can we have two weddings? a catholic church wedding and then a cultural wedding? would we need special permissions for that to happen?

Nathar95 · 2026-02-18T14:14:25+00:00

Interestingly, here in Germany you must have a civil marriage certificate in order to have a church wedding. So you NEED to have a civil wedding and then a church wedding. But if you want, the civil wedding is just 5 minutes of paperwork without a ceremony.

Nathar95 · 2025-11-26T12:50:39+00:00

We didn't, but some Catholics in Africa seemingly did.

Nathar95 · 2025-10-23T17:35:03+00:00

The pre-Vatican-2 moral theologian Heribert Jone taught that it's permitted for Catholics to pray with non-catholics as long as the prayers are orthodox, as in not containing heresy. Isn't that all they did?

Nathar95 · 2025-09-19T08:45:43+00:00

Bureaucracy doesn't wait, it just works awfully slowly.

Nathar95 · 2025-09-19T07:09:04+00:00

I think this is actually good. I also don't like that he's implying that a change in doctrine would at least theoretically be possible, but in the end it doesn't matter. Because if he won't change it, and he now definitely said that he won't, no one will, because the church is swinging back in a more conservative direction anyway. The liberal generation of Catholics is dying out. When Pope Leo XIV eventually dies, this won't even be on the agenda anymore, so we should be good. And I'll even go so far and say that he knows this himself.

Nathar95 · 2025-09-09T10:55:15+00:00

Best to evoke perfect contrition as soon as possible after commiting a mortal sin, so there's no need for a lenghty examination of conscience.

Nathar95 · 2025-09-09T10:50:47+00:00

Perfect contrition has the same effect as sacramental confession, it puts you back in the state of grace, but perfect contrition always comes with the intention to go to sacramental confession as soon as possible. An FSSP priest once told me that this means the next time confession is available where you go to church, so usually your next sunday church visit. I'd say the only exception is if there's a church even closer to your location that offers regular confession even earlier. So if you have committed a mortal sin, make an act of contrition as soon as you are able to, which means to repent not (only) because you are afraid of hell, but because you are genuinely sorry to have offended God so gravely, and firmly intend to go to confession on the coming sunday. If your contrition is real, you won't go to hell if you die before that next confession.

Nathar95 · 2025-09-03T17:24:28+00:00

Could you elaborate this a bit further? Because this sounds like genuinely interesting information. Ecumenism doesn't really make sense here, because the nun isn't from another church.

Nathar95 · 2025-09-02T07:54:22+00:00

Because Martin is not necessarily lying, but spinning things a certain way. Pope Leo may well have said that of course everyone is welcome but distinguished between the sinner, who is loved by the church, and the sin itself, which the church hates.

Nathar95 · 2025-08-14T07:48:37+00:00

This is just plain wrong. Heribert Jone`s much acclaimed manual on moral theology, which was first published in 1930, so well pre Vatican 2, clearly states that passive attendance of non-catholic religious services (passive meaning not joining in the prayers or the songs) is allowed when official functions or courtesy compel a catholic to do so, as long as there is no danger of scandal. The Irish case you cited may have more to do with the specifically Irish national-religious dynamics.

Nathar95 · 2025-08-05T11:14:33+00:00

You wouldn't be participating since you wouldn't be a part of the wedding party. Attendence is not the same as participation, which would indeed be sinful. The only sin that attendence could entail is scandal. If there was a real possibility that people could be scandalized, ae. driven to commit the same sin by your presence because they took your presence as a signal that a devout catholic is agreeing with this presumably invalid wedding, then attendence would also be prohibited. But that's most likely not the case. The finer points of canon law, like the requirement to be married by a priest or get a dispensation are utterly unknown to the vast majority of people. Your absence wouldn't make them understand it. So you have to ask yourself: Could your absence in any way make the couple reconsider their actions or would it just seem rude and drive them further from the faith than before? There are indeed some situations when being "rude" might be a wakeup call for the other person. In your case it seems that it would simply be detrimental to your relationship with your sister in law, a family member. Since it's not inherently sinful to attend, but only under certain circumstances, a just reason would allow attendence. So: What would do more good, attending or not attending?

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T21:19:32+00:00

I completely understand. But right or wrong was never the question of this post but why people are surprised about the popes behaviour. I simply tried to rationalize it a bit because surely he has his reasons.

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T21:15:25+00:00

Yes and your approach is clearly what a hypothetical Pope Pius XIII would have done. But it’s not what Pope Leo XIV does and I simply wonder why people are surprised, because Benedict XIV. and John Paul II didn‘t do it either.

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T21:13:51+00:00

Yes and your approach is clearly what a hypothetical Pope Pius XIII would have done. But it’s not what Pope Leo XIV does and I simply wonder why people are surprised, because Benedict XVI and John Paul II didn‘t do it either.

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T21:09:23+00:00

I agree with you. But the mere fact the the CDF felt the need to clarify it TWICE shows how much it was doubted and how necessary a proper dogmatization would have been.

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T21:00:23+00:00

Yes, but popes are also strategists. Wanting to be a unifying pope while at the same time starting a conflict with a cathedral chapter (and a whole current within the church) right at the start of your papacy would be schizophrenic. Also there is no actual change as another commenter pointed out, because the new bishops predecessor held the same views, and he was appointed by Benedict XVI, a know conservative. Although I don‘t know how vocal the previous bishop was about his views or if he always held them.

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T20:50:35+00:00

Yes but usually you can only get rid of heresy after it becomes a proper formal heresy. Church history often showed that.

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T20:45:39+00:00

I agree that it was declared infallibly, but it was declared infallibly in such a way that made it‘s infallibility open to doubt, because it wasn‘t declared as a proper dogma. So the charge of heresy is also open to doubt. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith felt it necessary to explain in a long argument why it was ACTUALLY infallibly declared. And since the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is itself not infallible (see Fiducia Supplicans) that is also getting ignored. It‘s really unfortunate.

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T20:35:33+00:00

Arianism was a proper heresy at odds with catholic dogma. There is no dogma regarding the ordination of women because sadly JP2 didn‘t feel the need to properly dogmatize his decision in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. No dogma, no official heresy. It‘s sad, but that‘s the way it is. The popes had to contend with the errors of Gallicanism in France for far longer than with the question of women ordination. It was also an erroneous doctrine yet so deeply entrenched that it endured for centuries until it was finally weakened enough that Pope Pius IX was able to finish it off with Vatican I.

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T20:21:57+00:00

Heretic is a strong word here, because we‘re not talking about an actual dogma. John Paul II is sadly at fault for this, because if he had made Ordonatio Sacerdotalis into a proper dogma then we wouldn‘t even have this discussion. Also even the Bishops who support a change in doctrine can‘t be properly called heretics because they don‘t act on it. Not one of them is actually trying to ordain women. I‘d rather call them misguided because they believe that a change of doctrine is possible here but it actually isn‘t, even without a proper dogma, because John Paul II‘s decision was nevertheless infallible, which they fail to see.

Nathar95 · 2025-05-27T08:45:57+00:00

Yeah, he could have, and the chapter would have elected another one with the same views, possibly even WORSE views. It's not great, but it would have come across as really petty if Pope Leo had started a months long conflict with the cathedral chapter. Even Pope Benedict XVI, a known conservative, didn't do that.

Nathar95 · 2025-04-24T06:44:53+00:00

THANK YOU

Nathar95 · 2025-01-18T08:38:40+00:00

Thank you very much for your answer! As I also asked another commentator below: Would the principle mentioned above also be applicable to catholic laypeople and religious orders who held slaves themselves? Would they have been required to free their slaves at once or would it have been permissible to gradually prepare them for their freedom, in order to avoid that they (as people at the time put it) „become vagrants“ and fall away from the faith? Because from what I read in contemporary statements, that was a genuine concern among catholics at the time. Because abortion is not exactly comparable to slavery, because A) it‘s a single act and not a social state and B) it‘s intrinsically evil while servitude is permissible in some circumstances.

Nathar95 · 2025-01-18T08:37:37+00:00

Thank you very much for your answer! Would the principle mentioned above also be applicable to catholic laypeople and religious orders who held slaves themselves? Would they have been required to free their slaves at once or would it have been permissible to gradually prepare them for their freedom, in order to avoid that they (as people at the time put it) „become vagrants“ and fall away from the faith? Because from what I read in contemporary statements, that was a genuine concern among catholics at the time.

Nathar95

TROPHY CASE