Niko's Nature

“Whatsoever thy soul shall say to me, I will do for thee.”

3 notes &

Anonymous asked: According to the Church, how far apart should two people be related to get married at a minimum? (Not that I or anyone I know is planning upon marring a close cousin, but I'm curious as to know this)

Great question!

Canon law says:

Can.  1091 §1. In the direct line of consanguinity marriage is invalid between all ancestors and descendants, both legitimate and natural.

§2. In the collateral line marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree.

§3. The impediment of consanguinity is not multiplied.

Unpacking that:

Paragraph 1 tells us that it is wrong for anyone to marry someone they are directly related to, ex. a parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, child, grand-child.  That’s easy.

Paragraph 2 is more complicated.  The Church uses a method of calculating relationships using degrees which we are not really used to.  We usually say first cousin once removed and stuff like that.  Luckily someone made a chart which can help us understand this:

image

Basically, the trick is to figure out how many people are involved in the relationship between two people (leaving out the common ancestor.)  

So, in a relationship between Bob and Sarah who are brother and sister, there’s Bob and Sarah, and they are related because of their parents.  But you leave out the parents because those are the common ancestor, so you have “2.” So you would say that there are two degrees between Bob and Sarah.  Canon law would forbid that.

Bob and Sarah have a cousin named Joe.  They are related because their Grandparents had at least two kids, Bob and Sarah’s parent, and Bob and Sarah’s parent’s sibling who would be Joe’s parent, and each parent had one kid with their spouse.  So, count 1 Grandparent, 1 Parent, 1 Uncle/Aunt, 1 for Joe, and 1 for Bob and Sarah = 5 subtract one for the common ancestor (grandparent) and you get 4.  Canon law forbids that as well.  

So, the closest the Church allows marriages is the 5th degree of the collateral line which includes 1st cousins once removed (Your cousins’ kids or your 2nd cousins’ parents.)  I suppose it would also include Great-Grand Nephew/Nieces, i.e. Your brother or sister’s great grandkids, but please, do not marry your brother or sister’s great grandkids. 

I hope this helped!

Filed under Catholic Canon Law Marriage Family

186 notes &

exfidefiducia:

howietheghost:

I would gladly do this if it were offered at my own parish

ask your priest if he would be okay with you kneeling to receive…you can be the one to start a trend! and you don’t need a communion rail :)


Though standing for communion is the norm, (in the U.S.) the faithful are permitted to kneel, you don’t need to ask permission.

exfidefiducia:

howietheghost:

I would gladly do this if it were offered at my own parish

ask your priest if he would be okay with you kneeling to receive…you can be the one to start a trend! and you don’t need a communion rail :)

Though standing for communion is the norm, (in the U.S.) the faithful are permitted to kneel, you don’t need to ask permission.

(Source: goandannouce)

5 notes &

Anonymous asked: I don't get why it's considered a sin anyway. Though the general answer from conservative Christians would be "because scripture says.." And that's a really good way to word it. That people put their belief in the Bible over actual people's lives. I hate when people treat the Bible as if it's a black and white manual. The world is grey. That's why I don't understand why the church won't accept loving queer relationships.

saint-bmo:

i feel you completely. its really frustrating to have to deal with that shit on a daily basis too.

I’ve got to say, whenever I see people say that, I really wonder if they’ve actually ever had a conversation with someone on the other side, or whether they just have some abstract concept of some dumb silly conservative Christian strawman they’re arguing against.  Because, I’ve never actually met a conservative who used scriptural arguments as they’re go-to, (though many, (quite rightly,) accept them.)   Most of them present a consistent and nuanced approach to natural law.  For example:

http://nikosnature.tumblr.com/post/87186084028/hey-sorry-to-bother-you-but-i-wound-up-here-after

and as a follow up post:

http://nikosnature.tumblr.com/post/87770814533/re-allofthegrero

and I’ve never heard a good response to those arguments from someone who supports same-sex marriage.  I don’t feel like it’s asking too much for people to actually engage the discussion at hand, and not one had in some theoretical world where “liberal” = love and “conservative” = hate.

293 notes &

Catholic and Pro-choice?

forthecatholicgirls:

You cannot be Orthodox/Catholic and pro-choice.

imafeministanddamnproud:

forthecatholicgirls:

cr0w13y:

varangoi:

yokosukababy:

forthecatholicgirls:

thefirstdayofourlives:

0cchi-luminosi:

I’m Roman Catholic and pro choice.

^^

pro-choice catholics like me beg to differ from this opinion.

Beg to differ all you want.

The Catholic Church is based in the…

You cannot be a pro-choice Catholic. If you claim to be so then you are an apostate. If you really think you’re in the right, give us your name, a photograph and your diocese so that your self-excommunication can be made formal.

Good luck excommunicating every pro-choice Catholic from the Church…it may take awhile!

Do you (OP) really believe in and follow every single catholic teaching ever? You cannot pick and choose which ones are worth lambasting others over.

Additionally, through Catholic Social Teachings, there are numerous ways in which being pro-choice could actually be defended. For example, preferential option for the poor provides Catholics with understanding of how to care for those in poverty, and pregnancy is certainly expensive, childbirth is expensive, there is no paid maternity leave in the US, and let alone the cost of raising a child. There are resources for those who can’t afford pregnancy/children and other options, but they aren’t right or even viable for many people.

Reblogging for the commentary. I struggle to see how being pro-life these days is actually being for life. It’s being anti-abortion without thinking about the consequences. To apply Catholic Social Teachings to the current, modern world, being pro-choice actually makes more sense. Catholics, of course, are called to serve the poor and alleviate poverty and the suffering that comes with it— that can also mean now advocating for birth control. I believe it’s been well-established that when women have access and the tools to plan their pregnancies, they are less likely to live in poverty, more likely to be healthy, and have a much better quality of life. Sounds like all good things to me.

xx

This is fundamentally not a question about excommunication, (although it should be noted that participating in an abortion, whether you are aborting your own child or helping another abort theirs merits automatic excommunication.)  

This is a question of what it means to be a Christian, and luckily that question has been settled by scripture and tradition.  

In the Creed of the Catholic Church, the summary of our Christian beliefs, we read:

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church…

This is not some platitude.  It is a core part of our belief.  We understand it to mean that God ordained the apostles and their successors to maintain the deposit of the faith, to teach, and hold the Church together.  The teachings of the Church are those found in the apostolic tradition.  Thus, when one separates themselves from that tradition by turning away from these doctrines, such as the teaching against abortion or contraception, one is in fact separating themselves from the Church.

And it will not help to try to hide under the mantle of Catholic Social Teaching because Catholic Social Teaching itself emphatically condemns both contraception and abortion.  In the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church we see:

155: …The first right presented in this list is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, which is the condition for the exercise of all other rights and, in particular, implies the illicitness of every form of procured abortion and of euthanasia.”

223: Concerning the “methods” for practicing responsible procreation, the first to be rejected as morally illicit are sterilization and abortion.  The latter in particular is a horrendous crime and constitutes a particularly serious moral disorder; far from being a right, it is a sad phenomenon that contributes seriously to spreading a mentality against life, representing a dangerous threat to a just and democratic social coexistence.

Also to be rejected is recourse to contraceptive methods in their different forms: this rejection is based on a correct and integral understanding of the person and human sexuality and represents a moral call to defend the true development of peoples.

Therefore, by defending abortion and contraception you are not advocating for justice, in fact you are hindering the cause of justice.  You have cast your lot with the eugenicist Malthusians who say that the only way to get rid of poverty is to get rid of poor people.

I say these words strongly, not out of hate for you, but out of sincere love, in the hope that they are strong enough to pry you from your misunderstanding.  Contraception and abortion can never be used to bring healing to the poor, for they necessarily attempt to erase not poverty, but the people in poverty.  It is not love to tell a poor woman that she must kill her child in order to afford bread.  It is not love to tell a committed man and wife that they cannot give themselves fully to each other but must instead use contraception, because they cannot afford children.  

If you truly love the poor as you claim, and as I sincerely believe you do, then stop sacrificing their children on an altar to Moloch, and instead give them and their children the food, clothing, and shelter they need.  If you truly love them, be Christ to them, not the grim reaper.  

In Amor Christi,

Niko

Filed under Abortion Contraception

15 notes &

Anonymous asked: Where was God throughout the early years of humanity?

Dear Anon,

Where wasn’t God throughout the early years of humanity?  Look at any civilization, any culture, even the ones we know virtually nothing about, and you’ll see they all had some idea some image of God.  Were they perfectly refined ideas of God as the “I am who am,” who’s essence is existence, manifested in triune unity?  No, of course not, but neither did they know that light could be observed as both a wave and a particle, yet observe light they did, and just as they observed light without understanding it, so too do we see that they observed religious practices towards God, though not always with understanding.  

The fact that for almost the entire history of mankind, man has had some image of God speaks to God’s movement in the world, for where else could the idea of God have come from, but God Himself?  And the unanimous testimony in distant lands throughout the ages of God’s presence in the world can only be seen as the concurrence of thousands of independent experiments, and in each one, we find the null hypothesis, that God exists, has never been rejected.

Thus, the question to ask is not “Where was God throughout the early years of humanity?”  But “Where was atheism?”  If atheism is supposed to be the natural state of humanity and theism is merely some fabrication, then why should we find theism in all cultures, and atheism in virtually none?  It does not make sense.  Therefore, Beloved, rejoice in the knowledge we who are born in Christ through baptism are blessed to have, that the God that walked the vast oceans of eternity before the formation of the Earth, worshiped in some form by all peoples, is the same God that walked on the waters of the sea of Galilee as Jesus the Christ.  

In Amor Christi,

Niko

Filed under Catholic Christianity Catholicism Atheist Atheism

295 notes &

varangoi:

egiru:

varangoi:

christconquers:

catholicliving:

From the Catholic Memes FB page

Oh yeah… Right after the Papists abandon the Papacy

The band never broke up, one of the lead guitarists just decided to leave and start his own.
We just gave the lead to the other guitarist.

FRICK!! PEOPLE, DONT FOCUS ON WHO LEFT WHO
ADMIT IT, THE BREAK OF THE CHURCH WAS BOTH SIDES FAULT YOU KNOW


THE POPE EMISSARIES FOR NOT WANTING TO TALK AND EXCOMMUNICATING THE PATRIARCH. YES, THAT WAS OUR FAULT, BUT THEN THE PATRIARCH EXCOMMUNICATING THE POPE ONLY MADE THINGS WORSE. ITS BOTH SIDE FAULT.
WE CHRISTIANS HAVE ENOUGH BY FIGHTING AGAINST THE HEDONISTS LIBERALS OF OUR AGE, PLUS FIGHTING AGAINST THE PROTESTANT, AND THEN TO BE FIGHTING BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX.
DO YOU KNOW WHATS IMPORTANT??? THIS:

THIS IS WHAT TRULY MATTERS, TRYING TO GET BACK TOGETHER, FIGHTING THIS WORLD TOGETHER
IM SORRY FOR THE RANT BUT COMMENTS LIKE THE ABOVE MAKE ME SAD/MAD
WE ALREADY HAVE WAAAAY TOO MANY ENEMIES TO BE FIGHTING BETWEEN OURSLEVES

We can talk together, but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church did not cease to exist after the schism. Whatever politics were involved, it was the Roman Church that changed, and it was the Roman Church that demanded the Eastern Bishops to bow to it.
We do not need to get back together. Against Liberalism we may fight as groups with a common goal, but at the end of the day, it is the Orthodox Church that has retained truth.
Claiming that both of us are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church robs us both of the title. It means Christ’s Church has been defunct since 1054.
But that is not the case. Not the case at all. Let’s focus on the canons, let’s focus on our theology, rather than emotional wishes for a “reunification”. If you believe the Roman Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, you should rightfully believe us to be schismatics and heretics who must rejoin her fold. And if I have any true allegiance to my Church, then I declare it to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Undivided. And the Latins must rejoin us.

Aye, that is precisely the situation we have.  And it is this situation that shows most clearly that in fact it is the Roman Church which is the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, from which the easterns separated themselves.
For if hypothetically we were to “join” the East, by what measure would we consider whether we have joined?  Do we look to Jerusalem or Moscow?  Constantinople or Antioch?  The Orient?  The matter is unclear.
However, if hypothetically, the Eastern churches wished to join the West, there is no unholy confusion, it is clear that Rome is the standard by which their orthodoxy is judged.  
"And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" - St. Augustine - (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 4:5 [A.D. 397])."
The Easterns divided by beliefs and nationalities cannot call themselves one in the same way the Church can say that She is one.  The Easterns, in many competing voices, cannot say they are set apart, [holy] from all other churches in the same way the Catholic Church can say She is set apart from all other Churches.  And it would be wrong to call the Roman Church the Roman Orthodox Church as if it were merely counter the Russian Orthodox or the Greek Orthodox, rather She is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church of every nation.  Thus, it is only the Roman Church which can claim to be truly Catholic.

varangoi:

egiru:

varangoi:

christconquers:

catholicliving:

From the Catholic Memes FB page

Oh yeah… Right after the Papists abandon the Papacy

The band never broke up, one of the lead guitarists just decided to leave and start his own.

We just gave the lead to the other guitarist.

FRICK!! PEOPLE, DONT FOCUS ON WHO LEFT WHO

ADMIT IT, THE BREAK OF THE CHURCH WAS BOTH SIDES FAULT YOU KNOW

THE POPE EMISSARIES FOR NOT WANTING TO TALK AND EXCOMMUNICATING THE PATRIARCH. YES, THAT WAS OUR FAULT, BUT THEN THE PATRIARCH EXCOMMUNICATING THE POPE ONLY MADE THINGS WORSE. ITS BOTH SIDE FAULT.

WE CHRISTIANS HAVE ENOUGH BY FIGHTING AGAINST THE HEDONISTS LIBERALS OF OUR AGE, PLUS FIGHTING AGAINST THE PROTESTANT, AND THEN TO BE FIGHTING BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND ORTHODOX.

DO YOU KNOW WHATS IMPORTANT??? THIS:

image

THIS IS WHAT TRULY MATTERS, TRYING TO GET BACK TOGETHER, FIGHTING THIS WORLD TOGETHER

IM SORRY FOR THE RANT BUT COMMENTS LIKE THE ABOVE MAKE ME SAD/MAD

WE ALREADY HAVE WAAAAY TOO MANY ENEMIES TO BE FIGHTING BETWEEN OURSLEVES

We can talk together, but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church did not cease to exist after the schism. Whatever politics were involved, it was the Roman Church that changed, and it was the Roman Church that demanded the Eastern Bishops to bow to it.

We do not need to get back together. Against Liberalism we may fight as groups with a common goal, but at the end of the day, it is the Orthodox Church that has retained truth.

Claiming that both of us are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church robs us both of the title. It means Christ’s Church has been defunct since 1054.

But that is not the case. Not the case at all. Let’s focus on the canons, let’s focus on our theology, rather than emotional wishes for a “reunification”. If you believe the Roman Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, you should rightfully believe us to be schismatics and heretics who must rejoin her fold. And if I have any true allegiance to my Church, then I declare it to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Undivided. And the Latins must rejoin us.

Aye, that is precisely the situation we have.  And it is this situation that shows most clearly that in fact it is the Roman Church which is the one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, from which the easterns separated themselves.

For if hypothetically we were to “join” the East, by what measure would we consider whether we have joined?  Do we look to Jerusalem or Moscow?  Constantinople or Antioch?  The Orient?  The matter is unclear.

However, if hypothetically, the Eastern churches wished to join the West, there is no unholy confusion, it is clear that Rome is the standard by which their orthodoxy is judged.  

"And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" - St. Augustine - (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 4:5 [A.D. 397])."

The Easterns divided by beliefs and nationalities cannot call themselves one in the same way the Church can say that She is one.  The Easterns, in many competing voices, cannot say they are set apart, [holy] from all other churches in the same way the Catholic Church can say She is set apart from all other Churches.  And it would be wrong to call the Roman Church the Roman Orthodox Church as if it were merely counter the Russian Orthodox or the Greek Orthodox, rather She is the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church of every nation.  Thus, it is only the Roman Church which can claim to be truly Catholic.

Filed under eastern orthodoxy Catholic Eastern Orthodox

13 notes &

Archbishop Cordileone's Awesome Response to Gay Marriage Supporters

"Please do not make judgments based on stereotypes, media images and comments taken out of context. Rather, get to know us first as fellow human beings. I myself am willing to meet personally with any of you not only to dialogue, but simply so that we can get to know each other. It is the personal encounter that changes the vision of the other and softens the heart. In the end, love is the answer, and this can happen even between people with such deep disagreements. That may sound fanciful and far-fetched, but it is true, it is possible. I know it is possible, I know this from personal experience. When we come together seeking to understand the other with good will, miracles can happen."

Filed under Catholic Christianity Gay Marriage Homosexuality Archbishop Cordileone

Want to Get Sorted?
I'm a Gryffindor!