To understand just how bad the Baltimore Catechism truly is, consider the issue of "mixed marriages", that is, marriages between Catholics and non-Catholics. The Bible minces no words on the subject:
Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, (1 Peter 3:1)
For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (1 Corinthians 7:14)The early Church had no fear of the pagans. Every Catholic knew the Faith so well that each believer was expected to convert his or her unbelieving spouse. But how things change in just a couple of millennia! This is the BC's fear-filled command:
Q. 1327. Which are the chief commandments of the Church?By the time the American Catholic bishops approached the problem, they recognized that they had stunk so badly at catechizing the faithful, and the faithful had stunk so badly at being catechized, that neither the ordained clergy nor their flock could risk associating themselves with non-Catholics, even via sacramental bonds. That is, the American bishops and their flocks didn't think even the saving graces of the sacrament of marriage, image of Christ's bond with the Church, would be sufficient to protect the Catholic from apostasy, much less convert the unbeliever.
A. The chief commandments of the Church are six:
......
......
6. Not to marry persons who are not Catholics... (Baltimore Catechism)
Yes, in a battle in which the salvific graces of the Bridegroom contest with the pagan heresies of the unbeliever, the gates of Heaven could not be trusted to prevail. That's the Baltimore Catechism for you.
Now, anyone who has spent any time at all studying the precepts of the Church know that those precepts have changed wildly depending on geography and time period.
The Church in her supreme authority has defined nothing regarding the form and number of the Commandments of the Church (emphasis added). The Council of Trent while recommending in a general way in its twenty-fifth session the observance of these precepts says nothing regarding them as a particular body of laws. Neither is any specific mention made of them in the "Catechismus ad parochos" published by order of the council and known as the "Catechism of the Council of Trent" or "Roman Catechism". We have seen that St. Antoninus of Florence enumerates ten such commandments while Martin Aspilcueta mentions only five. This last number is that given by St. Peter Canisius. According to this author the precepts of the Church are: To observe the feast days appointed by the Church; to hear Mass reverently on these feast days; to observe the fasts on the days during the seasons appointed; to confess to one's pastor annually; to receive Holy Communion at least once a year and that around the feast of Easter.
It will be readily observed that the omission by French writers of the Commandment to pay tithes was owing to local conditions. In a "Catechism of Christian Doctrine" approved by Cardinal Vaughan and the bishops of England, six Commandments of the Church are enumerated. These are:
- to keep the Sundays and Holy Days of obligation holy, by hearing Mass and resting from servile work;
- to keep the days of fasting and abstinence appointed by the Church;
- to go to confession at least once a year;
- to receive the Blessed Sacrament at least once a year and that at Easter or thereabouts;
- to contribute to the support of our pastors;
- not to marry within a certain degree of kindred nor to solemnize marriage at the forbidden times.
This list is the same (????) as that which the Fathers of the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1886) prescribed for the United States. (question marks and emphasis added)Read that last precept, as presented by the Catholic Encyclopedia, again. Notice what is missing. Notice how the encyclopedia's version of the precept doesn't say a word about not marrying the unbeliever. In fact, you can read the entire encyclopedia article and you would search in vain for the BC's "mixed marriage" precept in ANY of the provided lists, all written by saints and Doctors of the Church. This all the more striking when one considers how little love the Catholic Encyclopedia's own article on mixed marriage exhibits.
Now, one could argue that this entire article is but an argument from silence. But that is precisely the point. The precepts of the Church have never been put under double-secret probation. The whole purpose of the precepts are to make quite clear and quite well-known bedrock ecclesial principles. If something is not listed as a precept of the Church in any list by any father, Doctor, saint or council of the Church, then it isn't a precept of the Church, no matter how much some random lay person, priest or even individual bishop might wish it to be.
So, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Baltimore Catechism did not just back away from the idea that Catholics should evangelize everyone concerning the Faith, even their own spouses. It would be bad enough if this were true, but it is worse. Instead, again, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Baltimore Catechism actively misrepresented the Third Plenary Council's summary of the Church's precepts.
The Baltimore Catechism has many faults.
- It is not logically structured, it does not begin with the Trinity as Aquinas did, but is instead structured almost haphazardly.
- It is a question-answer catechism that consciously imitates Protestant catechetical methods (few today realize that Martin Luther's 1529 Small Catechism was the first question-answer catechism in history).
- It is a catechism that teaches the sacraments in the wrong order, placing Confirmation after First Eucharist when all Magisterial documents clearly show the order of sacramental initiation is baptism, confirmation, Eucharist.
- It is a catechism that is meant to teach only small children, but continues to be sought out by adults who have clearly never gotten beyond a child's understanding of the Faith.
I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. (1 Cor 3:2)When it comes to adult evangelization, the Baltimore Catechism is a hot mess. Due to its defects, it is really not any great shakes at teaching children either.
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child. (1 Cor 13:11)It is time for Catholic adults to become adults in the Faith. Adults learn by reading the Fathers of the Church, the saints of the Church, the councils of the Church. Adults put away childish toys like the Baltimore Catechism. Indeed, given what we have seen here, adults would be better off teaching our children directly from the writings of the saints and the Fathers, and ignoring the Baltimore Catechism entirely.
21 comments:
Amen! Amen!
Wisdom! Be attentive!
If you're going to rely on the old Catholic Encyclopedia on this question, the least you could do is tell your readers what it says about "mixed marriage" --
Mixed Marriage
(Latin Matrimonia mixta).
Technically, mixed marriages are those between Catholics and non-Catholics, when the latter have been baptized in some Christian sect. The term is also frequently employed to designate unions between Catholics and infidels. From the very beginning of its existence the Church of Christ has been opposed to such unions. As Christ raised wedlock to the dignity of a Sacrament, a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic was rightly looked upon as degrading the holy character of matrimony, involving as it did a communion in sacred things with those outside the fold. The Apostle St. Paul insists strongly on Christian marriage being a symbol of the union between Christ and His Church, and hence sacred. The very intimacy of the union necessarily established between those joined in wedlock requires a concordance above all in their religious sentiments. Holding this doctrine, it was but natural and logical for the Church to do all in her power to hinder her children from contracting marriage with those outside her pale, who did not recognize the sacramental character of the union on which they were entering (see Marriage). Hence arose the impediments to a marriage with a heretic (mixta religio) and with an infidel (disparitas cultus)." . . . .
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09698a.htm
It's obviously you, not the old Baltimore Catechism, that is guilty of misrepresenting the Faith on this point. (And not the first time, sad to say.)
Not only did you not tell the truth about what the Church believes about mixed marriage, but you also blurred the distinction between, on the one hand, mixed marriages that arise because one of the spouses has converted to the Catholic Faith while the other remains a pagan or heretic, and, on the other hand, mixed marriages that arise because an unmarried Catholic chooses to marry a pagan or heretic. These are quite different situations, and the Church has always treated them differently, as the Catholic Encyclopedia article on mixed marriage proceeds to explain. The Baltimore Catechism correctly teaches that Catholics are not supposed to marry outside the Church. (Whether or not that is or was a precept of the Church is an unimportant technical point, because it's certainly always been the rule.) However, the Church may and does dispense from that law. In the past, in such cases the non-Catholic party had to agree that the children born of the union would be baptised and instructed in the Catholic Faith, but since Vatican II that practice has foolishly and impiously been abandoned.
Did you think perhaps that no one would consult the Catholic Encyclopedia to find out if you really knew what you were talking about?
ROTFL!
The whole point of the article is that the Baltimore Catechism presents something as a precept of the Church which is NOT a precept of the Church.
I didn't "blur the differences" between how mixed marriages might come about - I simply didn't address those points at all, because those points were not germane to the main point of the article, namely, the point being that the Baltimore Catechism misrepresents the precepts of the Church.
The fact of this misrepresentation is all the more striking, the misrepresentation that the Baltimore Catechism presents in its erroneous list of precepts all the more impressive, given the article on mixed marriage in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The BC demonstrates itself to be completely incapable of differentiating between practice and precept.
As for the Catholic Encyclopedia article, the article itself misrepresents the position of the early Church. Apart from Scripture (quoted in the article), there are very few writings on marriage until the 300s, Lactantius being the earliest.
The earliest writings show concern for Christian women married to pagan men, but show essentially no concern about Christian men marrying pagan women, and even then, this was only considered a problem in the West. Writings originating in the Eastern Church show no concerns at all. This distinction is passed over in silence by the CE.
I like how you pretend I've mis-represented the Faith, not only here, but implicitly elsewhere. "Poisoning the well" has a long history among people who have no evidence to support their arguments. I'm glad to see you find the technique useful. It's a wonderful statement about you.
Your quote of 1 Cor 6:14-18 is an incorrect translation into the English. The RSV-CE has rather a different take:
14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one.”[g] 17 But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun immorality.[h] Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.
Or, if you prefer the Douay-Rheims:
14 Now God hath both raised up the Lord, and will raise us up also by his power.
15 Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh.
17 But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.
You appear to be quoting from Protestant translations, which would consider Catholics "unbelievers". ROTFL!
On the issue of "mixed marriages", the Bible minces no words on the subject:
"Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (II Cor. 6:14-18)
"The whole point of the article is that the Baltimore Catechism presents something as a precept of the Church which is NOT a precept of the Church."
That particular point is unimportant, because although it undeniably has been a precept of the Church for Catholics not to enter into marriages with non-Catholics, it really doesn't matter whether you call it a "precept" or a "rule" or a "law" or a "commandment" or a "teaching." The important point here is that the Church has always, and most understandably, strongly frowned upon or even forbidden such unequal unions, whereas the unmistakable thrust of your words isn't just that the bar on mixed marriages has never been a precept of the Church, but that mixed marriages is something that only poorly catechized, spiritual weak Catholics care about (or American Catholics at least).
I'm referring to your bizarre claims, "By the time the American Catholic bishops approached the problem, they recognized that they had stunk so badly at catechizing the faithful, and the faithful had stunk so badly at being catechized, that neither the ordained clergy nor their flock could risk associating themselves with non-Catholics, even via sacramental bonds. That is, the American bishops and their flocks didn't think even the saving graces of the sacrament of marriage, image of Christ's bond with the Church, would be sufficient to protect the Catholic from apostasy, much less convert the unbeliever." Yet the bar on mixed marriage wasn't invented by the American bishops or the compilers of the Baltimore Catechism -- it's actually of extreme antiquity.
So, it's not just the Baltimore Catechism that insisted that Catholics shouldn't marry outside the Faith. As the Catholic Encyclopedia (which you like when you think it supports you, but you don't like when it provides information that disproves your personal opinions) makes abundantly clear, for most of her history the Church has been quite clear that mixed marriage is a very bad idea, even sinful, something that can even invalidate a union. This is why, for example, the 1961 St. Pius X Daily Missal's examination of conscience includes as the Sixth Precept of the Church:
"Have I failed in observing Church regulations with reference to the Sacrament of Matrimony?"
Such regulations don't merely address consanguinity and approved times for marriage -- they also addressed mixed marriages. And this is a Latin-English missal published for adults, not children.
Another example may be found in Father F. X. Lasance's 1908 "My Prayer-Book" (again, a book written for adult Catholics, not children), which lists the Sixth "commandment" of the Church as:
"Not to marry persons who are not Catholics, or who are related to us within the third degree of kindred, nor privately without witnesses, nor to solemnize marriage at forbidden times."
But maybe Father Lasance, whose books were praised and recommended by the pope, had only a child's understanding of the Faith and just wasn't all that spiritual advanced? Or maybe that really was one of the precepts of the Church back then, and Father Lasance was simply telling people about it. My bets on the latter option.
"I didn't 'blur the differences' between how mixed marriages might come about - I simply didn't address those points at all, because those points were not germane to the main point of the article, namely, the point being that the Baltimore Catechism misrepresents the precepts of the Church."
The Baltimore Catechism did not misrepresent the precepts of the Church, but even if it had, you did blur the differences between a mixed marriage resulting from the conversion of one spouse and a mixed marriage resulting from a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic. You did that when you quoted what St. Paul said about the former kind of mixed marriage as if it applied to the latter kind of mixed marriage, which is covered by the principles derived from II Cor. 6:14-18. (My above post inadvertently omitted one of the Roman numerals in the scripture cite -- it was II Cor. I quoted from the Douay Rheims, which is emphatically not a Protestant Bible. As if a Catholic who holds to what the Church teaches about marriage would refer to a Protestant Bible when he could readily turn to one of the Church's versions.)
"As for the Catholic Encyclopedia article, the article itself misrepresents the position of the early Church. Apart from Scripture (quoted in the article), there are very few writings on marriage until the 300s, Lactantius being the earliest."
That's quite a serious charge to make against the Catholic Encyclopedia's writer when all you've got to back it up is an argumentum ex silencio. In much the same way that you argue that the early Church formerly approved of mixed marriages, but later went astray on this point, so too do Protestants argue that the early Church used to be Protestant but later became corrupt and fell away from the truth. Yet if the Church did lose the correct understanding on mixed marriage as you claim, then we must face a scenario in which for centuries the Church failed to uphold the truth about marriage, only recovering the truth at some point in the last few decades. How then can we trust anything the Church says about marriage or any other matter of faith or morals?
There's one point you make with which one can agree -- "adults would be better off teaching our children directly from the writings of the saints and the Fathers." Of course, on this point there's no contradiction between the writings of the saints and the Fathers, and the doctrine found in the old Baltimore Catechism and explained at length in the Catholic Encyclopedia. I would say, though, that to find out what the Church believes, one should listen to the saints and Fathers, not to what you say at this blog.
"although it undeniably has been a precept of the Church for Catholics not to enter into marriages with non-Catholics,"
No, it isn't a precept of the Church and hasn't been.
The Baltimore Catechism is an inconsistent mish-mash, badly designed, badly constructed and it misrepresents the Faith.
I am comfortable the essay demonstrates these facts.
You are not.
Oh well.
Now, on the subject of what the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore of 1884 had to say about mixed marriages, whether or not that council formally listed it as a precept, the council did have this to say about it:
"That Christian hearts and lives may be wisely and rightly joined, God must join them, and religion sanctify the union; and though the Church sometimes permits the contraction of mixed marriages, she never does so without regret and without a feeling of anxiety for the future happiness of that union and for the eternal salvation of its offspring."
-- Pastoral Letter Issued by the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, Dec. 7, 1884
https://s3.amazonaws.com/berkley-center/18841207ThirdPlenaryCouncilofBaltimorepastoralletter.pdf
The same council also laid down the following regulations, precepts, and teachings regarding Holy Matrimony"
"Title iv, Of the Sacraments.-(i) Of the baptism of converts. The ritual prescribed for their reception into the Church is to be observed. (ii) Of matrimony. Catholics who marry before a sectarian minister are excommunicated. Mixed marriages are not to be contracted unless promises are given that the Catholic party is in no danger of perversion, and will strive to convert the non-Catholic party. Also that all the children born of the union are to be brought up Catholics. No dispensation from these promises can be given."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02235a.htm
Sounds like mixed-marriage was one of the things the council fathers regarded as pertaining to the precepts of the Church on matrimony.
Yes, exactly.
Thanks for confirming that the BC was wrong to pretend that the precept was "6. Not to marry persons who are not Catholics".
As the evidence from the pastoral letter you provide shows quite clearly, the council said nothing close to what the BC pretends is a precept of the Church.
Here is what the word "precept" means when used in the context of Catholic canon law, as it relates to a Catholic's moral obligations:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12372b.htm
"Precept, in its common acceptation, is opposed to counsel, inasmuch as the former imposes an obligation, while the latter is a persuasion. In ecclesiastical jurisprudence, the word precept is used:
"In opposition to law. A law is always binding, even after the death of the legislator until it is revoked; a precept is obligatory only during the lifetime or office of the precipient. A law directly affects the territory of the legislator, and thence passes to the subjects dwelling in it; a precept directly affects the persons of the inferiors and is independent of locality. Finally, a law is promulgated for a whole community, present and future, while a precept is directed to individuals and ceases with them."
It does appear that the Church's opposition to mixed marriage is a precept, and that the Third Council of Baltimore did regard it as such. The Baltimore Catechism faithfully reflects what the Church has held and at various times required canonically on this point throughout her history. Therefore mixed marriage is something a Catholic should avoid, and something Catholic parents must strongly discourage.
Your own evidence proves you wrong.
Even the council's own pastoral letters, which you supplied, did not prohibit marriage to non-Catholics, it merely laid out the rules under which such a marriage could take place.
Your own evidence shows the BC is wrong to say that the (a) marriage to non-Catholics is prohibited and (b) that such prohibition is a precept of the Church.
We're done here.
Thanks for playing.
Well, we have seen from the Catholic Encyclopedia that the Third Council of Baltimore laid down canonical precepts on marriage which included the perennial rule that Catholics ought not to marry outside the Faith, and that they must obtain special permission or take special care if they do so.
We have seen from the Catholic Encyclopedia that the Church most understandably has always opposed contracting mixed marriages, since they're usually a pretty bad idea, especially for the children.
We have seen that the Baltimore Catechism correctly taught that avoiding mixed marriage was a precept of the Church. We have seen that it is not just the Baltimore Catechism that said so.
Even the 1964 edition of the Baltimore Catechism said that the "6th Commandment of the Church" was "To observe the laws of the Church concerning marriage," as well as the following Q&A --
What is the ordinary law of the Church to be observed at the wedding of a Catholic?
The ordinary law of the Church to be observed at the wedding of a Catholic is this: A Catholic can be married only in the presence of an authorized priest and two witnesses. Catholics "married" by a justice of the peace or any one but a priest are not really married at all.
Now, in 1964 as well as today, a Catholic who wished to marry a non-Catholic in spite of the Church's general opposition to such unions must seek special permission to do so. Without that permission, the marriage is invalid in the sight of God. Everything we've found on this subject shows that the Baltimore Catechism was correct to admonish Catholic children against becoming "unequally yoked with unbelievers" in matrimony.
Your post is simply riddled with errors, distortions, and omissions.
For anyone who may be confused, notice that the Catholic Encyclopedia's "Mixed Marriage" article makes clear that "disparity" of faith between the two parties of a propose marriage is, and historically has long been held to be, an impediment to validity -- it requires a dispensation of the Church's marriage precept issued by competent authority for the marriage to be valid. The Baltimore Catechism wasn't just making things up or inventing precepts that no Catholic had ever heard of before.
Wrong again, Confitebor.
"Technically, you only need permission, not a dispensation, to marry a Protestant Christian." You only need a dispensation if you were to try to marry a Catholic in a non-Catholic ceremony, without a deacon, priest, or bishop to witness. And even that is not a dispensation from precept, it's a dispensation from form. If the other non-Catholic spouse has valid baptism it is “permission to enter into a mixed marriage.” If the person does not have valid baptism, the permission is called a “dispensation from disparity of cult.”
Getting married without permission to a baptized person who is not Catholic does not render the marriage invalid, it renders it illicit. Despite the lack of permission, the marriage itself is still valid. (See Code of Canon Law 1124).
The BC falsely states that one precept of the Church is "Not to marry persons who are not Catholics." But that is wrong. If it had said "Not to marry persons who are not Christian", that would be closer to correct, because a dispensation is required for marrying the non-baptized. But, as it stands, the BC is simply wrong.
See Catechism of St. Pius X
See also Canon law commentary
No other list of precepts anywhere in the world had a sixth precept on marriage, it was a pure fiction invented by whatever anonymous author(s) compiled the BC.
You have already demonstrated this quite clearly.
The problem is, you refuse to believe your own evidence, the evidence you yourself supplied. That's a special kind of blindness, and I have no advice to you on how to remedy it.
For anyone who may be confused or misled by Mr. Kellmeyer's error-ridden post and comments here, right down to his latest one, the facts have all been ascertained and laid out:
The Third Council of Baltimore issued precepts concerning Holy Matrimony that said the marriage of Catholics and non-Catholics was forbidden. Mr. Kellmeyer claims the Third Council of Baltimore did no such thing, but the sources say they did.
Various Catholic sources from the late 1800s through the mid-20th century, including the U.S. Catholic Church's official Baltimore Catechism, list Six Commandments or Precepts of the Church. All of them, including the 1949 (third) edition of the Baltimore Catechism, list the Sixth Precept as "Obey the Church's laws on marriage" or words to that effect. Up until the 1960s, the bar on marriage to non-Catholics was explicitly included by the Baltimore Catechism right along with the other chief matrimonial laws. Mr. Kellmeyer's claim that the priests deputed by the Church to prepare the Baltimore Catechism arrogated to themselves the authority to invent a Sixth Precept on marriage -- a fraud never detected until Mr. Kellmeyer's keen and piercing intellect was brought to bear on the subject -- is quite simply laughable. Such a claim cannot be taken seriously.
Mr. Kellmeyer also appears to be confused by the fact that the Church after Vatican II decided to mollify and modify her age-old ban on marriage to non-Catholics. Whereas previously a formal dispensation had to be obtained for such inadvisable unions to be allowed, today the ancient rule is dispensed by seeking permission from the Church -- not a formal dispensation. In 1949, however, binding ecclesial legislation in the U.S., approved by the Holy See, required a formal dispensation for marriage to a heretic or schismatic. That's no longer the case today (it should not have been necessary to mention that, as the entire occasion for this dispute here stems from Mr. Kellmeyer's attack on a Catholic blogger's complaint about the changes that have taken place regarding marriage since the mid-20th century). But these somewhat esoteric technicalities of canon law don't change the fact that there traditionally are six, not five, precepts of the Church (some lists add a 7th, helping to propagate the Faith), nor do they change the fact that the Baltimore Catechism and other old Catholic sources accuratety listed the observance of marriage laws as the sixth precept.
It's interesting that Mr. Kellmeyer would cite Canon 1124 of the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. That canon says:
Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
As it happens, this canon makes clear that the Church even today bars mixed marriages -- Catholics may not marry non-Catholics without "express permission of the competent authority." This supports everything that I and the Catholic Encyclopedia and the old Baltimore Catechism have said -- the Church is opposed to mixed marriages, even though she allows permission to be granted for them.
Mr. Kellmeyer is mistaken in claiming that a mixed marriage without permission is still valid. Such a union suffers from defect of form, which DOES cause canonical invalidity.
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/01/16/an-orientation-to-the-question-of-canonical-form-for-marriage/
If the union were to break down, and one of the spouses later petitioned the Church for a declaration of nullity, said declaration could be granted on the basis of defect of form.
Hopefully no one will be led astray by Mr. Kellmeyer's faulty commentary and opinionating on this subject.
Post a Comment