- Feb 13, 2010
- Reaction score
This is ignoring the fact that Catholic marital beliefs are different than ours with their complex canons on annulment, divorce, and reconciliation.Maria said:In Roman Catholicism, deceit of any kind can annul a wedding. So, if a man wanted to marry a woman not because he loved her, but to hide his homosexuality to attain financial gain, which was done more than we would like to admit, this deceit invalidates a marriage. If a man was sexually impotent, and he knew this, but he refused to admit this to the priest and/or his future wife, this could also invalidate a marriage.Antonis said:First of all, hesitation and deceit are two different things.Maria said:So let me get this clear.
Although I was chrismated into the Orthodox Church because the priest and bishop felt that my hesitation invalidated my confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church, deceit does not invalidate a Baptism?
If you hesitated, you may or may not have been participating according to your will. Your bishop likely recommended, then, that you be chrismated "just in case," which you essentially outlined anyway. This is logical, because participation in baptism/chrismation shouldn't be against one's will. Its "validity" would then be in question.
While the OP's baptism involved deceit, and this is certainly inappropriate, he was given trinitarian baptism and he fully desired it. Regardless of his sinful activity or otherwise, he was baptized and this is to be recognized.
Lack of free will also invalidated a Roman Catholic marriage, so forced marriages were not recognized. This has caused some scrupulosity. How many men and women hesitate at the altar?
When I got married in the Roman Catholic Church, we had a disclosure form which we had to fill out completely that covered all these points.
If deceit and/or hesitation can invalidate a wedding, then could not deceit and/or hesitation invalidate a baptism?
The deceit in the case you mentioned involves participating in a sacrament for the wrong reason. According to Catholic belief (in this case uniquely marital) being involved in a marriage without desire for true marriage would mean it never occurred, hence the annulment. As I said before, the OP had a true desire for baptism. It is acceptable.
Now you can keep throwing inapplicable anecdotal cases at me and we can venture into the complexities of Roman Canon Law, or we can both agree that he obey his bishop as is proper. If you have to work this hard at it, is it not obvious that it should be left to an archpastor?
This is shamefully unorthodox. If in doubt, obey your bishop. One does not run to another bishop for a true "gold standard" of Orthodoxy. THAT is against the canons.Rhomes, if in doubt, please check with the ROCOR.
Your increasing doubt can only lead to scrupulosity.