Thursday, March 27, 2008
Brown’s Scottish Catholic problem?
Sorry, another Telegraph link. But Damian Thompson’s line on Gordon Brown’s reasons for proposing an end to the Act of Succession: he’s fearful of losing a solid base of Catholic Labour voters in central Scotland… Over to you?
Mick Fealty @ 10:46 PM
“What is this ‘Tammalloys’ malarkey of which you speak? “
Catholic street gang in Glasgow.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 11:34 PMDewi,
Ulster done good - at least for a while. Ospreys didn’t look too sharp for long periods - but I watched the Munster game and they looked pretty poor - worrying for game against Gloucester.
Posted by on Mar 28, 2008 @ 11:34 PMOspreys gonnna beat the world me thinks. Ulster useless.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 12:08 AMI see that Mr. Lund has posted some nonsense about the Catholic Church so I did some research on the Web about Ne Temere and the rules and regulations of the Catholic Church with respect to mixed marriages.
Before I really begin, however, the proper term is the Catholic Church, not the “Roman Catholic Church”. Roman defines the rite that is followed by a specific Catholic Church or diocese. There are, IIRC, some 23 “Churches” is the Catholic Church, which differ by the rites and language used in the celebration of the Eucharistic Liturgy (the Mass) and some disciplianry rules, e.g. a married clergy. Doctrine, however, is the same in all and the Pope is the head of all the “Churches”. Over 90% of the world’s one billion Catholics follow the Latin or Roman rite. So, when you are talking about the way Mass is celebrated or the marital status of the clergy, the term Roman Catholic is appropriate and correct. Otherwise, all billion are, properly, just “Catholics”.
Now Ne Temere is an interesting piece of historical literature but was replaced at least 25 years ago by a restated Code of Canon Law. Sections 1124 through 1129 cover the issues of Mixed Marriages. The key Canons for our purposes are 1124 and 1125:
CHAPTER VI: MIXED MARRIAGES
Canon 1124 Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptised persons, one of whom was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church.
Canon 1125 The local Ordinary can grant this permission if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled:
Canon 1125.1 the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the catholic Church;
Canon 1125.2 the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party.
Canon 1125.3 both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.
Seems to me that Mr. Lund has vastly overstated the dangers of Catholic Canon Law with respect to mixed marriages.
BTW, for those interested, the full text of the decree Ne Temere can be found at http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=5167
Seems to me that Mr. Lund really doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 01:53 AMSammy
>>I am led to believe that there was considerable job discrimation in Scotland<<
‘Was’ being the operative word here, thankfully long gone. The Church of Scotland has apologised for their shameful behaviour and the OO have been terminally sidelined. All in all we have the makings of a progressive society.
Willow.
Doesn’t matter, it is labour that the Catholic church is in with the bricks. Suits Labour more than the church, especially right now. Withdraw that support and we now have exibit A, an SNP govt. Remember wee Alex threatened to call an election two months ago if his budget wasn’t passed. A minority government would have been a majority according to the polls.
Scotsman
They reckon that Labour only need appeal to something like 10% of middle English swinging voters(someone correct me if I am wrong) Well Catholics make up around 20% of voters in Scotland, without even half of them who vote Labour are in permanent opposition. Thus the importance of the cardinal is not over stated to those MSP’s who wish to retain their seats, and the media recognise this. The SNP almost won Airdrie/Coatbridge a Catholic majority seat, practically unthinkable ever.
The Tim Malloy’s cum Timaloise are an endearing term for Celtic, thus if you are a Tim, or a jungle(after a famous area of Celtic park) Jim. Then you are a Celtic fan, or is sometimes used by non-Catholics to denote Catholics.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 02:06 AM“Look out for hirelings, King Paddy of England
Search every kingdom where breathes a slave
For Father Murphy of County Wexford
Sweeps o’er the land like a mighty waveWe took Camolin and Enniscorthy
And Wexford storming drove out our foes
‘Twas at Slieve Coilte our pikes were reeking
With the crimson blood of the beaten Yeos”Doesn’t sound quite right somehow!! The truth of the matter is most Irish Catholics/nationalists/republicans don’t give a monkey’s about the Act of Settlement. None of us particularly wants to become part of the British royal family and it exposes supporters (of the Act) as being sectarian. I can understand British Catholics not being too pleased about it though.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 03:10 AMsammaguire
We are Catholics who live in either Britain or the six counties. It is a symbol of the state’s continuing lack of desire to value all of her people equally.
Sammy
Forgot to explain the colonial mentality thing. Here in the central belt of Scotland there was/is a serious lack of respect for tcheuchters(Highlanders/Gaels and their supposed backward ways. Thus anyone not au fait with civilised speech and manners/customs is derided. Hence the Welsh treatemnt of their selves, eg the Cardiff/Swansea divide, and the Irish looking down on the Welsh speakers probably because they were a level above them on the road to Anglicisation.
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 09:40 AMCanon 1125.1 the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the catholic Church;
Interesting Canons Bob. It would be nice to know what “prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith” means.
It would also be interesting to know what Rome would deem as undertaking ‘all in his or her power’ Would Rome favour this law over and above that of cival law?
Canon 1125.2 the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party.
Who would want to marry into this type of bondage? It would seem better to live in freedom by not being in a mixed marriage rather than favouring a life of spiritual bondage. God had the best plan, when he said “Be ye not unequally yoked together”
Canon 1125.3 both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.
and no doubt if either party was to forget these obligations they would receive spiritual damnation
Posted by on Mar 29, 2008 @ 02:42 PM“Interesting Canons Bob. It would be nice to know what “prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith” means.”
I think the statement is clear enough, but what do you think it means? It seems to me that it only means walking away from all the practices that are “Catholic”, e.g. going to Mass, receiving the Sacraments, teaching the children to do the same, etc. If the spouse refuses to allow all such practices, it would seem to me that there is a more than adequate cause for a civil divorce and may well be grounds for a dissolution of the Sacramental marriage. Especially if force or violence is used to prevent such practices.
“Who would want to marry into this type of bondage? It would seem better to live in freedom by not being in a mixed marriage rather than favouring a life of spiritual bondage. God had the best plan, when he said “Be ye not unequally yoked together””
What “spiritual bondage”? All this says is that the non-Catholic partner must be aware of the religious obligations of the Catholic partner. Seems to me that this is perfectly proper and, indeed, necessary if there is to be a true marriage, Sacramental or not.
“and no doubt if either party was to forget these obligations they would receive spiritual damnation”
That’s a matter for the Lord God, not me, not you and not even the Pope —Protestant of Catholic.
Seems to me that some folk are determined to be offended —even when they have no cause.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 01:11 AM“Interesting Canons Bob. It would be nice to know what “prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith” means.”
I think the statement is clear enough, but what do you think it means? It seems to me that it only means walking away from all the practices that are “Catholic”, e.g. going to Mass, receiving the Sacraments, teaching the children to do the same, etc. If the spouse refuses to allow all such practices, it would seem to me that there is a more than adequate cause for a civil divorce and may well be grounds for a dissolution of the Sacramental marriage. Especially if force or violence is used to prevent such practices.
but that doesn’t exlain the part, ”prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith”. I would understand that to mean, that the spouse must not be allowed to question or challenge the Sacrements mentioned above, not just refusing to allow these practices. If this is the case, in which I think it is, then the spouse would be in spiritual bondage.
What “spiritual bondage”? All this says is that the non-Catholic partner must be aware of the religious obligations of the Catholic partner. Seems to me that this is perfectly proper and, indeed, necessary if there is to be a true marriage, Sacramental or not.
but it also says the Catholic party must be prepared to ‘remove dangers of defecting from the faith’, which must include the other partners right to voice his/her opinion to the Catholic partner or to his own children, especially if that opinion was in opposition against Roman belief.
“and no doubt if either party was to forget these obligations they would receive spiritual damnation”
That’s a matter for the Lord God, not me, not you and not even the Pope —Protestant of Catholic.
Bob, try telling that to the the Vatican. They can still excommunicate.
Seems to me that some folk are determined to be offended —even when they have no cause.
considering the Canons directly affect those who aren’t Roman Catholic, I think it correct that people should ask for more exact explanations, don’t you? I for one would want to know more, especially if my right to spread the Gospel could be prohibited.
Posted by on Mar 30, 2008 @ 10:58 AMHere we go again! It seems that some folk are determined to go to absurdities to find something to make them feel oppressed. Sheesh!!!!
And, it seems that these same “critics” don’t even have the courtesty to use proper terminology with their continued misuse of the term “Roman Catholic”.
“I would understand that to mean, that the spouse must not be allowed to question or challenge the Sacrements mentioned above, not just refusing to allow these practices.” Depends on how it’S done. Discussing the questions with mutual respect is certainly reasonable and proper. Continuously harping and complaining about the differences in belief and refusing to accept that such differences are what they signed up for is quite another. It seems that the Catholic partner must respect the beliefs of the non-Catholic but that also means the non-Catholic must respect the beliefs of the Catholic partner.
Bottom line: no issue as long as the parties respect each other’s beliefs. Serious lack of respect could well be legitimate grounds for civil divorce.
“Bob, try telling that to the the Vatican. They can still excommunicate.”
Obviously, you don’t know what excommunication means. But, for your information, it is Catholic beleif and practice that only God can proounce spiritual damnation at the time of judgement.
Asd I said, it’s pretty clear that UMH really doesn’t know whereof he speaks and is determined to find offense where there is none.
Posted by on Mar 31, 2008 @ 05:29 AMBefore I really begin, however, the proper term is the Catholic Church, not the “Roman Catholic Church”. Roman defines the rite that is followed by a specific Catholic Church or diocese. There are, IIRC, some 23 “Churches” is the Catholic Church, which differ by the rites and language used in the celebration of the Eucharistic “Liturgy (the Mass) and some disciplianry rules, e.g. a married clergy. Doctrine, however, is the same in all and the Pope is the head of all the “Churches”. Over 90% of the world’s one billion Catholics follow the Latin or Roman rite. So, when you are talking about the way Mass is celebrated or the marital status of the clergy, the term Roman Catholic is appropriate and correct. Otherwise, all billion are, properly, just “Catholics”. “
The ‘Roman’ aspect is political, some of the other aspects have yet to be resolved,
The Copts (for example) may have been unfairly stigmatized, and of course, Constantinople (which is also a fully Roman Patriarchate) etc.
Non-residence ended up being characteristic of Latin Patriarchates.
Most or all were abolished (1964?) There is only one Catholic Church.
G.
Posted by on Mar 31, 2008 @ 07:52 AM
