Catholic vs. civil

[Cali vet]

My novia is dead set on a (Catholic) church wedding but I've never participated in any organized religious rites like baptism/confirmation so I'm told the padres will turn us down. Anyone else confronted this issue in Colombia?

[Patrick]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by Cali vet on Oct 3, 2002

I had a big problem getting married in the Catholic church here.  We went in and met with a priest and were told that it would be a long uphill struggle because I had a previous marriage to a non-catholic (I'm also non-catholic).

We were suppose to start a letter writing campaign which we were told would provbably have to be escalated up to the arch bishop level, probably wouldn't succeed, etc. etc.

Then we moved and started going to a different parish.  My wife asked this other priest about a marriage.  Suddenly it was no problem.  We just filled out some papers, attended a weekend marriage encounter class and got married.

Seems that they all have latitude in interpreting church rules.  Just find the guy who has a more liberal interpretation.  I never had to produce any baptismal records.  I just told him that I had been baptized and that was it.

Just lie to the right priest.  That's my advice.

[El Diablo]

... in response to Find another priest, posted by Patrick on Oct 4, 2002


Patrick,

I agree with you 99 percent of the time but in this case I don't.  I think lying about circumstances in order to get around some impediment to marriage is a bad idea.  I understand a person's motivation to please their wife or her family but it strikes me as dishonest about something that is not trivial.  I think the best thing to do in these circumstances is to just get married civily if a person can't speak truthfully to the Preist.  

In your particular case it appears you found a Priest who would just go ahead and marry you, no questions asked.  As I was explaining to Pete, the Catholic Church in the United States is so liberal that pretty much anything goes.  It would be easy to find a Priest who wouldn't care about procedural and doctrinal things.  But in Colombia, I think the situation is different.  They are more traditional about such things and finding such a Preist would be more difficult.

El Diablo

[NW Jim]

... in response to Find another priest, posted by El Diablo on Oct 4, 2002

When's that moniker change going into effect?  

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: The Devil advises, tell the truth?, posted by NW Jim on Oct 4, 2002

My fiancee asked the same thing...I'm still working on it.  (-:

[LouieB]

... in response to Re: Re: The Devil advises, tell the trut..., posted by El Diablo on Oct 5, 2002

n/t

[Patrick]

... in response to Re: Re: The Devil advises, tell the trut..., posted by El Diablo on Oct 5, 2002

If you want to change your user name, just let me know what you want it changed to.

[FredFresno]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by Cali vet on Oct 3, 2002

You're getting married in Colombia?  I'm bringing my fiancee up on a K-1, but we did rather thoroughly investigate getting married in the Catholic Church in Colombia.  She's Catholic; I'm a former Methodist/former Unitarian Universalist.  It appeared that the Archdiocese of Bogota and the local parish here were inclined to cooperate on our being married in the Church.  I would get pre-marital counseling there and she would get it there.  The Archdiocese of Bogota would have wanted to see:

1) A baptismal certificate from me (given that they recognized my upbringing as Christian).

2) A statement before a civil notary saying that I was single and eligable to marry (I believe in lieu of an official government document in Colombia that serves that purpose)

3) A character testimonial concerning my religious upbringing and civil status from someone who has known me for a long time (e.g., my mother), and witnessed by a representative of the Catholic Church here.

I believe they may have also wished to see an official birth certificate, which my novia already has.  These documents could be in Spanish, English, French, or Italian.  I got the impression that marriage to a non-Christian, agnostic, atheist, etc. MAY also have been acceptable.  Obviously your mileage may vary, depending on the Colombian archdiocese and US parish involved.  

The parish where I live has an English-speaking priest and a Spanish-speaking priest.  I get the impression that neither speaks the other's language well, although they have office staff who are solidly bilingual.  The Spanish-speaking preist seems to be more concerned with conversions than with the sincerity of the religious views of potential converts, whereas the English-speaking priest seems to feel the opposite.  I'm sure it has more to do with the individuals involved than with English- and Spanish-speaking culture.

[Pete E]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by Cali vet on Oct 3, 2002

In the US you could just get some counseling by a priest and promise to raise the kids catholic.You didn't have to become a catholic yourself.
My brother in law did this to marry my sister,because of all our family pressure for a catholic wedding.They got married in the church,which solved the immediate family situation.Many years later he is still pissed at them for having to consent to go along with their enlightened ideas on things like birth control.Only the pope's method,abstinance,is acceptable.The same one that gives us huge overpopulation and poverty in many third world  countries,and millions of abortions.
Well my parents got their catholic wedding,but the church has never seen my sister or brother in law since.
As far as Colombia,I think the typical Colombian and catholic solution,money,would probably work fine.You just have to find the right priest,which shouldn't be too hard.
If Frank Sinatra could buy an annullment after 20 years of marriage and 3 kids anything is possible,particularly in Colombia.

Pete

[burbuja2]

... in response to Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by Pete E on Oct 4, 2002

Petey, I mean Pete E, you are once again right on all counts!  I already told my fiancee that this is the last time I'm stepping into a Catholic church.  The illegitimacy rate in El Salvador approaches 70% yet the government can't encourage birth control due to Catholic opposition.  Would you like to know what public controversy the Archbishop is involved in?  Whether the country's 3 casinos should have their gaming licenses revoked.  By the way, if you want to become unpopular there real fast, try criticizing these priorities.  If I didn't know better, I would almost think the Church had a hidden agenda to perpetuate ignorance and poverty in Latin America.

[Pete E]

... in response to Still batting 1000, posted by burbuja2 on Oct 4, 2002

Got to have your priorities strait!The other possibility is they were involved in the casinos and wanted to keep them going.Not sure what side they were on,but I'm sure it was their own side.Any of that revenue tricle down to the poor?
Maybe for the grand church they can go to,gold plated in a land of poverty.

Pete

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by Pete E on Oct 4, 2002


Hey Pete,

IMO your brother is directing his anger in the wrong direction.  He should not have agreed to whatever it was he agreed to if he did not believe it or want to follow it.  What about personal responsibility for our choices.  

You should also remember that the Church did not seek him out at all but it was he who came knocking on the Church's door. He wanted the Church to marry him so that he could make his wife's family happy.  He wanted the Church to sanction something but wanted the church to throw away whatever rules they had adopted for such sanctions.  My friend who is a Priest will absolutely not marry a couple unless both parties understand and agree to it.  He never holds a gun to their head and would prefer they get married in Vegas than enter into something they are uncomfortable with.  But human nature what it is, some people will agree to something in word but in their heart it's a different matter.  They really have no one to blame but themself it seems to me.

El Diablo

[Pete E]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by El Diablo on Oct 4, 2002

ED,
It was my brother in law,who married my sister.Actually this is a very old story,they have been married 45 years.
Was he going to let his wifes family's notions that the daughter should be married in the church stop him from marrying the woman he loved or was he going to go along with the program,swallow the BS,marry the woman he loved and then they could do whatever they wanted after getting by the social requirement of the catholic wedding?
He did the latter,but as I said is still pissed at them about it.No way that was going to be the church they would attend.The BS of the catholic wedding was the last catholic BS he had to endure.
People do alot of things like this just to make the old people happy.The old people being very much brainwashed that the catholic church is the only church authorized by god.Even to walk in to another one and you were  flirting with mortal sin,drop dead at that time and you are headed for the big barbeque,even if the story is basically the same under a different beauracracy.So they played the social game to appease the old folks.There were quite young,19 and 18 at the time and felt they had to appease my parents,actually just my father.If they were a little older maybe they could have just said,listen ,we would like to make you happy by marrying in your church,but we don't really believe what they are telling us and don't intend to live that way.So we are getting married where we want,you are welcome to attend.And no,we will not be going to hell for this choice.Even if there were a hell it would certainly require a little more than that to go there.Funny,as I previously said,the pope rewrote history recently and denied all of the things they most certainly said about going to a literal hell.You can't lie to a person who heard it told to them  hundreds of times.
Now maybe the church got a little kinder and gentler in your generation,but hellfire was certainly taught as a litteral situation in the 50's and probably much more recently,probably today also.The pope can say we don't teach that anymore,but to say we didn't is an absolute lie.Nobody associated with the church in the fifties could truthfully say that.I guess the most kind thing I could say is that he is so senile he forgot.The other option is outrageous liar.
Just another point about the church at the time.They made a very big deal out of sending the kids for indoctrination.They knew that they would have tough time ever selling the story to a free thinking adult.
Even with its history that runs from torture to nonsense I do think that perhaps the more modern church can be a good place for some people to attend,you being one of them.Actually years after I stopped being a catholic I would only go in the church for weddings or funerals.I met a very likeable and with it priest at a funeral.It might have been fun to have a discussion of religion,but we didn't go there.

Pete

[El Diablo]

... in response to Re: Catholic vs. civil , posted by Pete E on Oct 5, 2002

I don't know what the Pope said recently about Hell but I doubt very much that he was lying.  Christianity, Catholic and Protestant alike have always taught the existence of hell.  For a Catholic the existence of hell as a place apart from God and eternal in nature is a doctrine and there can be no fudging away from this position.  It is a place of great suffering.   But where hell is, if it in fact is a physical place or what the suffering would be is supposition from a Catholic perspective.

Did the Catechism teacher describe hell as a fire pit where evil people go when they die, YES, they did and many Saints and Popes through the centuries said similar things.  They are only repeating the images that Scripture itself makes when describing Hell.  But it is important to understand the dinstinction between a defined doctrine and just general suppositions.  Doctrine carries more weight whereas a supposition is something you're not necessarily required to believe. An example of this would be the doctrine of limbo, it's an interesting theory and many people have actually taught it and written about it however it is not doctrinal.  It is a mystery and will only revealed in the fullness of time.  

The Pope was most likely making a distinction between those things doctrinal and those things not, Hell itself is absolutely doctrinal but the firey pit imagery is not.

El Diablo

[Pete E]

... in response to Catholic vs. civil , posted by El Diablo on Oct 5, 2002

E D ,
The only other hope for the pope's veracity is that he was misquoted.What I read is he said "we have never taught that hell was a literal place",but went on to describe a condition apart from god.The first  part "we have never  Taught" is the operative frase here.If he said that it is most certainly not true.Call it a lie,call it what you will.To say something that you know to be absolutely untrue qualifies as a lie in my book.I think what we really have here is revesionist thin king.They thought about it,decided that yes hell was not a literal place(thank god they finally figured that out and admitted it),stated their new position,and then very inacurately added "we have never taught".Yes they did,yes they did,absolutely no question about it.Is he saying that his represnatives were not authorized to teach that?regardless they did teach it,wholesale,so "we have never" is entirely absolutely untrue.As I said I think its revisionist thinking,they think the can form a new policy(admittedly a whole lot better one)and just disavow what happened in the past.I'm sure he didn't consider it a lie.I am also sure if he said that it was a lie.Perhaps he just got carried away and switched from "we don't " to "we didn't'.If he said that its not true,and he had to know better.call itva misstatement,or call it what it is,a lie.Again unless he didn't say "we have never" it is a lie.
As for yourdiscusssion of doctrine and supposition,this is also revisionist,or excuseing.We were never told the difference,we were told hell was a literal place,simple as that.
I think I told the story before,but I will repeat it.When I was in junior high an evangalist priest came to town.He met with all age groups and catagories of parishinors.One rainy afternoon it was the junior high school boys.There were about 12 of us,sitting in the front of the church,listening to this guy.He got to the fire and brimstone part.He pulled out a dollar bill in one hand and a cigarette lighter in the other.He said "do you have any idea what its like to burn in hell for eternity?"."If anyone can hold their finger over this flame for 5 seconds I will give them this dollar."This freckle faced kid said "I'LL do it."he put his finger over the lighter,the priest fired it up a proceeded to count very slow. one----,two---,three--- YeeaaaH!!!
The message I got was you might think this is a bunch of
bull sh-t but do you really want to take a chance?Its teaching by fear,to overcome all reason and rationale with fear.Untill you step on the other side of that fear you are not really free to think at all,which was exactly where they wanted you.Once I stepped  out of that fear and declared I will not be controlled by other peoples nonsensical ideas regardles of how they might try to scare  me in to it,I never had a bit of use for they catholic church since.They tried to scare me in to their beliefs.If I had lived a few centuries earlier they would have literally tortured me in to accepting them,or at least keeping my mouth shut about not accepting them,ala the wedding permission.
So what am I supposed to think when the pope,who has spent his whole life in the church,says "we have never taught hell was a literal place?"They didn't teach that in Poland?I think they did,he probably personally taught it himself.I would bet a million to one he did.Not to do so would to have not been a priest at the time.He may think he can change the past with a new position.He cannot.Its history,was what it was.If he said that he lied,pure and simple.Absolutely no question.Now I'm sure there is some rationale,which I am equally sure is also a lie.You cannot change the past with pronowncement.It wa what is was,personally experienced by yours trully,and I cannot believe the higher ups in the church were unaware.Thats not at at plausable.
Question,is it still the churches possition to deny the inquisition as it was when I was a kid?Another place you can't change history.I would think even they would have to fess up now,perhaps saying it was not our policy.Just a few maverics gone astray,like Pope Innocent(thats pretty funny) the whatever that decided it was OK to torture people to get them to accept their own usually inaccurate (as in order of the universe)version of the truth.
The catholic church has alot of baggage.They can change of course and change they will if they are to survive.But you can't change the past.To try to is to make yourself a liar.
Better to admit the wrongdoing and move on.But the truth comes hard in old archaic beaucracies that think they have an exclusive franchise with god.Just look at the pedifile priest handling.Deny it,cover it up,send them on to a new batch of kids.In this case it happens to be criminal.I hope some robes go to jail.Just answer the Question,yes or no.
Try the doctrine vs supposition defense and add perjury to your charges.

Pete