Importance of church weddings to those who don't practice?

If I was a member of a religious congregation I'd probably find it objectionable for people to avail of the religious marriage just for the sake of convenience or for atmosphere.
I agree. It would be a bit like joining a Golf club, playing a few rounds a few times a year, but using the fairway to play football the rest of the time...
I'd probably be a religious fundamentalist if I wasn't a secular one!
I don't think that too many people will disagree with you there.
 
I think Soc has hit the real reason why people still go for church weddings. I think if their other options apart from the registry office then people who don't use the church would avail of these. BTW does anybody know how you become a registra - I've heard there is a real shortage esp if the legislation comes in and it sounds like an interesting job.
 
Re: cost of church for wedding

ClubMan said:

It is possible I could unregister today if I wished. I simply have to go to a local kreisburo with proof of address and tell them Im agnostic or athetist. Many ex-pats do, its a bit similiar in a way to the VAT question that was discussed recently where people felt its ok not to pay VAT to the odd-job men, its their responsibility to charge etc. Its tax evasion, you could argue its fair enough that I dont pay but at the end of the day Im using the services I should pay the tax. A question of ethics.


Just because an average Catholic cant answer this ClubMan doesnt mean they are good or bad Catholics, it doesnt prove anything. And just because we are members of the "club" (to use your term) doesnt mean we accept everything blindly, we do question things, its a good thing to do in every institution, for some people it might be limbo for others it might be celibacy etc.
 
Re: cost of church for wedding

You can't be a "good" Catholic and question Papal infallibility, or the existence of Limbo (until Pope Ben downgrades or abolishes it), or the Trinity or lots of other things that are standard doctrine. These must be accepted without argument and one must suspend critical/logical faculties when it comes to these or face the supposed consequences.
 
As the mother of a child who died unbaptised, I cannot understand how anyone could believe in the teachings of a church which would tell me that my child and any other like him is consigned (or condemned) to Limbo. Believe in a God if you wish (I don't) but man-made ritualistic mumbo-jumbo is another matter entirely.
 
Re: cost of church for wedding


No ClubMan, I disagree. The church can be viewed as an instution and a religion. Rules in the institution do and have changed (vatican 2 being a good example). Issues like celibacy still exist in the catholic church for business reasons as oppose to religious reasons. This is something I hope will change in my lifetime. Me wanting this to change does not define my Faith.
 
Anybody who is a Catholic and does not accept Papal infallibility on all relevant matters of doctrine and morals is fooling themselves and/or a hypocrite.
 
ClubMan, for someone who doesn't believe in any God it seems you have a keen interest in the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Can I ask why? If that's too personal a question I apologise but I am interested in why you seem to dislike religion unlike those (like me) who just don't believe any of it.
I look at what I see as the fundamental kernel of the teachings of the New Testament, which are "Love your neighbour as yourself" and "Do onto others as you would wish them to do onto you". To me as an unbeliever these are still good moral datum’s to live your life by.
 
Im not even sure we are talking about the same thing here ClubMan. You keep refering to papal infallability which I havent commented on or disagreed with - are you debating with yourself?
 
Anybody who is a Catholic and does not accept Papal infallibility on all relevant matters of doctrine and morals is fooling themselves and/or a hypocrite
Your opinion and you are entitled to it, but just because you say it doesn't make it so. The history of the church proves your intolerant definition of its adherents to be wrong. If the people running the church aren't jumping up and down excommunicating people who don't believe in everything they think we should then by definition we're all still in. It may irk you that they don't enforce the rules as rigidly as you'd like but there you go, their choice to make, not yours.
Is it the existence of such tolerance that influences your anathema to religion and does the secular inconsistency in the application of law bug you as much. Fair enough if it does, as for every "rules are there to be broken" outlook there's also the "rules are there to be obeyed" lobby and despite the accusations you fling at people like me, I can hardly espouse tolerance if I don't include you.
 
No problem - there's no point in me criticising something if I don't understand something about it. I'm also just fascinated by the human need to create and believe in mysticism of all sorts.
I totally agree that the Bible (well, New Testament anyway) contains very laudable teachings. I even read it from time to time and and try to apply some of them in my own situation. This is not incompatible with a belief that This post will be deleted if not edited immediately was nothing other than an interesting historical figure and not the son of a deity that does not exist and that The Bible is simply an interesting book.
casiopea said:
Im not even sure we are talking about the same thing here ClubMan. You keep refering to papal infallability which I havent commented on or disagreed with - are you debating with yourself?
OK - here's a straight question: do you agree that Catholics must accept that the Pope is infallible on issues of docrtine and morals?
Whether you or anybody else likes it or not Papal infallibility is an issue of dogma and, as such, must be accepted blindly and not questioned by practising Catholics.
It may irk you that they don't enforce the rules as rigidly as you'd like but there you go, their choice to make, not yours.
It doesn't irk me and I agree that it is their right to create and enforce their own rules (with the usual caveat being as long as no non consenting other is harmed by these rules or their expression). I just think it's logical to assume that people who claim to be adherents to a particular religious movement would adhere to the rules laid down by that movement. On the other hand I suppose logic doesn't necessarily apply in all cases in this context. However just as I respect an individual's right to believe in whatever they like I also respect an individual's right to act illogically or behave hypocritically. It doesn't mean that I respect the actual beliefs or behaviours themselves in either case.
Is it the existence of such tolerance that influences your anathema to religion
No - I am an atheist/secularist so that is what motivates me in this context. I am not an atheist as any sort of rebellion against the church in case that's what you're asking.
and does the secular inconsistency in the application of law bug you as much.
Not sure what you mean?
Fair enough if it does, as for every "rules are there to be broken" outlook there's also the "rules are there to be obeyed" lobby and despite the accusations you fling at people like me, I can hardly espouse tolerance if I don't include you.
Again I don't really understand these comments. What accusations did I "fling" at you?
 
umop3p!sdn said:
For example, how many people have conducted an experiment to prove to themselves that the Earth isn't flat?

Look at the moon during a lunar eclipse. You will clearly see that the Earth's shadow is round.
 
ClubMan said:
Anybody who is a Catholic and does not accept Papal infallibility on all relevant matters of doctrine and morals is fooling themselves and/or a hypocrite.

For a non religious person who doesnt believe in God, you seem to really enjoy preaching ;o)

ClubMan said:
OK - here's a straight question: do you agree that Catholics must accept that the Pope is infallible on issues of docrtine and morals?

How is this relevant to what we were discussing ClubMan? Do you just want a discussion about papal infallability? I can give you my views on papal infallibilty but why is it relevant? If you wish to discuss this perhaps you should open a new thread.
 
I suppose I do enjoy preaching - especially to non converts and based on the facts of a situation. I find it challenging and stimulating.

It's relevant because you said:
which seems to dispute the fact that certain rules (e.g. Catholic dogma) must be accepted unquestioningly by adherents. Do you disagree?
 
ClubMan said:
OK - here's a straight question: do you agree that Catholics must accept that the Pope is infallible on issues of docrtine and morals?
Not really such a straight question. The official Catholic Church position is that not everything the Pope says on doctrine and morals is infallible. Certain conditions must be met and then the infallibity doctrine will be declared and invoked. Any believing Catholic must subscribe to these doctrines. However, this has happened on only two occasions (the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption) The Church does not claim that matters such as women priests, celibacy, homosexuality etc are covered by papal infallibility.
 
A little bit about Papal Infallibility (from http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp);
The last line is significant. That which is decided to be true by the Magesterium must be believed.

That which is decided to be true has the backing of the Holy Spirit, and therefore is not in error.

For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

Infallibilty is used to tell the faithful what is to be believed, and clarifies any areas of doubt or where doctrine has been questioned.

As St. Augustine said "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10)
 
My understanding is that outside of the two issues listed by Observer above the Catholic Church allows it's followers to make a moral choice, based on an informed conscience (informed by the teachings of the Church). Therefore if after taking into account what the Church teaches on (for example) homosexuality you still think that it's ok to live a homosexual lifestyle then you can do so without committing a sin.
 
I dont see how that makes it relevant?

Anyway to answer your question.

OK - here's a straight question: do you agree that Catholics must accept that the Pope is infallible on issues of docrtine and morals?

No. I dont.

I believe the Papalcy is infallible and there is a big difference. Papal infallibility is an issue for many Christians, non-believers and many Catholics. The history of this comes from the bible where This post will be deleted if not edited immediately called Peter his rock. Peter in latin even means rock and is today in Italian (pietra). This post will be deleted if not edited immediately said (paraphrasing) you are peter, apon this rock Ill build this church, this made peter, the first pope, "infallible". The second vatican council hundreds of years later made some changes in this area, clarifying that it is not the pope but rather the seat (think office) that is infallible. So Benedict and John Paul II as men/theologians are not infallible, the papalcy they represent is. This means when a pope is taken ill or goes mad or dying the papalcy is still functioning.

Rulings and changes coming from the papalcy come from an office (of many theologians) not from just one man. When the Pope speaks he represents the papalcy and changes do come from that office.

There was quite a moving post back there from Berlin who lost her baby. Anybody (believer or nonbeliever) would agree with her. Interestingly this papalcy (read office not Benedict) wont make a statement on the issue of Limbo which many catholics (myself included) hope means that this ridiculous notion of Limbo will be abolished. We are waiting for an answer from the papal office since November 2005. Just because I want that change or because I hope the papalcy will abolish celebacy doesnt mean Im a good or bad catholic or a fool or a hypocrite.
 
Absolutely true! But (there's always a but!) you must take all possible steps to inform your conscience. This includes study of the relevant church teachings, consultation with spiritual advisor, prayer for guidance etc. If, after all that, you still think you are right and the church is wrong then your behaviour is not sinful. It also works the other way around. If your informed conscience tells you something is wrong but the official Church position says it's OK, then it would be sinful to follow the Church teaching rather than your conscience. (This could be very relevant in wartime, in the context of the Church's teaching on what constitutes "a just war")