being apaprently more thorough and more effective than Christian brainwashing. :-)

Others continue to identify with a denomination, and attend for major life events, Christmas, Easter and maybe a couple of other times. But where there's anything like a church tax they continue to pay it, and they tend to support social/cultural institutions linked with their denomination, whether they be schools, trade unions or political parties. They bring their children for baptism, and their children in adulthood display a wider range of degrees of affiliation - as religious, more religious or less religious than their parents.

Most countries present some blend of these two models of secularisation. These is seen most starkly in Germany where, in the former East, the first model of secularisation predominates, while the second predominates in the West.

Regardless, though, the majority of baptisms tend to be baptisms of infants. Where the first model predominates, most people are never baptised. Where the second model predominates, people are baptised as infants. In both cases, adult baptisms are only a minority.

Ireland seems headed for the second model, which is the dominant model in England and Scotland and, indeed, in most Western European countries.

katydid · 13-11-2014 06:42PM

lazygal wrote: »

As long as state services like education limit enrolment to those who produce a baptism cert parents will baptize for the sake of school places. I know several myself who baptize the eldest child to ensure a school place, don't bother with the younger children as siblings get priority and have no intention of doing the sacraments.

It is indeed disgraceful that baptismal certificates are required for some school entry, and I can understand that people would feel they have to have a child baptised for this reason.

katydid · 13-11-2014 06:48PM

homer911 wrote: »

My apologies, I didnt mean to take this tread off on a tangent. I meant that with fewer people engaging with the church, next generations wont see the need for infant baptism (of whatever denomination) as its something initiated by the parents. Therefore adult baptism (when baptism is exercised at all) will become more normative.

This was a general comment on infant baptism (all denominations) and not intended as a Protestant/Catholic thing. This does not take away from the Godparent issue and their role. There are some churches that have no formal Godparent role when it comes to infant baptism and perhaps this makes sense. Some understanding of the origin of the role might help

Maybe if the "godparent" role could come to be seen as a secular one, there could be secular naming ceremonies with adults other than the parents taking on roles similar to that of godparents, but with a secular slant.

That would cover the "honour" issue without putting people in a position to have to choose between their integrity and upsetting people.

CramCycle · 13-11-2014 10:06PM

Wow, quite a few pages of stuff going on here. Not sure were to even start. I do think that the adult christening idea is a great one, one of my main issues with christenings are the fact that the child is not old enough to decide for itself is this what it wants.

One of my original reasons for asking the question was I didn't want to insult anyones belief to their face, or openly mock the priest, as that's what I would be doing. But to be honest, the last christening I was at, I couldn't even remember if the godparents had to say anything or not, hence the question, if it was a simple, promise to take care of the child or nurture it in the event his parents could not, great but if it was a case of swearing to bring the child up as a catholic child if the parents were unable too, well, I am not catholic, the things that I would have to proclaim, I do not believe.

I know the father is getting the christening because of either school (despite the school not caring, my own child is not christened and on the list, I confirmed with the secretary that despite being a catholic school, it makes no difference to their admin policy) or his parents want a day out, the childs other parent may actually be religious, I do not know.

As far as I know the christening will take place in a church nearby where I know the priest, a good friend many years ago, who knows I am not Catholic, I have no idea how he will react to the idea of me standing in.

I have decided that once the church is confirmed, I am going to the priest, and explaining my situation, I am to the best of my knowledge a moral man, I will raise the child with morals which as far as I know broadly fall in line with most modern catholics standards. As far as I know the other god parent is a catholic. If he is OK with it, I will attend and stay silent for the vow parts, if he is not OK with it well, I guess I have decided for the family that I won't be attending in that capacity, having known me in my younger days he will probably be impressed I have any standards at all.

katydid · 13-11-2014 10:44PM

CramCycle wrote: »

But to be honest, the last christening I was at, I couldn't even remember if the godparents had to say anything or not, hence the question, if it was a simple, promise to take care of the child or nurture it in the event his parents could not, great but if it was a case of swearing to bring the child up as a catholic child if the parents were unable too, well, I am not catholic, the things that I would have to proclaim, I do not believe.

I

.

In the baptism liturgy, the following exchange takes place:
"he celebrant asks for the threefold profession of faith from the parents and godparents:

Celebrant:

Do you believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth?

Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant:

Do you believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord,
who was born of the Virgin Mary,
was crucified, died, and was buried,
rose from the dead,
and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?

Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant:

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting?

Parents and Godparents: I do."

There is no getting away from that, it is set out in the liturgy. If you want to be a godparent, you are going to have to say "I do".

CramCycle · 13-11-2014 10:51PM

katydid wrote: »

There is no getting away from that, it is set out in the liturgy. If you want to be a godparent, you are going to have to say "I do".

I don't want to be a godparent, his parents want me to be what they think a godparent is, I stupidly fear that if I resist to much they will be offended to the point that I will no longer be apart of my nephews life. Which is ironic as his father is one of the most obnoxious people I have met when openly mocking catholicism. I am trying to balance my view on the right thing to do without upsetting family.

I took it from early posts that you only need one. If the priest is OK me with simply being a witness, then I am OK with it too. If he is not, then I won't be.

lazygal · 13-11-2014 11:12PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't want to be a godparent, his parents want me to be what they think a godparent is, I stupidly fear that if I resist to much they will be offended to the point that I will no longer be apart of my nephews life. Which is ironic as his father is one of the most obnoxious people I have met when openly mocking catholicism. I am trying to balance my view on the right thing to do without upsetting family.

I took it from early posts that you only need one. If the priest is OK me with simply being a witness, then I am OK with it too. If he is not, then I won't be.

If someone can't understand the difference between a principled stance and being awkward I wouldn't worry too much what they thought of me, to be quite frank. If the father mocks Catholicism, while having a catholic ceremony for his child, I would say that says more about him than anything else. This is the parents' issue, not yours.

katydid · 13-11-2014 11:24PM

CramCycle wrote: »

I don't want to be a godparent, his parents want me to be what they think a godparent is, I stupidly fear that if I resist to much they will be offended to the point that I will no longer be apart of my nephews life. Which is ironic as his father is one of the most obnoxious people I have met when openly mocking catholicism. I am trying to balance my view on the right thing to do without upsetting family.

I took it from early posts that you only need one. If the priest is OK me with simply being a witness, then I am OK with it too. If he is not, then I won't be.

I don't know what your relationship is with the child's parents, but surely if they're decent people, and I've no doubt that they are, they would understand why you feel the way you do. Even if you don't see eye to eye with your brother in law, surely your sister would understand?

A good friend of mine, who is an atheist, did not attend his own daughter's christening. His wife is still talking to him. :-)

Fair play to you for thinking about this. It's more than many people do, who just go along with it. The priest can't tell you not to make statements you don't believe, but it's good to have an open discussion with him.

BizzyC · 18-11-2014 11:26AM

katydid wrote: »

How did you handle making the statements at the baptism ceremony where you were asked about your beliefs? Presumably you had to lie. Not good example for your godson.

I didn't make any statements in relation to my own faith.
I made statements to support my godson in his faith, which is something I am willing to do.

Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I expect anyone else to be.

BizzyC · 18-11-2014 11:27AM

katydid wrote: »

In the baptism liturgy, the following exchange takes place:
"he celebrant asks for the threefold profession of faith from the parents and godparents:

Celebrant:

Do you believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth?

Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant:

Do you believe in Jesus Christ,
his only Son, our Lord,
who was born of the Virgin Mary,
was crucified, died, and was buried,
rose from the dead,
and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?

Parents and Godparents: I do.

Celebrant:

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting?

Parents and Godparents: I do."

There is no getting away from that, it is set out in the liturgy. If you want to be a godparent, you are going to have to say "I do".

Nope, didn't have to do any of the above.

katydid · 18-11-2014 06:40PM

BizzyC wrote: »

I didn't make any statements in relation to my own faith.
I made statements to support my godson in his faith, which is something I am willing to do.

Just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I expect anyone else to be.

You mustn't have been at a Roman Catholic ceremony then, as the liturgy specifically includes parents and godparents making statements of their Christian faith. I have actually cited the liturgy earlier in this thread.

Festus · 18-11-2014 07:50PM

katydid wrote: »

You mustn't have been at a Roman Catholic ceremony then, as the liturgy specifically includes parents and godparents making statements of their Christian faith. I have actually cited the liturgy earlier in this thread.

Perhaps it was one of those catholic parishes that goes out of its way to be nice to everyone, especially unrepentant recidivist sinners. Or do they only have them in the US and Germany

katydid · 18-11-2014 10:45PM

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps it was one of those catholic parishes that goes out of its way to be nice to everyone, especially unrepentant recidivist sinners. Or do they only have them in the US and Germany

As far as I know, the liturgy is set, and priests are not free to change it.

katydid · 18-11-2014 10:46PM

BizzyC wrote: »

Nope, didn't have to do any of the above.

Hmmm

Festus · 19-11-2014 12:55AM

katydid wrote: »

As far as I know, the liturgy is set, and priests are not free to change it.

it is, and they are not, but they do, and it's called liturgical abuse

Peruse this link...

http://www.canticanova.com/articles/liturgy/art9bq1.htm

...and see how many occur here. Communion in the hand is quite popular here as are Eucharistic ministers - an abuse at most churches in Ireland.
Also quite popular here is giving Communion to politicians who vote for abortion and people known to the priest not to be in a state of grace - think divorced and remarried, and cohabiting couples.

katydid · 27-11-2014 11:58PM

Festus wrote: »

it is, and they are not, but they do, and it's called liturgical abuse

Peruse this link...

http://www.canticanova.com/articles/liturgy/art9bq1.htm

...and see how many occur here. Communion in the hand is quite popular here as are Eucharistic ministers - an abuse at most churches in Ireland.
Also quite popular here is giving Communion to politicians who vote for abortion and people known to the priest not to be in a state of grace - think divorced and remarried, and cohabiting couples.

Deciding who to give communion to is not a change in the liturgy. It's a decision made by the priest that he is not in a position to know the heard of a person. Communion in the hand is approved by the Holy See in certain cases.

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Changing the wording and rubrics of the baptism liturgy is a totally different matter. It is not an option for Roman Catholic priests, any more than they can change the liturgy of the mass.

Festus · 02-12-2014 04:54PM

katydid wrote: »

Deciding who to give communion to is not a change in the liturgy. It's a decision made by the priest that he is not in a position to know the heard of a person. Communion in the hand is approved by the Holy See in certain cases.

https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Changing the wording and rubrics of the baptism liturgy is a totally different matter. It is not an option for Roman Catholic priests, any more than they can change the liturgy of the mass.

"in certain cases" is the operative part and that was abused to get the approval passed. It is considered an exception but to all intents and purposes it has become the defacto standard. This should not be the case so the entire process has been abused to get to this point.

I see your EWTN and raise you a Vatican

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

When it comes to the regulations and best practice I look to Rome and the Vatican and not the US and EWTN.

Communion in the hand is a controversial issue and in my experience the Eucharist is not being treated with the reverence and adoration required and for this and other reasons the indults should be reviewed.

As to refusing communion to some I agree that the priest may not know what is in the heart of a person but that is not the issue. The issue is with people who make public statements or actions that are contrary to Church teaching.
So, politicians who vote for or support certain laws and members of the public living in sin or openly supporting lifestyles contrary to Church teaching should be refused communion. Otherwise the priest is complicit in sacrilege.

Peregrinus · 03-12-2014 04:40AM

I think we’re stretching the concept of “liturgical abuse” a bit if we try to extend it to questions like who should be receiving communion. The Catholic church’s teaching about worthiness to receive communion isn’t really an aspect of liturgical discipline. The teaching is that the individual should not take communion, more than that the minister should not give it. One of the first things that is impressed upon Eucharistic ministers - ordinary and extraordinary - in their formation is that the moment when somebody approaches the altar is not the moment for making instant judgments about their lives and actions, and offering or withholding the sacrament accordingly. If your approach to communion in itself creates a public scandal - e.g. you turn up wearing a Nazi uniform - then the minister will offer you a blessing instead. But it’s emphatically no part of the eucharistic ministry to treat it as an opportunity for making and manifesting judgments about the state of grace of another. Doing so is, in fact, a liturgical abuse; this is not what the Eucharist is given to us for. The place for suggesting that someone shouldn't be receiving communion is the confessional, not the altar rail.

In fact, we can go a bit further than this. While the Catholic church has always had a strong teaching that abortion is intrinsically wrong, it has never taught, and does not teach today, that everything which is intrinsically wrong must be criminalised by the civil law. Whether it should be criminalised in any particular case is a matter for prudential judgment, and the vocation of making such a judgment belongs to legislators and citizens, but not particularly to bishops (except in so far as they are citizens). A legislator who fails to initiate measures to criminalise abortion, or who fails to support such measures initiated by someone else, is not necessarily contravening or rejecting any teaching of the Catholic church. Those who call for communion to be withheld from these politicians are, therefore, attempting to use the Eucharist as a tactical tool in a political campaign which they support. That, obviously, is an abuse of the liturgy, and a serious one. (But try telling them that.)

Festus · 03-12-2014 12:23PM

There is full Vatican support for denying communion to pro abortion politicians.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/for-the-vatican-its-clear-pro-abortion-politicians-must-be-denied-communion

extract

For the Pope and top Curial Cardinals in charge of the matter there is no question about the responsibility to deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who obstinately support abortion. In fact, the issue was closed as early as 2004 with a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

The then-head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith intervened into a debate among the US Bishops on the issue. Simply put, Cardinal Ratzinger said in his letter titled "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion," that a Catholic politician who would vote for "permissive abortion and euthanasia laws" after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion.

and there is Canon 915... that's the Church's Law which covers this and the divorced and remarried ... but try telling the nice, liberal, heterodox crowd that ... or the Germans

Peregrinus · 04-12-2014 02:18AM

You're quoting lifesitenews.com's interpretation of what a letter reportedly sent by Cardinal Ratzinger said, rather than just giving us the letter, or any more formal and authoritative teaching. I wonder why?

The document by Cdl Ratzinger that lifesitenews.com references isn't on the Vatican website. It was never formally issued by the CDF (of which Ratzinger was prefect at the time) or approved or noted by any higher authority. It was a personal memorandum that Ratzinger sent to Cdl McCarrick in 2004 as a "brotherly service"; presumably McCarrick asked Ratzinger for his thoughts on the subject, though I don't actually know that. At the time McCarrick was heading a subcommittee of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops which was drafting what was to become the USCCB advice to voters in connection with the November 2004 US elections.

The only reason we know about the memorandum was that the text was later leaked to an Italian newspaper, L'Espresso. The memorandum was accompanied by a covering letter from Ratzinger to McCarrick which, so far as I know, has never been published.

After receiving and condisidering both the letter and the memorandum, the USCCB issue their statement, "Catholics in Political Life", which is formal and official, and which you can read here. On the question of refusing communion, it has this to say:

"The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times.

The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world."

Ratzinger, reportedly, then wrote a second time to McCarrick, to say that the USCCB statement was "very much in harmony" with his earlier, leaked memo.

In short, for a Catholic in public life, it's his bishop's job to decide whether his public position is such as to preclude him from taking Communion. If the bishop does think that, he needs to talk to the individual concerned and urge him to change his position, or refrain from taking communion. This is a pastoral matter more than a liturgical one. Only if the individual still presents for communion does the question of turning him away arise. Unless the Eucharistic Minister happens to be the individual's pastor, or to have been explicitly instructed by the individual's pastor to do so, he has no business turning him away, no matter what his voting record. Those who demand that pro-choice politicians all be turned away, and denounce the failure of eucharistic ministers to accede to that demand, are attempting to "misuse sacramental practice for political ends" - or, in other words, to engage in liturgical abuse.

Festus · 04-12-2014 10:40AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're quoting lifesitenews.com's interpretation of what a letter reportedly sent by Cardinal Ratzinger said, rather than just giving us the letter, or any more formal and authoritative teaching. I wonder why?

And you are ignoring Canon 915. I wonder why that is not authoritative enough for you...

Every Catholic knows, or should know, that the rules of the Church apply everywhere. They know what the Churches position is on abortion and on remarriage after divorce so they should not be presenting themselves for communion.

A Catholic in public life should be an example, not a scandal giver.

Those that operate outside of the Church's rules and continue to present themselves for communion, whether they do so while waiting for a direction from a bishop or not, are using the Eucharist politically, and are committing sacrilege.

Peregrinus · 05-12-2014 05:37AM

Festus wrote: »

And you are ignoring Canon 915. I wonder why that is not authoritative enough for you...

I’m not ignoring it, Festus. I’m familiar with it - possibly more so than you are.

You keep mentioning it, but not actually quoting it. From you point of view, probably wisely, since it makes no mention of abortion, or legislation, or politicians. What it says is that people are not to be admitted to holy communion if they are “obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin”.

Is a politician whose voting record on abortion doesn’t meet your requirements “obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin”? Possibly. Or possibly not. That’s a matter for him and his pastor. Not for you.

Festus wrote: »

Every Catholic knows, or should know, that the rules of the Church apply everywhere. They know what the Churches position is on abortion and on remarriage after divorce so they should not be presenting themselves for communion.

They may think they know it, Festus. It doesn’t mean they do. They may only half know it.
In particular, they may correctly understand that the Catholic church views abortion as intrinsically and gravely evil. They may incorrectly assume from that the Catholic church teaches that abortion must always be against the law, and that a Catholic exercising civil power must bring this about. The Catholic church teaches neither of the latter things.

Festus wrote: »

A Catholic in public life should be an example, not a scandal giver.

Catholics should not be scandal givers whether in public life or not, Festus. Which is why they should not be denouncing the correct application of canon law and Catholic discipline as “liturgical abuse”.

Festus wrote: »

Those that operate outside of the Church's rules and continue to present themselves for communion, whether they do so while waiting for a direction from a bishop or not, are using the Eucharist politically, and are committing sacrilege.

They may or may not be. That does not entitle you to denounce the giving of communion to them as a “liturgical abuse”.

Festus · 05-12-2014 02:37PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m not ignoring it, Festus. I’m familiar with it - possibly more so than you are.

Really? How so? One of our former presidents is also more familiar with it than probably either of us it and is also has no issues with sodomite so called marriage so familiarity with Canon law says nothing about ones Catholicism.
What's your qualification to make such a statement. I, like you can read. Unless you are a bishop or work for one, or are involved in the use of Canon Law in anger you have no more of a claim to familiarity with it than any other interested party.

Peregrinus wrote: »

You keep mentioning it, but not actually quoting it. From you point of view, probably wisely, since it makes no mention of abortion, or legislation, or politicians. What it says is that people are not to be admitted to holy communion if they are “obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin”.

That's a bit Protestant. The Bible makes no mention of plenty of things that affect Catholics. Canon law is similar. Regardless there are plenty of Bishops who have made the case that politicians who vote against the teachings of the Catholic Churches teaches are in a state of grave sin.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is a politician whose voting record on abortion doesn’t meet your requirements “obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin”? Possibly. Or possibly not. That’s a matter for him and his pastor. Not for you.

See above. It's not my requirement it is the Churches requirement. All Catholics are called to be Catholics in every aspect of their lives and that includes politicians and legislators, and the work they do. If they are supporting abortion law they are persisting in grave sin. period.
If the priests and bishops won't do what they are supposed to do the laiety must speak out and remind them of their duties under canon law.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They may think they know it, Festus. It doesn’t mean they do. They may only half know it.
In particular, they may correctly understand that the Catholic church views abortion as intrinsically and gravely evil. They may incorrectly assume from that the Catholic church teaches that abortion must always be against the law, and that a Catholic exercising civil power must bring this about. The Catholic church teaches neither of the latter things.

If they don't know it they should educate themselves.
Being a Catholic requires that we bring our Catholicism to everything we do and that means that Catholic politicians must do all in their power to ensure abortion remains against the law. I would have thought that would be obvious.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Catholics should not be scandal givers whether in public life or not, Festus. Which is why they should not be denouncing the correct application of canon law and Catholic discipline as “liturgical abuse”.

Tell that to the bishops and priests who are not applying the law as they should.
The politicians who vote for abortion and then present themselves for communion are giving scandal and they and the bishops who refuse to sanction them must be called out.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They may or may not be. That does not entitle you to denounce the giving of communion to them as a “liturgical abuse”.

Yes it does. The rules regarding the reception of the Eucharist are clear. Those who are unfamiliar with those rules have a duty to familiarize themselves with those rules.

Is voting and enacting a law that legalizes abortion a grave sin? Yes it is.
Can a Catholic who supports abortion receive Holy Communion? No they cannot.
Should a politician who supports legalized abortion be refused communion? Yes. Why? See Redemptionis Sacramentum and Canon 915.

Regardless of whether you agree with my sources or not you, Peregrinus, are outranked by the Pope and the bishops who expound this action. The documentation around this issue is clear. The Church law is clear.

The letter was linked to from the website so that those who would patronizingly use condescension to dismiss it as mere editorializing would be negated and the fact that this link is no longer functional does not give you the right to question the source or my motives.

When it comes to wondering why, I wonder why you have such a poor regard for the Holy Eucharist and such contempt for what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Perhaps you are a fan of Dolan and Kasper and their ilk.

Peregrinus · 08-12-2014 01:56AM

Festus wrote: »

Really? How so? One of our former presidents is also more familiar with it than probably either of us it and is also has no issues with sodomite so called marriage so familiarity with Canon law says nothing about ones Catholicism.
What's your qualification to make such a statement.

You mean the statement that I may be more familiar with Canon 915 than you? Well, my suspicions were first aroused when I noticed that you were citing Canon 915 in support of the claim that given the Eucharist to certain politicians was a “liturgical abuse”. It struck me then that, however familiar you may be with Canon 915, you evidently aren’t familiar enough with it to be aware that it doesn’t say what you seem to think it says.

Festus wrote: »

Tell that to the bishops and priests who are not applying the law as they should.

And what’s your authority, Festus, to decree that bishops who apply this law as you would apply it were it your business to do so are applying it “as they should”, while bishops whose views differ from yours are not?

I’ve already pointed out that the application of the law requires a prudential judgment. It’s in the nature of prudential judgments that they differ according to circumstances, according to the persons involved, according to a wide range of other factors. We should expect prudential judgments to differ. A bishop who denies the eucharist to someone and a bishop who does not are both making a prudential judgment and applying the law on the basis of that judgment. It is not your business to second-guess them and decree that the judgments that you dislike are wrong, scandalous or abusive and result in the law being misapplied. It is the vocation of the bishop to make these judgments, not the vocation of a pseudonymous commentator on an internet discussion board. The accusation in your mouth that others are giving scandal is richly ironic.

Festus · 08-12-2014 10:50AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

You mean the statement that I may be more familiar with Canon 915 than you? Well, my suspicions were first aroused when I noticed that you were citing Canon 915 in support of the claim that given the Eucharist to certain politicians was a “liturgical abuse”. It struck me then that, however familiar you may be with Canon 915, you evidently aren’t familiar enough with it to be aware that it doesn’t say what you seem to think it says.

And what’s your authority, Festus, to decree that bishops who apply this law as you would apply it were it your business to do so are applying it “as they should”, while bishops whose views differ from yours are not?

I’ve already pointed out that the application of the law requires a prudential judgment. It’s in the nature of prudential judgments that they differ according to circumstances, according to the persons involved, according to a wide range of other factors. We should expect prudential judgments to differ. A bishop who denies the eucharist to someone and a bishop who does not are both making a prudential judgment and applying the law on the basis of that judgment. It is not your business to second-guess them and decree that the judgments that you dislike are wrong, scandalous or abusive and result in the law being misapplied. It is the vocation of the bishop to make these judgments, not the vocation of a pseudonymous commentator on an internet discussion board. The accusation in your mouth that others are giving scandal is richly ironic.

So you are more than happy that "Catholic" politicians can maintain pro-abortion policy positions and legislate for abortion and that there are bishops who do nothing about that.

Sorry Peregrinus, when Bishops don't do their jobs properly it is up to us to call them out, not defend them.

The unworthy reception of communion is a liturgical abuse and politicians who support abortion are unworthy.

Peregrinus · 08-12-2014 12:01PM

Festus wrote: »

So you are more than happy that "Catholic" politicians can maintain pro-abortion policy positions and legislate for abortion and that there are bishops who do nothing about that.

I don't know that their bishops "do nothing about that", and you don't know either.

I do know that there are bishops who don't engage in the kneejerk liturgical abuse that you are calling for; I'm glad about that.

Festus wrote: »

Sorry Peregrinus, when Bishops don't do their jobs properly it is up to us to call them out, not defend them.

Again, Festus, you simply repeating this is not going to make it tirue. The judgment is a matter for the bishop. The fact that you, if you were a bishop, would have made a different judgment is completely beside the point. It is not your business to be making this judgment.

Festus wrote: »

The unworthy reception of communion is a liturgical abuse and politicians who support abortion are unworthy.

If that's not the bishop's judgment, I think the politician need not care greatly that it is yours. The bishop might be frustrated by you appointing yourself a kind of super-bishop, demanding that he stop making his own judgments on these matters and just accept and implement yours. But it's a frustration that most bishops have learned to live with these days. Taditionalist Catholics tend to have very weak ecclesiology. I blame it on poor formation, myself, but the damage is done. There's an entire generation that we have lost on this issue; hopefully we can do better with the next generation.

Festus · 08-12-2014 02:32PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Taditionalist Catholics tend to have very weak ecclesiology. I blame it on poor formation, myself, but the damage is done. There's an entire generation that we have lost on this issue; hopefully we can do better with the next generation.

Ah, now the true colours are showing.

I agree, poor formation is a problem but whose fault is that? And whose formation is poorest?
Which is more important "ecclesiology" or catechesis? Social justice or dying in a state of grace?

When it comes to ecclesiology which definition are you employing? Or are you just using big words to display your superiority over a "poorly formed traditionalist".

You can call me a "traditionalist" as you patronizingly put it if you want to be condescending but the reality is I am a Catholic who is not heterodox (so you can if you wish call me orthodox). I accept Vatican II, but not the abuses of Vatican II.
I have grown up with Vatican II and can see where the Church has changed it's practices to introduce new practices and ways of thinking that were never mentioned in Vatican II. It is these changes that and the rise of the non-Traditionalist heterodox Catholics that contributed to my being away from the Church for many years.
I can see bishops who want same sex relationships approved, adulterous relationships approved and Satan and Hell dismissed as myths. I can see bishops who want reverence for the Eucharist diluted so they can begin to "educate" us on what Transubstantiation really means. I hear of priests who insist on communicants receiving on the hand and refusing to place the host on the tongue. I know of teachers refusing to teach new communicants that they can receive on the tongue, and kneeling, if they so choose. I can see priests who refuse to preach on sin and its consequences. The list is endless. The ultimate goal looks like Protestantism.

That someone should say that they have failed a generation and the evidence is a body of Catholics who hold to traditional values speaks volumes.

One has to wonder what you are planning for the next generation.

CramCycle · 08-12-2014 02:39PM

I'll be honest, I have no idea what any of the last few pages have to do with my original question, if anything.

Can I be a Godparent even if I am not Catholic?

Comments