My fiance is catholic and I will be starting RCIA classes in September. We have decided not to wed until I have been accepted into the Catholic church. I have always dreamed of having an outdoor wedding ceremony, but I also want our wedding to be in accordance with the Catholic church and more importantly blessed by God. Is it possible to do both or is it necessary to be wed inside the church building? Has anyone ever heard of a priest performing the wedding ceremony (not the wedding mass) outside of the church? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

-- Ginger Nimmo (justginger7@hotmail.com), April 14, 2003

Answers

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Ginger

I'd say no, it does not have to be inside a building. I have not heard that question before. Since I have been at outdoor masses, one beautiful mass in the canyons of southern Utah while camping, that I don't see why you can't have a wedding outdoors. The Eucharist is the most sacred element of our faith so I'm sure a wedding can be done outdoors as long as you two are both Catholics in good standing as you say you will be.

By the way, welcome to the Catholic Church, we have been waiting for you!

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 14, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Hello Ginger,

First of all, welcome to the Catholic Faith and congratulations on your engagement. Concerning your question on outdoor/indoor weddings, I think that outdoor weddings are permitted in Canon Law, but each bishop may be allowed to set the policy of his individual diocese. Hence, there may be some dioceses that do not allow outdoor weddings without a dispensation from the bishop. Those that do allow it may still require some paper work called a "change of form" to be processed. But don't take my word on this; I studied Canon Law but my memory on this is a bit shakey and I am unable to look it up at the moment. In any event, it is something that you will need to check with your pastor.

God bless, -Eric

-- Eric Filmer (midgardia@hotmail.com), April 15, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Omigoodness! congrats on your impending wedding and welcome to the family! i don't know the answer to your question, but if you manage to find out from your priest, please do put it up here. I'd like to know too.

-- marie (m@peace.com), April 15, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Actually, i can answer your question without saying, well, i think that... the fact of the matter is that a marraige celebration must be done inside of a catholic church. this formally excludes all outdoor marraige services. in the past, people have dealt with this by holding the wedding in the church and then having the reception outside. cheers on your marraige though. also, there is no such thing as a wedding service, it is a mass with a special purpose to be held in a church like others.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 15, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

paul

I have attended an outdoor mass. So either the priest that day "broke the rules" or you are wrong. It seems that if a missionary priest in an undeveloped region needed to hold mass before a church was built than it could be done anywhere. It seems only a priest is needed to confect a Eucharist. Any other posters got a clue???

-- Mike H. (michael.hitzelberger@vscc.cc.tn.us), April 15, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Paul

A Catholic wedding ceremony can indeed take place outwith the Celebration of Mass. I've attended such a Wedding, inside a Catholic Church between a Catholic and a non-Catholic. Although the Mass wasn't celebrated, the Eucharist was given to Catholics who wished to receive.

Mike H

You're quite right, a Mass doesn't have to be celebrated only inside a church. It's very common to have Masses celebrated inside schools, prisons, hospitals etc and I've also attended several Masses in halls and offices. The Holy Father has celebrated Mass outside in public parks for half a million people.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 15, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

well, perhaps i will clarify then...

a wedding service, containing a eucharist and any portion of scripture contains the two essential elements of being a mass. Second, if you actually read canon law and the catechism you will see multiple reference to the fact that weddings must be celebrated inside of the house of God. There are of course exceptions to this case, in areas where there is no church to say mass in, or in areas where there is not enough space to fit people who need to attend mass (the vatican on holy days of obligation, for example). a seeming exception to this rule would be the celebration of mass in areas like hospitals and schools. however, masses celebrated in these areas are often celebrated in chapels (for hospitols and some private schools) or in a room, if there is no other option. however, to deliberately hold a mass outside of the house of God without good reason, (we want an outdoor wedding not falling under the category of good reason) is violation of doctrine.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 15, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Hi Ginger, In some cases, it is possible to have a “wedding ceremony” or service (ie. without a mass) outdoors. Ultimately, this will depend on the local ordinary (Bishop – in your case), for it is within his discretion to grant such a request (Canon 1118 – 2). Most dioceses however, do not permit such a service. The reason for this is the Church strongly believes every sacrament, including marriage, should be supported by the faith community in a place of worship wherever possible. You should contact your pastor, for he will be able to clarify what stipulations concerning outdoor weddings are in effect in your diocese.

There is no stipulation in canon law requiring that a wedding take place in conjunction with the celebration of the Eucharist. “Wedding services” (ie. entrance procession, opening prayer, Scripture readings, homily, exchange of consent, rings, and the blessing) are usually chosen when one of the persons to be married is not a Catholic and the couple wishes to avoid any suggestion of disunity among the faithful who have gathered by precluding some of them from Communion.

Good luck with your wedding, and God bless you and your fiance.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 16, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

In order for a service to be a Mass, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist must be celebrated. To celebrate the Liturgy of the Eucharist the priest must consecrate the bread and wine, which becomes the Body and Blood of the Risen Jesus. Simply distributing the Eucharist in a service does not constitute a Mass. Masses are regularly celebrated outside of churches, and can be celebrated in any venue that he deems suitable.

The Sacrament of Marriage does not have to be celebrated during Mass; just as the Sacrament of Confirmation does not have to be celebrated during Mass.

The Episcopal Conference responsible for the jurisdiction in which the marriage is taking place decides whether a marriage can be celebrated in a place other than a church.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 16, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Are you from a small village?

-- Peter Majorca (PeterM8@aol.com), April 16, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Ultimately, this will depend on the local ordinary (Bishop – in your case),

actually, this is a fallacy. the mother church states that weddings must be held inside of churches... there is a strong tendency for bishops in the USA, who, might i remind you, grew up in a very liberal era, to deny this simple doctrine. however, this does not change the fact that the church in rome has decreed that weddings be held inside of a church.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 16, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

What Ed (Catholic4444) said is not a fallacy. One can marry outwith a church building depending on where one is being married. Here one cannot be married in any venue other than a church, as this decision has been taken by our Episcopal Conference. In other countries this is not so. Canon Law states this clearly:

Can. 1115 Marriages are to be celebrated in the parish in which either of the contracting parties has a domicile or a quasidomicile or a month's residence or, if there is question of vagi, in the parish in which they are actually residing. With the permission of the proper Ordinary or the proper parish priest, marriages may be celebrated elsewhere. Can. 1118 §1 A marriage between Catholics, or between a catholic party and a baptized non-Catholic, is to be celebrated in the parish church. By permission of the local Ordinary or of the parish priest, it may be celebrated in another church or oratory. §2 The local Ordinary can allow a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place. §3 A marriage between a catholic party and an unapprised party may be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place. Can. 1119 Apart from a case of necessity, in the celebration of marriage those rites are to be observed which are prescribed in the liturgical books approved by the Church, or which are acknowledged by lawful customs. Can. 1120 The Episcopal Conference can draw up its own rite of marriage, in keeping with those usages of place and people which accord with the Christian spirit; it is to be reviewed by the Holy See, and it is without prejudice to the law that the person who is present to assist at the marriage is to ask for and receive the expression of the consent of the contracting parties.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), April 16, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

“actually this is a fallacy” – Paul, where is your proof of this? I’ve quoted you canon law, you've stated a fact with no substantiation. Can you provide me with your source? If you choose to refute someone on this forum then please support your argument with reference to Church guidelines and/or law. Where has “Rome decreed that weddings be held inside a church”?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 17, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

go to ewtn.com and ask there, its a Catholic funded organization, im sure they can quote you exactly why and where it is in the cannon law

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Can. 1118 §1 A marriage between Catholics, or between a catholic party and a baptized non-Catholic, is to be celebrated in the parish church. By permission of the local Ordinary or of the parish priest, it may be celebrated in another church or oratory

SHABANG... there it is folks, thanks Sara, cannon law says weddings must be held within a church, even subject to our council

TO ED: you have a question over whether or not a bishop is allowed to supplant the authority of the mother church in rome? as a catholic i would think this should be very clear to you. Since the concept of centralized church authority is part and parcel of the catholic tradition, the authority of Rome is far superior to that of any single bishop. therefore, it is a liturgical violation for a bishop to deny the cannon law and allow a wedding without the church.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

Paul, when you make a statement here that is challenged, the onus is not on the challenger to go to any website, including EWTN, to prove you are correct. That responsibility falls squarely on your shoulders.

It might help in our discussion if you read everything that is put before you. In Canon 1118 –2 above you can clearly see that the Bishop (local ordinary) has been given the authority to permit weddings outside of a church or oratory. As other Catholics have attested to here at this site, they have attended such weddings away from a church or oratory.

As far as, it being a “a liturgical violation for a bishop to deny the cannon law and allow a wedding without the church.” I have no idea what you are talking about and I doublt very much if you do either.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 17, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

ed, sorry to inform you, i asked my theology teacher whether or not it is acceptable to hold an outside wedding celebration and she said no. keep in mind this woman is a doctorate of judeo-christian cultures AND is a dominican sister.

Insomuch as a bishop being able to allow a wedding outdoors, you should read all of what is put in front of you. the wording is that they may allow the wedding to be held at another suitable place other than a catholic church or chapel... this does not include the outdoors. the case is that a catholic wedding may be held at a protestant church. the outdoors is not a valid location. catholics being wed in a protestant church must also have a catholic priest co- preside with a protestant minister in order to ensure that the catholic requirements for marraige are met.

third, i do know exactly what im talking about. if you dont know what it means to deny cannon law and make liturgical error then you have a serious problem in that you dont know several basic vocabulary words of your faith. I would suggest you read the text 'Mass Confusion.' it talks alot about the nature of liturgical error and the tendency of american bishops to allow violations of liturgical laws.

finally, going to EWTN or to college and taking theology is your responsibility, not mine. im not here to teach you what you should already know, as a catholic it is YOUR responsibility to educate yourself about your church.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

paul, I didn't come to the forum to match theology degrees with you or the good sister, yet I too, have schooling in theology. I would caution you however that before you make outlandish statements and accuse others of shirking their responsibilities regarding their faith that you first go back and read what you have said here.

My comments stand on the proof I have offered as stated by the Catholic Church. I never made unsubstantiated claims about our faith. Every claim I've made was offered with references to Church teaching. You however, have offered nothing but opinion and what you were able to glean at the eleventh hour from what Sara posted.

Since it is clear you have no desire to debate intelligently by substantiating your claims when refuting anything I have said, because you're too lazy or ignorant concerning the subject or both, there really isn't much point in continuing this discussion. Rest assured, however, Catholic marriages have taken place outside of a church or oratory and these same marriages have been recognised by God and by the Church as being valid and all the doctrate degrees in Judeo-Christian cultures won't change that.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 17, 2003.

Response to Does a catholic wedding have to take place inside the church building?

WHAT?!?! ive not once made an unintelligable statement during this entire thread... in fact the portion of Cannon Law that you base your entire arguement on is out of context... especially as it regards to the Episcople Council having declared that outdoors is not a suitable substitute for a Church. In all ways this is a sacrament, like any other and according to my professor, who i might remind you is considered an EXPERT by both the Catholic University which she is employed in and by the culture at large, the sacrament of marraige was meant to be celebrated at the altar. The very Cannon Law you refer to states that whenever possible marraige should be held within a Catholic Church, if not then, then it may be held at another suitable place of worship (THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM THE CANNON LAW THAT YOU CLAIM TO ASCRIBE TO). Any violation of this doctrine by a priest is NOT going to make it acceptable... it is still a denial of the ruling of the Episcopal council.

The second problem with your arguement: you are prone to the standard naturalist fallacy... this is because the arguement for marraiges being held outdoors is an empirical observation on your part. that is to say, you are seeing the way that people sometimes behave (having weddings outdoors for example) and assuming that it is morally justified for them to do so. This is not the case. Primarily, this is because you are relying on a base form of teleological ethics. Remember, however, that religion is not based on teleological forms, instead it is based on the principle of divine command, that is, a deontological perspective. Instead of seeing the way things are done and calling it good, the deontological perspective stresses the need for moral duty. this moral duty is presented very clearly in the cannon law presented by Sara and is affirmed by the Episcopal Council.

Third, the burden of proof: I have used the proof provided by Sara... so what? The cannon law is what i should be using to prove my point and i have done so. EWTN was just a place i recommended that you could go to get MORE information. now i have proven my point using the principles applied by philosophies on ethics. look at the facts: the cannon says must be held in a place of worship, or other suitable place, the episcopal council has affirmed that this is the case and that in almost all situations a suitable location is not outdoors*, an EXPERT on judeo Christian culture who is employed to teach at a CATHOLIC institution reaffirmed this, and furthermore, the deontological perspective of duty to serve absolute moral law all say you are wrong... i urge you to stop using self interpretation of the cannon law and consider the interpretation of the council to which you are responsible, remember that one of the key principle of the catholic church that separates us from other churches is the idea of centralized church authority and NOT self interpretation.

Now, im not going to call you an idiot or unintelligable, because i am above resorting to ad hominem logical fallacies to attempt to prove a point, but you need to check your facts.

*i have discovered through research that there are some protestant churches which are outdoors (namely they have pews and altars and all the other necessary components, minus walls. the episcopal council never mentioned this as not being a place of worship, so it stands to reason that an outdoor church, although not a green grassy park or field could serve as a place for a wedding.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 17, 2003.

It seems to me that anyone purporting to have so much knowledge would know that it's CANON law, rather than CANNON law, unless it's to be enforced by use of an ancient weapon. That said, the Church makes it quite difficult, if not impossible, to have an outdoor wedding, unless one is a celebrity, or a generous millionaire.

-- Mrs, Skeptical (veryprivate@nowhere.com), May 18, 2003.

As many of the previous answers have stated Canon Law does require that weddings take place within a church building. A bishop or other ordinary (e.g. a Vicar General) can dispense from this requirement. Practically speaking however this dispensation is almost never given.

Look at it this way, we've bothered to go through the process of consecrating a sacred space to worship and perform sacraments in. Why wouldn't we then use that sacred space?

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 18, 2003.

oh good Lord, save me from my spelling.

sorry ms skepticle, that was the biggest ad hominem illogical attack ive seen here yet.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 19, 2003.

"sorry ms skepticle, that was the biggest ad hominem illogical attack ive seen here yet."

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 19, 2003.

----------- Sorry, paul, but simply pointing out that you need to improve your spelling is not an ad hominem attack. And what's illogical about the obvious conclusion that money talks? That's the way it's always been. One of the Kennedy relatives had an outdoor Catholic ceremony, on a yacht, as I recall. I'm not complaining, paul. My Catholic wedding (inside) has resulted in a 37-year marriage as of this year. But the same result could have been achieved outdoors in my opinion. This whole discussion reminds me of the old Church regulation regarding meat on Friday. It's just a passing rule, and in later years will seem silly. Since I'm already in my own later years, it seems silly to me right now. I'll certainly never marry again, so it's not worth arguing about it.

-- Mrs. Skeptical (veryprivate@nowhere.com), May 19, 2003.

thanks for the explanation...

i know i have some troubles spelling, but without punctuation i type at seventy wpm, so i sometimes hit keys twice without thinking about it. basically, i know that money talks... but it shouldnt. im not debating about whether or not an outdoor marraige has occured, im debating about whether or not it should. a yacht seems a terrible substitute to a place of worship if you ask me.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 20, 2003.

Jmj

QUOTE: One of the Kennedy relatives had an outdoor Catholic ceremony, on a yacht, as I recall.

COMMENT: If I had been the bishop, I may not have allowed it. However, I suspect that the reasons it was requested and allowed were (1) a desire for privacy and (2) a wish to preserve a religious atmosphere. I imagine that the bride or groom wanted to keep the ceremony as small and quiet as possible, having witnessed previous circuslike Kennedy affairs.

QUOTE: This whole discussion reminds me of the old Church regulation regarding meat on Friday. It's just a passing rule, and in later years will seem silly.

COMMENT: Ah, another uninformed Catholic speaks up! It is not an "old Church regulation," but a disciplinary rule that still exists. We are all REQUIRED to perform some penitential act EVERY Friday of the year, and abstinence from meat is strongly recommended. The Church allows (but does not require) local bishops' conferences to specify alternatives to abstinence -- or even to leave it up to each person to choose something on his/her own (as the U.S. bishops did in the 1970s). Abstinence from meat will never "seem silly" to good Catholics.

If "Mrs. Skeptical" has not been abstaining and has not been doing anything else penitential every Friday for the last 25 to 30 years, I'd suggest that she start doing something penitential every day for the rest of her life, to make up for the omission.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 20, 2003.

"If "Mrs. Skeptical" has not been abstaining and has not been doing anything else penitential every Friday for the last 25 to 30 years, I'd suggest that she start doing something penitential every day for the rest of her life, to make up for the omission." --John

----------- I'll try to read something you've written each day for the rest of my life. No promises, though.

-- Mrs. Skeptical (veryprivate@nowhere.com), May 21, 2003.

Do you really think that God really cares where the union takes place. As Monsenior told us when we got married and were starting to make plans that conflicted with what the Church preferred . . .

"All we need is the two of you, me and two witnesses . . . if anything else is causing you to be distracted or stressed, then perhaps you need to stop and think about what it is that you are here for."

The only thing that is important on that day is that you be ready to hear the voice of God, Christ is going to speak to you in a special way and all you need to do is be ready to listen. if anything else is causing you to stress, I suggest that, perhaps, you put it aside.

You come to this church to be married, you should listen to what she has to say. It's not your's to do as you please. It is not you marrying each other, it is God who brings you here and it will be God who ties the bond.

Peace Ginger, I hope (inside or out) your day will be as special as ours was.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 21, 2003.

of what use is a church, leon, if you dont follow her teachings?

read the above posts, im tired of arguing canon law with people who dont follow the church teachings.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 21, 2003.

Jmj

JOHN: "If 'Mrs. Skeptical' has not been abstaining and has not been doing anything else penitential every Friday for the last 25 to 30 years, I'd suggest that she start doing something penitential every day for the rest of her life, to make up for the omission."

MRS. SKEPTICAL: "I'll try to read something you've written each day for the rest of my life. No promises, though."

RESPONSE: Well, that reading would be a good thing to do also, but don't forget to do the penitential action each day. In fact, the great pleasure you will gain from reading something of mine each day probably would require you to do two penitential actions each day, to balance the books.

But seriously, Madam ... It looks bad when you come back with a rejoinder that attempts to insult me, instead of coming back with words of regret and gratitude, such as these ...
"Good heavens! I had no idea that abstinence was still encouraged and that we are obliged to do some kind of mortification every Friday. When the discipline was changed all those years ago, I must have failed to read about it carefully enough. Thanks, John, for letting me know. By starting now, even though it is very late, and by trying to make up for my past errors of omission, my Purgatory may not be so difficult."

Madam, God doesn't want your "skepticism" or sarcasm, but your faith and humility.
May he bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.

OH...MY....GOODNESS....

Dear John, you are one of the best writers I have ever had the privilege to read...and my favorite authors are Chesterton, Lewis and Belloc...so consider that a great compliment.

Dear Mrs. Skeptical, you are so funny and witty. Your comedy is a God-given gift and made me laugh out loud.

Isn't it great how the Body of Christ is so diverse? We need BOTH of these dear people...the great thinkers and writers, AND the brilliant comedians.

Thanks be to God for the colorful mix he has given us.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 22, 2003.

Oops...I forgot...

Being new to this whole Catholic-thing, I DIDN'T know we were supposed to do a penitential act on Fridays. Thank you, John.

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 22, 2003.

"of what use is a church, leon, if you dont follow her teachings? read the above posts, im tired of arguing canon law with people who dont follow the church teachings."

Little Paul

Go back and read my whole post and tell me what I said that goes against your "beloved canon law."

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 22, 2003.

It's OUR beloved Canon law. Just thought I'd throw that in.

Peace...

-- Victoria (tecdork99@pvfnet.com), May 22, 2003.

leon--

Do you really think that God really cares where the union takes place.

leon, canon law states that if at all possible a marraige should be held in a catholic church. if needed, one can petition there bishop to allow a marraige in some other suitable place. however, an outdoor location is generally NOT acceptable accept under rare circumstances (i noted an example above)

your whole post states that we shouldnt care where a marraige takes place, but that is simply not the case, as OUR (thanks victoria) canon law clearly states. there are suitable locations and poor locations.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 23, 2003.

JOHN :Madam, God doesn't want your "skepticism" or sarcasm, but your faith and humility. May he bless you.

VICTORIA: OH...MY....GOODNESS.... Dear John, you are one of the best writers I have ever had the privilege to read...and my favorite authors are Chesterton, Lewis and Belloc...so consider that a great compliment.

Dear Mrs. Skeptical, you are so funny and witty. Your comedy is a God- given gift and made me laugh out loud.

Isn't it great how the Body of Christ is so diverse? We need BOTH of these dear people...the great thinkers and writers, AND the brilliant comedians.

Thanks be to God for the colorful mix he has given us.

-------------------------- Well, John, it appears that you and I disagree about what God wants from me. You might do better preaching to a younger person, as I'm probably old enough to be your grandmother, and have little time left to benefit from your wisdom. I've done the best I can with what I've been given, and tried to avoid the Pharisees along my journey. A professor I admired once told us that we must be ever-skeptical and never cynical if we are to fulfill our purpose here. While it may be true that YOU don't want my skepticism or my sarcasm, I'm certain God has no problem with it. I'll let you know when I get up there, or if you get there first, you let me know. So you can find me, I'll be that old lady in the third-to-last pew promising my great- grandchildren ice-cream if they'll sit still for THREE MORE MINUTES. (Or I may be in the vestibule with the ones who didn't take me up on my promise.) Just boink me on the head with your halo, and I'll know it's you.

Victoria, I'm happy to hear that you enjoy a laugh now and then. It seems to me that some great writers and thinkers are occasionally funny, and it's purely unintentional. Most comedians, on the other hand, are great writers and thinkers, and it's no accident. But you're right, it takes all kinds, and it would be nice if we could all learn something from one another. Today, I told my 91-year-old aunt about John's penance reminder, and she got all upset about her years of eating meat on Friday with no act of penance. She had a stroke recently, and we took her out for dinner, the first time she's been out in months. She kept grousing about her two brothers, both Monsignors, who had never told her about the penance thing. I told her God wouldn't mind since she didn't KNOW the rule (if it is a rule) and I offered to spend an hour with her each Friday so she could count that as her act of penance. But she ordered fish anyway, and then didn't eat it, because she hates fish. I'm pretty sure she'll go to heaven anyway, even though she wasted food. And I'm not going to tell her about anything else I read on the internet.

And speaking of the internet, John, now I'm going to have to do an internet search to see if what you said is true, and of course to look for loopholes. If it is true, I probably won't thank you, because I'll wish you hadn't told me in the first place. Thank goodness I have short term memory loss.

-- Mrs. Skeptical (veryprivate@nowhere.com), May 24, 2003.

Mrs Skeptical,

John G is quite right when he stated that if one doesn't abstain from meat on Fridays then one is to substitute that act of penance with another. That has always been the case for many years. I remember the great emphasis put on this by the clergy at the time. (Even though I was a child, I hasten to add!!) I know that some of the bishops, clergy and indeed some of the laity still practise the 'no meat on Friday' law.

In order that you may verify this, I’ve copy/pasted the following excerpt from Canon Law:

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

Can. 1252 The law of abstinence binds those who have completed their fourteenth year. The law of fasting binds those who have attained their majority, until the beginning of their sixtieth year. Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.

Can. 1253 The Episcopal Conference can determine more particular ways in which fasting and abstinence are to be observed. In place of abstinence or fasting it can substitute, in whole or in part, other forms of penance, especially works of charity and exercises of piety.

God bless

Sara

p.s. It’s great to be back...computer crashes and me are not compatible! I’ve lost track of the amount of venial sins that I’ve committed in the last few days!

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), May 24, 2003.

COMMENT:It's OUR beloved Canon law. Just thought I'd throw that in.

-------- Well, it’s certainly not my beloved Canon Law. The only times I’ve ever heard of it are when officious types cite it to point out some minor transgression or to prove a point. Regarding the particular law about abstinence from meat versus a penitential act, when was the last time any of us have heard a sermon about that? Our son’s education at a fine Catholic school didn’t teach him that, (I asked) nor did my sister’s three sons learn about it in their Catholic education. I decided to ask an expert about the Friday abstinence vs. Friday penance "requirement." Here’s an e-mail I sent to a priest I respect, a priest who has a PHD in Biblical Studies from the Canisianum in Innsbruck, and who has been serving out diocese as a parish priest for over 30 years.

"Are you familiar with the Canon law requiring an act of penance in lieu of abstinence from meat on most Fridays of the year (except in Lent when abstinence from meat is required)? Have you ever given a homily on this subject, or heard of any priest who has? Has any bishop reminded you of your "duty" to inform the faithful of this requirement? Is an act of penance required under pain of sin? I'm in a discussion with someone, and thought I'd consult an expert. Thanks."

He must have been saving his words for the Sunday sermon, because his one-word reply was

"NO"

I’m wondering how many ORDINARY Catholics, the ones who attend Mass, receive the sacraments, help out with fund-raisers, educate their children in Catholic schools or CCD, teach CCD themselves, and generally try to lead a good Catholic life, are worried about whether they "offer it up" on Friday or on Monday. When they volunteer to take Sister Angela to her doctor appointment, do they make sure to have her schedule it on a Friday so they can kill two birds with one stone? Do they run around citing Canon law to the people who might be thinking of converting? Or do they just try to follow Christ’s teaching, love their neighbor as themselves, and leave it up to God to decide if they got the day right? If Canon law is to be the deciding factor in my entrance to Heaven, I guess I’d better be checking the Yellow Pages for a lawyer to represent me at the General Judgment. I suspect that a good one could get me off the hook. I've heard some Catholics make fun of the "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelets worn by fundamentalist Christians. I think they're not such a bad idea.

If Jesus were around now, He might say, "Hey, this reminds me of what I was trying to tell you folks in Mark, Chapter 2, verses 18-21. Some of you might want to take another look at it." Of course, He might say, "I'm sure glad you people are listening to the Scribes and Pharisees. They always were my favorite people." Then I'd be in big trouble.

-- Mrs. Skeptical (veryprivate@nowhere.com), May 25, 2003.

so what youre saying, mrs skeptical, is that you think canon law should be abolished?

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 26, 2003.

COMMENT: "so what youre saying, mrs skeptical, is that you think canon law should be abolished?" -paul

I didn't say that, Paul. If Canon Law were abolished, all the Canon Lawyers would have to get real jobs. Besides, love of The Holy Trinity may not be enough to keep me in line without Canon Law. I might start advocating wild things like the ordination of women and a married clergy. So you'd better hold onto Canon Law, lest I get out of hand.

-- Mrs. Skeptical (veryprivate@nowhere.com), May 27, 2003.

[Excuse, please. Topping for later response.]

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 02, 2003.

topping for john to respond later

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 03, 2003.

I'm waiting with bated breath, maybe even with baited breath.

-- Mrs. Skeptical (veryprivate@nowhere.com), June 04, 2003.

Jmj
Thanks to all who posted since I went on a trip (May 23). I finally got back to this thread and had a chance to read what you wrote.
Special thanks to you, Sara, for going to the trouble to post the canons that verified what I said about Fridays. The only thing I could add (if anyone would want to see it, and if I can find it again) is what the U.S. bishops wrote about our new Friday obligation (25 to 35 years ago).
And another special thanks to you, Victoria, for your effusive compliment -- but there is no way that, as a writer, I am even "worthy to untie the sandals" of Chesterton, Lewis, or Belloc.

Mrs. Skeptical [hereinafter "MS"], you correctly quoted me as having written: "Madam, God doesn't want your 'skepticism' or sarcasm, but your faith and humility. May he bless you."
Then you wrote: "Well, John, it appears that you and I disagree about what God wants from me."
My response: So, we "disagree"? Well, it's unfortunate that you think God doesn't want "your faith and humility."

MS, you wrote: "You might do better preaching to a younger person, as I'm probably old enough to be your grandmother ..."
My response: Only those who feel guilty about something complain that others are "preaching" to them. In order to be my grandmother, you'd have to be at least 90, since I am over 50. [You shouldn't make the foolish assumption that someone who corrects you must be a mindless whipper-snapper. {_8^D)]
I am not that far from you in age, since you mentioned your 91-year-old aunt -- which means that you are probably not old enough to be my mother, much less my grandmother. Still, since you seem to insist on being old, I will change from MS to GS now, as in "Gran(ny) Skeptical."

GS: "... [I] have little time left to benefit from your wisdom."
Me: None of us knows how much "time [we have] left to benefit from [another's] wisdom." You may live for another twenty minutes or another twenty years. After all, you have a 91-year-old aunt, don't you? And just think ... you would be able to use those twenty years to make up for the skipped penitential acts. ( ;-p)

GS: "I've done the best I can with what I've been given, and tried to avoid the Pharisees along my journey."
Me: That sounds like a dissenter's "code language" for "I think that I can justify the laxness of my life. I couldn't be bothered with all those commandments, law, and rules, so I let my conscience sort of 'fade away.'"

GS: "While it may be true that YOU don't want my skepticism or my sarcasm, I'm certain God has no problem with it."
Me: Sarcasm can be funny when used occasionally. But if you mold a whole personality out of it, it becomes obnoxious and contrary to the gospel. Later you said that "What Would Jesus Do" bracelets are "not such a bad idea." You can start to prove that you mean it by doing what Jesus did -- believing the whole (Catholic) truth [rather than being "skeptical"] and speaking in a more normal way [not with constant sarcasm].

GS: "She [my aunt] kept grousing about her two brothers, both Monsignors, who had never told her about the penance thing. I told her God wouldn't mind since she didn't KNOW the rule (if it is a rule) ..."
Me: Your aunt can't blame the monsignors. She (and you) should have known about the Friday rule [yes, there IS a rule, as you now know, thanks to Sara], because it was trumpeted at the time on TV and in newspapers, especially diocesan newspapers. Apparently, you gals weren't paying attention back then?

GS: "... and I offered to spend an hour with her each Friday so she could count that as her act of penance."
Me: EACH Friday, you say? No need for such extremes. If you were to spend an hour with her just next Friday, the pain inflicted would probably make up for her 25+ years of missed penances. ( ;-p)

GS: "Well, it’s certainly not my beloved Canon Law. The only times I’ve ever heard of it are when officious types cite it to point out some minor transgression or to prove a point."
Me: I see. Whenever someone makes you experience the guilt you ought to feel, that person is branded "officious." Failing to perform a Friday penance for more than 25 years is not "some minor transgression." Gran, if you want to be Catholic, it IS your Canon Law ("beloved" or not). We should all love it, because it imposes the discipline and order that we need and it lists our rights within the Church. It's not just loaded with restrictions. But, GS, is it possible that you are the kind of person who is never satisfied? If the Church were to abolish the Code of Canon Law, wouldn't you moan about the lawlessness instead? (I think we know the answer.)

GS, you hinted that you hadn't heard a sermon about Friday penance and stated that it is not being taught in schools. Then you stated the following: "I decided to ask an expert about the Friday abstinence vs. Friday penance 'requirement.'" This introduced your tale about the "priest [you] respect" -- a bible scholar and parish priest who answered "NO" to your disgraceful e-mail.
My response: Why are you so hard-headed? How come you can't figure out, from what we have told you on this thread, that this poor priest is not "an expert" (as you thought he was), but rather a man who doesn't know what he ought to know and has failed to teach his flock what they ought to be doing!? I couldn't care less if he has four graduate degrees. He has failed in this area. But you "respect" him? Why? Is he sarcastic and skeptical too? Is he lax about the commandments, rules, and laws too? Is that why you "respect" him? How sad!

GS: "I’m wondering how many ORDINARY Catholics ... are worried about whether they 'offer it up' on Friday or on Monday."
Me: You don't get it, do you? We are to "offer it up" on all days and at all times, but in a special way on Fridays, in commemoration of Jesus's sacrifice on Calvary on Good Friday.

GS: "I'm waiting with bated breath, maybe even with baited breath."
Me: Interesting that you use the word "baited," a word that conjures up the idea of fish -- which we know you'll be eating on Fridays from now on. {_8^D)

GS, your phony e-mail address [veryprivate@nowhere.com] made me think of a Beatles' song, and how you'd fit into a parodied version of it:

"She's a real nowhere Gran,
Sitting in her nowhere land,
Making all her nowhere plans for nobody.

"Has a skeptic's point of view.
Knows not where she's going to.
She isn't a bit like you and me.

"Nowhere Gran, please listen ...
You don't know what you're missing.
Nowhere Gran, the Church is not yours to command.

"She's as blind as she can be,
Just sees what she wants to see,
Nowhere Gran, can you believe at all?

"Nowhere Gran, now worry.
Don't waste time. Now hurry.
We are all here trying to help, to lend you a hand.
Ah, la, la, la, la"
[etc., with my apologies to the Fab Four]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

Terrific post John! LOL here

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 08, 2003.

(Thanks, Sara. Your "thumbs up" means a lot to me. I was hoping that you wouldn't mind an American taking liberties with a Liverpudlian classic.)

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 09, 2003.

This reminds me so much of why I shouldn't have fallen in love with a "Catholic". I, too, always wanted an outdoor wedding. Not to start a fire storm here, but I don't know any "Catholics" who really are what they say they are. They just like the label, apparently. Even the most "devout catholic" I know is about to be certified to teach the liturgy and still uses condoms unappologetically. If not getting married outside really is important according to the Pope, then, for the love of God, you guys have to deal with that. Otherwise stop calling yourselves Catholics. People around you will see you as belonging to the church of hipocrates, not the Catholic Church. If you can't deal with the rules, be a Christian, not a Catholic. The way I understand it, the Pope and Church have rules that they feel are from God. They can't just change those to keep up with the times. Sheesh. I don't think this is rocket science. And above all, please, please stop "ministering" to others unless you practice what you preach. I think if "catholics" did that, the world would be a lot more quiet and I'd be a lot less annoyed with you people. Ok. That's all the ranting I should do today. I'll leave you with a quote on the whole wedding thing...

"uh, this is very sad news, and it wouldnt've never happened if the wedding would've been inside the church with God, instead of out here in the cheap showiness of nature." (From Rev. Lovejoy on the Simpsons) That show sometimes reminds me that life is just weird and that sometimes all you can do is laugh.

-- kasey williams (idon'twantspam@don'tsendmeanything.com), June 10, 2003.

Dear Kasey,

So, you have noticed that Catholics are sinners! We could have told you that. That, in fact, is why God gave us a Church. If we were not sinners we would not have needed a Church - or a Savior. Yes, some nominal Catholics do ignore the will of God as revealed through His Church on certain important issues. The Bible says that the wheat and the weeds will grow side by side until the harvest - you do realize this is an analogy for the Church? Many Catholics also do their best to live by the will of God, though obviously no-one succeeds perfectly.

Incidentally, the only way to be fully Christian is to be Catholic. All manmade Christian churches have rejected portions of Christian truth, replacing them with traditions of their human founders. Thank God, His own Church does NOT keep up with the [pagan] times, but instead holds firmly to the fullness of truth. Anyone who wants to call themselves "Christian", but still dabble in secular humanism and moral relativism, can easily find a "Christian" church which will cater to their desires, allowing them to accept any portion of Christian truth which they want to accept, and ignore or reject the rest. Christ's Church won't, praise God!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 10, 2003.

If you can't deal with the rules, be a Christian, not a Catholic

what a great way of saying, if at first you dont succeed, QUIT. thats not what faith is all about. we all have our failures, but we try to rise above them and God helps us out.

And above all, please, please stop "ministering" to others unless you practice what you preach. I think if "catholics" did that, the world would be a lot more quiet and I'd be a lot less annoyed with you people

HAHAHAHA, stop ministering? NO. Jesus didnt ask us not to minister unless we were sinless. if He had done that there would be no church today. besides, the major problem is not in catholicism. it lies mostly in the .8 billion protestants from all different denominations bashing the church, and the 1.2 billion catholics shouting back. smiles.

the 'other' paul

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 10, 2003.

JG: Mrs. Skeptical [hereinafter "MS"], you correctly quoted me as having written: "Madam, God doesn't want your 'skepticism' or sarcasm, but your faith and humility. May he bless you." Then you wrote: "Well, John, it appears that you and I disagree about what God wants from me." My response: So, we "disagree"? Well, it's unfortunate that you think God doesn't want "your faith and humility."

----------------- I'm certain that God doesn't want the pedantic, pompous posturings of a Pharisee either. You could use a little humility yourself, John, but I have no doubt that you'd disagree with that assessment. How about if you let me decide what God wants from me, and I'll let you decide what God wants from you? If you think that skepticism and sarcasm cannot co-exist with faith and humility, that's your problem, not mine. As for your insulting song parody, followed by a "thumbs up" from Sara, you really should look further into the WWJD movement, especially if you're planning to expound any further on sarcasm being contrary to the gospel. Methinks that your apologies to the "Fab Four" would best be offered elsewhere, but I hardly think that I'm the first person you've offended who has decided not to expect one.

My point in citing what a diocesan priest replied to my e-mail was that the laity can indeed fault the monsignors, the non-monsignors, the deacons, the bishops, the archbishops, and the cardinals, even the Pope himself for failing to remind us to follow rules touted in the 60's and seldom mentioned since. You seem to agree with my point in that you referred to the "poor priest" as a "...a man who doesn't know what he ought to know and has failed to teach his flock what they ought to be doing!" Nonetheless, I will continue to respect him, because he has dedicated his life to bringing "his flock" to God, and has made many sacrifices to do so. Why do you find it so easy to disparage the servants of the Lord, John? I'm assuming that you are not a parish priest, and do not understand what a difficult journey they have.

I will agree with one thing you said, and it involves your worthiness (as a writer) to untie the sandals of Chesterton, Lewis, or Belloc. As a podiatrist, or as a pedicurist, you could probably do fine at untying sandals, though. Sorry about the sarcasm...

P.S. My e-mail is private because I have no wish to hear from you except on this forum. Hope you can deal with that.

-- Mrs. Skeptical (veryprivate@nowhere.com), June 10, 2003.

Jmj
Hello again, Nowhere Gran [GS].

You wrote: "How about if you let me decide what God wants from me, and [how about if I] let you decide what God wants from you?"
Me: How 'bout if we don't? You see, you and I are not competent to decide these things, because we weak humans will decide according to our tastes, preferences, and attractions to sin. So we look to the Church to decide and to teach us "what God wants." And the Church teaches that God does want "faith and humility," but doesn't want people to immerse themselves in skepticism and sarcasm.

GS: "If you think that skepticism and sarcasm cannot co-exist with faith and humility, that's your problem, not mine."
Actually, it is far more your problem even than mine. You appear not to know that the Church teaches this: "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ..." [Catchism #2089].
Gran, your "skepticism" is but a step away from "obstinate doubt" and heresy. We are required to deep-six the skepticism and stick to an unquestioning faith in all that the Church teaches.

GS: "Why do you find it so easy to disparage the servants of the Lord [priests], John? I'm assuming that you are not a parish priest, and do not understand what a difficult journey they have."
Me: You have not seen me "disparage the servants of the Lord" -- as though I trashed all parish priests. Try not to exagerrate. I was speaking only about this ONE priest, so that you can realize that he has not in every way been a good servant to you. He has let you down. He should have straightened you out ages ago, instead of leaving the hard work to me!

GS: "My e-mail is private because I have no wish to hear from you except on this forum. Hope you can deal with that."
Me: At first, I had no idea what you were trying to say, because I had not received any "private" "e-mail" from you. Then after a minute or two of puzzling over it, I realized that you meant, "My e-mail address." [Good grief! That's a bad thing to abbreviate. Please say "e-mail address."]
Well, Gran, you needn't have worried about posting your "private e-mail address" here, because it would never have entered my mind to write to you privately. I have been coming here for 3.5 years, and I don't think that I have ever initiated an e-mail exchange with a hostile stranger (and I have done so sparingly with people with whom I had developed a friendship here).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 11, 2003.

In response to: "Incidentally, the only way to be fully Christian is to be Catholic."

And would you like to point out what part of the Bible this is from? Oh, I forgot... Catholics don't read the Bible, or at least whoever wrote this hasn't read it lately. I think that a few people on this discussion need to sort out the difference between what the Bible states and what the Church states, because in my mind, there is definitely a priority system here. Let's all remember that the Church's laws, however inspired, were created by man. The words of Christ were created by God. In my perspective, one should obviously take precedence over the other.

-- Jenny (jenjer98@aol.com), July 04, 2003.

Dear Jenny,

In Catholicism, the Church's laws were created by man, but the Church's doctrines were given to the Church directly by God. This is why there is only one set of Catholic beliefs.

In Protestantism, the churches' laws were created by man, and so were their doctrines, since private interpretation of God's Word is the norm, and private interpretation is a work of the human mind, not a work of the Holy Spirit. This is why there are thousands of different conflicting beliefs in Protestantism.

There is NO difference between what the Catholic Church teaches and what the Bible states. You would expect this to be so, since the Catholic Church alone compiled the Bible. Do you think the Church, in compiling the canon of Scripture, would have included writings which conflicted with its own teachings?

And, we can easily see that there are many differences between what Protestant churches teach, and what the Bible states. Since the beliefs of various Protestant churches conflict with ONE ANOTHER, it is immediately obvious that they CANNOT all agree with the Bible. Otherwise, the Bible conflicts with itself.

Therefore, no Protestant denomination can possess the fullness of Christian truth. Therefore, no Protestant can claim to be fully Christian. Therefore, if there is anywhere that full Christianity can be found, it MUST be in the original Christian Church, not in denominations created by men in the 16th century and later. We can know this simply by the logic of the situation as outlined above; and we can know it from the Word of God. Jesus told the Church He founded, and no other, that the Holy Spirit would guide it to ALL TRUTH. (John 16:13) History plainly reveals that the Church Jesus founded is none other than the Holy Catholic Church, the only Christian Church that existed for 1,000 years after Christ. Therefore, the promise of Jesus to that Church must be true. Therefore, the Catholic Church must teach the fullness of Christian truth, or Jesus lied.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 05, 2003.

First of all, Ginger, if you're still reading this, congratulations on your engagement. It was your question which brought me to this page to begin with.

I don't want to start a fight with anyone. I just want to point out that no matter what religion we ascribe to, in the end, it will be between us and God. Romans 2:1 states: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." 2:6 states: "God 'will give to each person according to what he has done'."

So perhaps our purpose here is not to point out one another's faults and wrongs, but instead to congratulate a sister in Christ on her future union, and to spend our time spreading the love that God gave us, in the form of his son. Protestant or Catholic, I believe the message is the same: (Ephesians 5:1) Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children, and lead a life of love . . .

God bless you, ALL of you.

-- Miss Student (student@noemail.com), July 13, 2003.

Dear Miss,

As you rightly point out, "God will give to each person according to what he has done". How then could we, in love, observe people doing things that conflict with the revealed will of God, and NOT point out their errors? Would it be an act of love to allow someone to continue walking blindly toward a pit, without pointing out the presence of that danger? Such an act is not an act of judgment, but an act of compassion. An uncaring person, observing self-destructive behavior on the part of another, would simply look away, unconcerned about the eventual outcome. But a caring person would feel bound to intervene, offering what is necessary to avoid the otherwise inevitable destructive consequences. No-one can force another to accept what is offered. You can throw a rope to a drowning person, but you can't make him grab it. Still, failure to throw the rope would be a grave injustice. And so would failure to offer the truth.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 13, 2003.