The great Church debate!

I've never heard of any type of form needing to be signed either way regarding marriage between Roman Catholic & Non Catholic.

Rgds,Toby

I had an RC old lady as a neighbour in the 1970s. Regularly a Priest came to her house to celebrate Mass. At Christmas she was entirely comfortable to come to our lovely C of E Midnight Mass!

She was married to Presbitarian!

The daughter was about as secular as you can get!

ATB from George

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by toby:
I've never heard of any type of form needing to be signed either way regarding marriage between Roman Catholic & Non Catholic.

Rgds,Toby
I had to sign one in March 1976.
Thats why i can always laugh at the Monty P song they get you before your born.
Stu

Below taken from the website of a Catholic Church

quote:

Catholic Marrying a Non-Catholic

Usually, as long as neither of you has been married before, there is no problem. You will need to have permission or a dispensation (see below). Your priest will obtain the necessary permission or dispensation for you.

You will also be asked to sign a form to say that you will avoid any danger of falling away from your faith and that you will do what you can to ensure that the children of your marriage are baptised and brought up in the Catholic faith. Your fiance(e) does not need to sign this but they must be made aware of it.

Dispensations
These are some of the common dispensations that are applied for. In every case, talk to your parish priest who will find out which you may need and apply for them.

"Permission for Mixed Marriage" (Canon 1126) This is needed if a Catholic wishes to marry a baptised non-Catholic Christian. In England and Wales, it can be granted by the parish priest.
"Dispensation from Disparity of Cult" (Canon 1085-6) This is needed if a Catholic wishes to marry someone who is not baptised. It is granted by the local bishop.
"Dispensation from Canonical Form" (Canon 1127) This is needed if a Catholic wishes to marry according to a non-Catholic rite and/or in a non-Catholic Church. It is granted by the local bishop but it is the local Bishops Conference that establishes norms by which this dispensation is granted in a proper way. In England and Wales, the dispensation is fairly common but in other countries it may not be so common.

Decades ago I think the Catholic party HAD to sign the form particularly if they wanted to get married in a Catholic Church as well as guarantee that any children would be raised as Catholics. These days I believe all that matters is the Priest is happy that the Non-Catholic party respects the faith of the Catholic party. In terms of children being raised as Catholics the Catholic Party only has to give an undertaking to endeavour to raise them as such, that is they no longer need to guarantee they will be raised as Catholics.

Now if only we could get some of the Priests to sign something promising to leave the Alter boy alone....Sorry, I will quietly observe from the sidelines

On a similar vein and in an attempt to inject a bit of hmour...

An acquaintance of mine, a mad Canadian, married an Indonesian girl and had to convert to Islam.

He showed up at the ceremony, was doing all the oaths etc. and discovered he had to have a muslim name. On the spot the best he could come up with was the gloriously bonkers "Elvis Mojo Mohammed", a name he has gloried in to this day.

quote:

Originally posted by droodzilla:

quote:

Pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaase!

Paul, for someone who claims to be a defender of reason you are behaving in a most juvenile manner, which does no credit to the secularist cause. Throughout this thread you have made snide remarks and implied that anyone who defends faith must be a "monstrous imbecile" from the planet "gagawonky". The contrats with your supposed commitment to rational debate could not be starker. I fear that you have learned all the wrong lessons from your hero Dawkins.

JWM's point about the atrocities committed in the name of Communism or Fascism seems relevant and not obviosly stupid. It also links directly with the thought that if we did not have religion we would find something else to motivate our baser deeds. When you're not snarking you make some good points, so how about a sensible response?

Regards
Nigel

Drood baby, despite your interesting comments you are not paying attention. I have never mentioned Dawkins as i don't rate the fellow for various reasons.

Also the 'pleeeeeaaase' bit is a measure of intense exasperation. To invoke the genocide of the twentieth century as fanatically athiest inspired is so utterly absurd and plain bollocks that it is simply not worth a grown up reply.

It is deliberate (or worse, plain ignorant) obfuscation on the part of the poster and an insult to the otherwise interesting commentary posted on the thread.

But. There is absolutely tons (literally if printed out) of evidence that the religionists kill and destroy because their mystical master tells them too. (Onward xtian soldiers, marching off to war. My fave)

As to the point of if there were no religion would we find something else to kill and murder for? Well of course, it's a given. However nothing could be so intensely absurd as 'my god's bigger than your god!

The immense, immovable and entirely opaque reason blindfolds used by the various religionists are, properly studied, all that's necessary to condemn our race to polarised hatred for it's remaining tenure.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
...all that's necessary to condemn our race to polarised hatred for it's remaining tenure.

Er, why?

I don't hate anybody.

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
...all that's necessary to condemn our race to polarised hatred for it's remaining tenure.

Er, why?

I don't hate anybody.

Didn't say you did. I refer to the murders and destruction done in the name of the many gods as mentioned in the post to which you chose to reply with your 'atheist's kill more people' nonsense.

Btw you still have not substantiated your view that the Stalin/Hitler genocides were atheistically motivated. please do so or I can not take your posts seriously. Did you read the bit about obfuscation in my reply and choose to ignore it because it is irrefutable?

quote:

Btw you still have not substantiated your view that the Stalin/Hitler genocides were atheistically motivated. please do so or I can not take your posts seriously. Did you read the bit about obfuscation in my reply and choose to ignore it because it is irrefutable?

No one need substantiate that here. It is a matter of fact that both Hitler and Stalin ran dictatorships terrorised, imprisoned, even worked to death or murdered religious people for the sole reason of they're being religious!

It may be read about in the same history books that explain the Holocaust.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
...all that's necessary to condemn our race to polarised hatred for it's remaining tenure.

Er, why?

I don't hate anybody.

Didn't say you did.

As you have said clearly and repeatedly that religions and religious people are responsible for all the horror of the world and responsible for nothing good, then that must be true down to grass roots levels.

I have been shocked by the patronising and arrogant vitriol of the majority of secularist posters on this thread. Being an athiest making one more tolerant, liberal and humane? Little evidence of it here so far.

quote:

I refer to the murders and destruction done in the name of the many gods as mentioned in the post to which you chose to reply with your 'atheist's kill more people' nonsense.

Not nonsense, perfectly true.

quote:

Btw you still have not substantiated your view that the Stalin/Hitler genocides were atheistically motivated. please do so or I can not take your posts seriously. Did you read the bit about obfuscation in my reply and choose to ignore it because it is irrefutable?

I refer you to Drooz's perfect well explained response.

What did the Romans religious ever do for us? Pioneer healthcare, social care, education, architecture, art, music, etc, etc, etc... Nothing much then.

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:

quote:

Btw you still have not substantiated your view that the Stalin/Hitler genocides were atheistically motivated. please do so or I can not take your posts seriously. Did you read the bit about obfuscation in my reply and choose to ignore it because it is irrefutable?

No one need substantiate that here. It is a matter of fact that both Hitler and Stalin ran dictatorships terrorised, imprisoned, even worked to death or murdered religious people for the sole reason of they're being religious!

It may be read about in the same history books that explain the Holocaust.

ATB from George

George we appear to read different history books. Are you saying that Stalin and Hitler were crusading atheists whose sole goal for power was religious extermination? (that was the implication of the original post regarding this). If so might i friendly suggest a restudy and refer you to Don's comment regarding tribal warfare?

Cheers, Paul.

quote:

George we appear to read different history books. Are you saying that Stalin and Hitler were crusading atheists whose sole goal for power was religious extermination? (that was the implication of the original post regarding this). If so might i friendly suggest a restudy and refer you to Don's comment regarding tribal warfare?

Where did I say that? Not only did I not say it but I did not mean it!

What I mean is that Stalin and Hitler both persecuted religious people for no other reason other than they were religious. This is not comment on anything else that they did. The history books are not significantly disputed in the issues of the atrocities that they caused to be committed.

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:
...all that's necessary to condemn our race to polarised hatred for it's remaining tenure.

Er, why?

I don't hate anybody.

Didn't say you did.

As you have said clearly and repeatedly that religions and religious people are responsible for all the horror of the world and responsible for nothing good, then that must be true down to grass roots levels.

I have been shocked by the patronising and arrogant vitriol of the majority of secularist posters on this thread. Being an athiest making one more tolerant, liberal and humane? Little evidence of it here so far.

quote:

I refer to the murders and destruction done in the name of the many gods as mentioned in the post to which you chose to reply with your 'atheist's kill more people' nonsense.

Not nonsense, perfectly true.

quote:

Btw you still have not substantiated your view that the Stalin/Hitler genocides were atheistically motivated. please do so or I can not take your posts seriously. Did you read the bit about obfuscation in my reply and choose to ignore it because it is irrefutable?

I refer you to Drooz's perfect well explained response.

What did the Romans religious ever do for us? Pioneer healthcare, social care, education, architecture, art, music, etc, etc, etc... Nothing much then.

I assume that you are unable to respond. You simply repeat and re-repeat your own personal dogma.

''Not nonsense, perfectly true.'' is just a statement; semantically empty. It has no meaning without verifiable examples.

Please look up the word obfuscation, it's a good one and all believers appear to born with a gene for it.

Unless it's a gift from one of the gods?

Also I have never said that theists were responsible for ALL the horror of the world? Don't know where you get some of this stuff.

But they are responsible for much of histories atrocities. Ask some woman/girls burnt and drowned for being witches.

Your stance throughout this thread has been super defensive and based on bland empty statements. The content of your posts have never troubled veracity because they involve nothing of substance. You merely pontificate without offering solidity of argument by way of verifiable, or otherwise, statements.

Therefore, as i mentioned earlier, i can no longer take you seriously

Hi Paul, I was thinking of your comment earlier in this thread:

quote:

To me [Dawkins] is simply a sane man who argues cogently and well. His only fault is that he appears to believe that rationality may persuade those who have forsaken it.

If I misrepresented your attitude to Dawkins, I apologise.

However, I stand by my comment about the juvenile attitude you've exhibited on this thread. I also found this reply to George (GFFJ) ungracious, as you surely know he is a theist, and he has also kindly tried to help you with classical music recommendations on other threads:

quote:

Ok George. They express my enormous disbelief at the absurd nonsense dross that theists pronounce seemingly from planet gagawonky.

Even though I know it's coming I'm always staggered at the monstrous imbecility.

That better?


ATB, Paul.

It's posts like this that lead me to agree with JWM's comment downstream:

quote:

I have been shocked by the patronising and arrogant vitriol of the majority of secularist posters on this thread. Being an athiest making one more tolerant, liberal and humane? Little evidence of it here so far.

Finally, I still think neither you nor Mike D have provided a satisfactory response to my post on page 11 beginning, "Of course it didn't".

Regards
Nigel

quote:

Originally posted by GFFJ:


What I mean is that Stalin and Hitler both persecuted religious people for no other reason other than they were religious. This is not comment on anything else that they did. The history books are not significantly disputed in the issues of the atrocities that they caused to be committed.

ATB from George

Gotta disagree with you there George. Stalin and Hitler certainly committed atrocities, many of them against people of various faiths.

The crucial question is one of motivation. Stalin - who almost became a priest as a young man, before revolutionary politics came a-calling - did not persecute the religious just because they were religious. He persecuted them because they got in the way of "the project". Soviet Russia was officially an atheist state. Religion (all religion) was deemed an unnecessary, even malevolent, distraction from the road to a communist utopia.

The Party demanded complete and unconditional loyalty from everyone - you couldn't be loyal to your tribe or nationality or god first, you had to be completely committed to the Party the project and what was called "Soviet Power".

Stalin and his cabal wanted to destroy religion not because he was an atheist but because it [religion] was like the Russian Royal Family or ties to one's family or region or tribe - a dangerous way for people to focus their dissent or dissatisfaction, their hopes, energies and so on; rather than on the great job at hand.

Most of the people Stalin had killed or persecuted were kulaks or dissidents or rightists or Mensheviks or reactionaries or counter-revolutionaries (or whatever) first and Christian/Muslim etc second

I know it's a very subtle difference, but it's a very important one.

Same with Adolf. Hitler - raised a Catholic, as were many of the leading Nazis - was rather indifferent to religion, except when he saw it as a threat (ie dissident priests, churches, sects etc) or when he thought he could use it (eg the Catholic establishment - in the baleful shape of Pope Pius XII - via its rabid anti-communism and anti-semitism).

Race mattered much more. That said, had the Nazis been victorious, they would have probably eventually moved to destroy the Christian church in Europe (and any other religion), replacing it no doubt with a malign mishmash of the old pagan gods (there are many interesting links between paganism and Nazism) and a Hitler-centric personality cult.

I did not say what the motivation was. I specifically avoided doing that.

These were the acts of people whose upbringing had to be overcome because it got in the way, but they are the acts of secularists - if not through conviction necessarily, then certainly through pragmatism. It is not above the pragmatic secularist like Hitler to make use of a weak Pope like Pius, but that use [and abuse] does not make the user a good Roman Catholic, IMO. Rather it is exploiting a human weakness, perceived and used to Hitler's own pragmatic ends.

I see your point, and you may see mine! Everyone religious or not, who was thought potentially undesirable, would be suppressed. That is certainly true. But many were nothing other than Priests, and no obvious threat apart from belonginng to a potentially dangerous church. Different from the anti-Jewish terror in motivation, but every bit as devastating in effect.

What I am suggesting is that the acts themselves necessarily are the acts of pragmatic secularists by the time they were committed ... A house divided against itself, etc. , may indicate why it is unreasonable to regard Hitler and Stalin as Christians at all by the time they were ording industrial scale killing of their fellow humans. Pragmatic or not they will most correctly be seen as secularists, even if one may wish to add pragmatic secularists. [I would add that we may well sumise that the terrorists who proclaim their religious credentials as a justification are indeed pragmatic fundamental theists rather than models of the theist type].

The motivation for Hitler's and Stalin's pragmatism was actually power for the sake of power. Anything could and would be sacrificed to this end. The whole Jewish Question for Hitler was to first make a series of problems, and then find a more exruciating solution for each problem caused by the last so called solution, and eventually the so-called "final" solution of the Death Camps. The Death Camps came after the Ghettoes, which came after the Jews were demonised in wholesale propaganda ... The machinery of industrial scale murder could be applied in many ways ...

ATB from George

Actually a good deal of Hitler's 'thinking' and motivation were based on an (arguably faulty)understanding of Darwin's work.

details Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust

Why do religious people regard God (if there is such thing) as a he?

It's a very scary world we live in!

The world is ok but...

Religion in my view is like money - IT IS COMPLETELY MAN MADE.

quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Tate:
Why do religious people regard God (if there is such thing) as a he?

It's a very scary world we live in!

The world is ok but...

Religion in my view is like money - IT IS COMPLETELY MAN MADE.

Lol. No more to add. Cheers.

quote:

Why do religious people regard God (if there is such thing) as a he?

Maybe they have not seen this film:

Dogma

quote:

Why do religious people regard God (if there is such thing) as a he?

...........Oh dear, we really are scraping the barrel aren't we...

the first American astronauts, returning from the dark side of the moon were reported to have excitedly exclaimed "we've seen god! and she's black!"

Doubt if its true thought!

Cheers

Don