-
PERTAINING TO CHURCH TEACHINGS
A question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble? We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur. The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behaviour by man or woman. In other words, it is the offence that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break. This is also the teaching of the Eastern Church fathers. A quotation from the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria will be sufficient to make our point here: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”
The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin....."
PERTAINING TO LEGALITIES AND CHURCH CONSENT:
LEGALLY, I am single. If I were to marry again, there will be NO impediments, whether sa US or sa Philippines. Alam din ng mga 8 counselors, Church covering (pastors and bishops), relatives, churchmates ang naging situation namin (ex wife) and they have given me their support and blessing to my decision after several attempts to reconcile with my ex wife. BOTTOM LINE FOR HUSBAND IS TO LOVE, PROTECT, PROVIDE, WHILE WIFE IS TO HONOR, RESPECT, SUBMIT TO HUSBAND (PLS READ EPHESIANS 5:21-25)
In the US we have Divorce, in the Philippines you have the Annulment or Church Annulment. Divorce DISSOLVES a recognized marriage while Annulment says that the marriage is invalid in the first place therefore there is NO MARRIAGE to begin with.
If you will analyze, merong play of words but the essence is the same. Only that DIVORCE is 'nagpapakatotoo' while ANNULMENT is hindi nagpapakatotoo, using a sugar coat to avoid the term DIVORCE. From what I read, Filipinos, whether they know it or not are already practicing divorce but with the use of a more appealing terminology, that is, ANNULMENT.
I commend though the strictness of Philippine Laws and Church laws with regard ANNULMENT. Kasi dito sa America and many other countries, couples just divorce for any other reasons---minsan mababaw lang ang dahilan. And that is displeasing in the eyes of God. The thing about annulment in the Philippines is it is so expensive that only the rich and a few middle class can afford. Notice you have plenty of annuled celebrities (actors & actresses), while many middle class and poor ones resort to 'living in' because they can't afford annulment fees. This has caused greater damage to families by producing more illegitimate children na pinapanganak ng live-in partners na hindi nagpapa-annul ng previous marriage kahit matagal nang hiwalay, only because it is very expensive to do so.
-
Fr. Abe, CRS said...
-
[PERTAINING TO CHURCH TEACHINGS
A question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble?]
OF COURSE JESUS CONSIDERED MARRIAGE AS INDISSOLUBLE. HE ALREADY DECLARED THAT HUMAN BEINGS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO BREAK THE UNION MADE BY GOD:
Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
IF THE LORD WANTED MARRIAGE TO BE DISSOLVED HE SHOULD HAVE RETAINED THE STATUS QUO OF THE MOSAIC LAW CONCERNING DIVORCE.
[We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur.]
THE STATEMENT OF CHIRST PROHIBITING THE BREAKING OF MARITAL BOND IS CLEAR AND PRECISE. IT IS ONLY VAGUE TO THOSE WHO REFUSES THE TEACHING OF CHRIST.
THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS FIRMLY ROOTED ON THAT CLEAR AND SPECIFIC AND CATEGORICAL TEACHING OF CHRIST DISALLOWING DIVORCE.
IT IS YOU WHO IS NOT CLEAR. JESUS IS CLEAR. JESUS IS TELLING THAT WHAT GOD UNITED NO MAN MUST BREAK APART.
JESUS DIDN'T SAY THAT IT CANNOT OCCUR, IN FACT, HE RECOGNIZED IN MATTHEW 19:8 THAT MOSES ALLOWED DIVORCE DUE TO THE HARDENED HEARTS OF THE PEOPLE. SO, TO INSIST ON DIVORCE DESPITE THE PROHIBITION OF CHRIST IS TO HAVE A HARDENED HEART AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD. THIS IS WHAT THE PRO-DIVORCE ARE DOING. THEY ARE IN OPEN REBELLION AGAINST THE WILL OF GOD.
[The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behaviour by man or woman. In other words, it is the offence that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break.]
INDEED, MARRIAGE CAN BE TAINTED BY SIN AND BY HUMAN FAILURES AS WELL AS ERRORS. AND IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT DIVORCE IS AN EFFECT OF SIN AND HUMAN FRAILTY. WHY DO WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THE EFFECT OF SIN? LET US BEAR IN MIND THAT THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH:
Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
SO, IF WE WILL INSIST ON DIVORCE IT WILL LEAD US TO DEATH - MORAL AND SPIRITUAL DEATH. ON THE OTHER HAND IF WE WILL FOLLOW THE COMMAND OF THE LORD JESUS NOT TO BREAK THE UNION MADE BY GOD THEN WE WILL EARN ETERNAL LIFE.
[This is also the teaching of the Eastern Church fathers. A quotation from the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria will be sufficient to make our point here: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”]
IT IS HUMAN ERRORS AND SINFULNESS THAT CAUSE DIVORCE IN MARITAL RELATIONSHIP BUT IF YOU ENCODE DIVORCE IN THE LEGAL DOCUMENT THEN YOU ARE LEGALIZING AND SUPPORTING SIN AND ERRORS. THEN THE LEGISLATORS AND THE THE LEGISLATED LAW OF DIVORCE ARE ALSO SINFUL AND ERRONEOUS. IT IS AN IMMORAL LAW. THAT IS WHY THERE IS A SAYING: "NOT EVERYTHING THAT IS LEGAL IS MORAL." THE DIVORCE LAW IS IMMORAL BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST THE WILL OF CHRIST THE LORD.
[The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul.]
WRONG. IT IS NOT MARRIAGE LIFE WHICH HAS NO CONTENT AND LEADS TO LOSS OF THE SOUL BUT IT IS THE SINFULLNESS OF THE PERSON INVOLVED IN MARRIAGE.
YOU ARE WRONG HERE. THE CHURCH NEVER CONSIDER MARRIAGE LIFE AS THE SOURCE OF PROBLEM BUT SIN AND HUMAN FRAILTY AND DISOBEDIENCE FROM GOD. IF A HUSBAND OR WIFE IS UNFAITHFUL IT IS THEIR INFIDELITY THAT MUST BE BLAMED NOT MARRIAGE.
[John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.]
HUH? WHERE DID ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM SAY THAT? PROPER CITATION PLEASE. BREAKING THE COVENANT WITH GOD IS AN ACT OF TREACHERY. IT IS COMMITTING ANOTHER SIN. HOW CAN YOU GAIN SALVATION FOR YOUR SOUL IF YOU WILL BREAK THE COVENANT? BOTH DIVORCE AND BREAKING OF COVENANT ARE SINFUL AND THEREFORE WILL BOTH BRING PUNISHMENT TO THE SOUL.
[Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin....."]
RIGHTLY SO.
-
[PERTAINING TO LEGALITIES AND CHURCH CONSENT:
LEGALLY, I am single.]
HOW ABOUT PRACTICALLY? DO YOU HAVE A PARTNER?
[If I were to marry again, there will be NO impediments, whether sa US or sa Philippines.]
OK.
[Alam din ng mga 8 counselors, Church covering (pastors and bishops), relatives, churchmates ang naging situation namin (ex wife) and they have given me their support and blessing to my decision after several attempts to reconcile with my ex wife.]
EX-WIFE? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WERE YOU GRANTED DIVORCE IN THE U.S.? OR YOUR MARRIAGE IS ANNULLED?
[BOTTOM LINE FOR HUSBAND IS TO LOVE, PROTECT, PROVIDE, WHILE WIFE IS TO HONOR, RESPECT, SUBMIT TO HUSBAND (PLS READ EPHESIANS 5:21-25)]
I HAVE READ THAT.
[In the US we have Divorce, in the Philippines you have the Annulment or Church Annulment.]
YES. DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
[Divorce DISSOLVES a recognized marriage while Annulment says that the marriage is invalid in the first place therefore there is NO MARRIAGE to begin with.]
CORRECT.
-
[If you will analyze, merong play of words but the essence is the same.]
NO, NO, NO... THIS IS NOT A PLAY OF WORDS BUT ESSENTIAL DIFFERENCE. DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT ARE NOT THE SAME ESSENTIALLY.
DIVORCE IS BREAKING THE MARRIAGE. ANLULMENT IS DECLARING THAT THERE WAS NO MARRIAGE. IF THERE IS NO MARRIAGE THEN THERE IS NO BREAK OR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE.
[Only that DIVORCE is 'nagpapakatotoo' while ANNULMENT is hindi nagpapakatotoo,]
THIS IS A VERY STUPID DESCRIPTION OF DIVORCE IN COMPARISON WITH ANNULMENT. DIVORCE IS A VIOLATION OF THE WILL OF GOD WHILE ANNULMENT SHOWS THAT TEHRE IS NOTHING TO VIOLATE AT ALL BECAUSE THE ALLEGED MARRIAGE IS INVALID AND THEREFORE OF NO VALUE OR MERIT.
[using a sugar coat to avoid the term DIVORCE.]
THAT IS A MANIFESTATION OF IGNORANCE. YOU ARE IMPOSING YOUR IGNORANCE BY ATTACKING THE CHURCH. WE DO NOT AVOID DIVORCE... WE CONFRONTED IT WITH COURAGE AND DETERMINATION. WE FOUGHT KINGS AND PRESIDENTS AND PRIME MINISTERS AGAINST IT. AND WE LOST SEVERAL COUNTRIES DUE TO REJECTION OF DIVORCE. WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY DIVORCE.
IF YOU ARE TRYING TO AVOID DIVORCE THEN THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. DON'T IMPOSE ON US YOUR OWN DELUSIONS.
[From what I read, Filipinos, whether they know it or not are already practicing divorce but with the use of a more appealing terminology, that is, ANNULMENT.]
WHAT YOU HAVE READ AND YOUR INTERPRETATION OF IT ARE BOTH WRONG. THERE IS NO DIVORCE IN THE PHILIPPINES BUT THERE IS ONLY ANNULMENT. THE TWO ARE VERY VERY DIFFERENT.
[I commend though the strictness of Philippine Laws and Church laws with regard ANNULMENT.]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE STRICTNESS OF GOVT. LAWS ON ANNULMENT IS DUE TO CATHOLIC INFLUENCE.
[Kasi dito sa America and many other countries, couples just divorce for any other reasons---minsan mababaw lang ang dahilan. And that is displeasing in the eyes of God.]
THAT IS CORRECT. THE AMERICANS HAVE CHEAPENED THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE AND DESTROYED ITS SANCTITY BY THEIR DIVORCE LAS VEGAS STYLE.
[The thing about annulment in the Philippines is it is so expensive that only the rich and a few middle class can afford.]
BECAUSE IT REQUIRES LAWYERS TO STUDY AND CHECK EACH CASE. IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE GOVERNMENT AND OF THE CHURCH. THAT IS WHAT IS NEEDED. IF YOU WANT TO CAN GIVE THEM MONEY FOR LAWYER'S FEE.
[Notice you have plenty of annuled celebrities (actors & actresses), while many middle class and poor ones resort to 'living in' because they can't afford annulment fees.]
THESE ACTORS AND ACTRESSES ARE MOSTLY MARRIED ONLY IN CIVIL MARRIAGES. WE KNOW THEIR CASES BECAUSE THEY ARE CELEBRITIES. THE POOR EITHER PREFER TO LIVE WITH EACH OTHER UNTIL THE END OR PRACTICE 'LIVE IN' WHICH IS FREE FORNICATION.
[This has caused greater damage to families by producing more illegitimate children na pinapanganak ng live-in partners na hindi nagpapa-annul ng previous marriage kahit matagal nang hiwalay, only because it is very expensive to do so.]
THE EXISTENCE OF MANY ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN MUST NOT BE BLAMED ON EXPENSIVE ANNULMENT PROCESS BUT ON INFIDELITIES OF THEIR PARENTS. THERE ARE NO BASTARD CHILDREN THERE ARE ONLY BASTARD PARENTS. WHETHER THE ANNULMENT PROCESS IS CHEAP OR EXPENSIVE IT IS STILL THE FAULT OF THE ADULTEROUS LOVERS BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES PRODUCING BABIES OUT OF WEDLOCK AND NOT THE ANNULMENT PROCESS.
.jpg)
![ST. JEROME EMILIANI [1486-1537]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6dKQTchkJaA/R0lo013dyBI/AAAAAAAAB_4/XzUAPDESwwQ/s1600/St.+Jerome+in+prayer,+small_1.jpg)
He must be quoting from Opus Imperfectum, an ancient document falsely attributed to St. John Chrysostom. It was written by an Arian.
ReplyDelete[EX-WIFE? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WERE YOU GRANTED DIVORCE IN THE U.S.? OR YOUR MARRIAGE IS ANNULLED?]
ReplyDeleteYes I was recently granted divorce in the US and planning to marry the person that I truly love. You must know that I am minister of a Church here in the US. My first marriage was a match not made in heaven. How come? It was a marriage that was not bound by God because it was a marriage without true love. I cannot fully disclose but all I can say is that I just agreed to the wedding out of pity for her. But I learned to love her. Until irreconcilable differences sets in through the years. Yes I admit we had a mistake but now I'm ready to marry the woman I truly love.
I THINK SO. THERE IS NO STATEMENT OF ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM SUPPORTING DIVORCE. OTHERWISE HE WOULD HAVE BEEN DECLARED A HERETIC.
ReplyDelete[EX-WIFE? WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WERE YOU GRANTED DIVORCE IN THE U.S.? OR YOUR MARRIAGE IS ANNULLED?]
ReplyDelete[Yes I was recently granted divorce in the US and planning to marry the person that I truly love.]
AND YOU ARE TRYING TO JUSTIFY YOUR DIVORCE EVEN IF IT IS AGAINS THE WILL OF THE LORD. WHAT CAN HAD JOINED CAN BE PUT ASUNDER BY THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT WHO IS ALSO PRO-ABORTION. HOW NICE OF YOU.
NOW, YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU ARE MARRYING A PERSON THAT YOU TRULY LOVE. DIDN'T YOU SAY SUCH A THING TO YOUR WIFE WHOM YOU DIVORCED TO WED THIS LEGAL CONCUBINE? YOU ALSO TOLD HER THAT YOU TRULY LOVE HER DIDN'T YOU? AND WHEN YOU PREFER TO DIVORCE THIS SECOND WOMAN THEN YOU CAN TELL TO THE THIRD WOMAN THAT SHE IS YOUR TRUE LOVE. HOW NICE.
[You must know that I am minister of a Church here in the US.]
MINISTER OF THE CHURCH? DEFINITELY NOT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. HOW CAN YOU BE A MINISTER OF CHRIST WHEN YOU CAN VIOLATE THE WILL OF CHRIST AND INSTEAD YOU ARE BREAKING WHAT GOD HAD UNITED BY THE POWER OF THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT. WHO IS YOUR GOD JESUS OR OBAMA? ARE YOU MINISTER OF CHRIST OR OF OBAMA?
[My first marriage was a match not made in heaven.]
SINCE YOU WANTED DIVORCE YOU CLAIM THAT YOUR MARRIAGE IS NOT MADE IN HEAVEN. HOW NICE OF YOU. WELL, IF THAT IS SO WHY DID YOU MARRY HER? YOU MARRIED HER BECAUSE YOU WERE IN LOVED WITH HER GENUINELY AND YOU BELEIVED THAT GOD WANTED THE TWO OF YOU TOGETHER. NOW, HEAVEN MUST BEND TO SATISFY YOUR ADULTEROUS CHOICES.
[How come? It was a marriage that was not bound by God because it was a marriage without true love.]
YOU MADE A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF AND OUT OF THE LORD AND YOUR CHURCH. IMAGINE, AN ALLEGED MINISTER OF GOD MARRYING A WOMAN WITHOUT TRUE LOVE... THAT IS EXTREME MANIFESTATION OF HYPOCRISY AND DECEPTION COMBINED TO THE MAXIMUM LEVEL.
[I cannot fully disclose but all I can say is that I just agreed to the wedding out of pity for her.]
O GOODNESS, WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IS NOT PITY BUT DECEPTION AND DISHONESTY. YOU CLAIMED PUBLICLY THAT YOU LOVED HER AND THAT YOU WANTED TO BE WITH HER 'TILL DEATH DO US PART' AND THEN YOU DIDN'T MEAN THAT AT ALL. THAT IS DISGUSTING. YOUR CLAIM OF PITY FOR HER IS PATHETIC AND UNCONVINCING.
ANYWAY, YOU ARE AN EDUCATED PERSON... A HIGHLY EDUCATED ONE BECAUSE YOU ARE A MINISTER OF YOUR SECT. YOU HAVE READ AND STUDIED THE WORD OF GOD. STILL, YOU HAVE GIVEN HER YOUR 'CONSENT' TO BE HER HUSBAND.
[But I learned to love her.]
HA HA HA... YOU LEARNED TO LOVE HER TO THE POINT THAT YOU DIVORCED HER. HA HA HA... VERY LOVELY. YOU ARE A PERFECT GENTLEMAN ON THE ORDER OF MERLIN.
[Until irreconcilable differences sets in through the years.]
IT IS YOUR FAULT. YOUR DECEPTION FINALLY WORN OUT. EVEN AMONG GENUINE LOVERS DIFFERENCES ARE STRONG IN MARRIED LIFE HOW MUCH MORE IF YOU ARE NOT TRULY IN LOVED WITH HER.
INSTEAD OF CORRECTING YOUR MISTAKES YOU ADDED ANOTHER ONE. YOU TRIED TO CORRECT DECEPTION WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE DIVINE COMMAND: "DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS..." BY SIN OF ADULTERY. BREAKING ONE'S MARRIAGE TO MARRY ANOTHER IS AN ACT OF ADULTERY.
[ Yes I admit we had a mistake but now I'm ready to marry the woman I truly love.]
YOU ARE NOT BELIEVABLE AND CONVINCING BECAUSE YOU ARE A DECEIVER AND DISHONEST. YOU ARE WILLING TO BREAK EVEN THE WORD OF GOD IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY YOUR WHIMS AND CAPRICES.
Eh father pano naman kung both partners were both married in a church (non catholic) just for legal reasons? (just to suit their personal needs) I mean hindi nila talaga love yung isa't isa simula pa lang, parang set-up lang yung marriage nila for whatever reason and they are both aware of it? Is this a ground for annulment? If they were married in a protestant church, got divorced, and one of them wanted to marry a catholic in the catholic church, will this be allowed? Kasi sa pagkakaintindi ko para sa catholic church hindi valid ang marriage outside it. So does it mean papayagan siya ng catholic church to marry a catholic in a catholic church? Or kailangn pa talagang mag pa anull?
ReplyDeleteActually he quoted the entire thing "pertaining to church teachings" from the Orthodox church teachings either in:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm
or
http://www.uaocamerica.org/FundamentalTeaching/DivorceRemarriageOeconomia.dsp
Fr. Abe is a real counselor. Sana etong leader ng sect na eto ay matauhan sa mga sinabi ni Father Abe. More power Fr. Abe.
ReplyDelete[Eh father pano naman kung both partners were both married in a church (non catholic) just for legal reasons? (just to suit their personal needs) I mean hindi nila talaga love yung isa't isa simula pa lang, ]
ReplyDeleteIF THEY ARE CATHOLICS AND THEY GET MARRIED IN NON-CATHOLIC CHURCH OR CIVILLY WE CONSIDER THAT AS NON-CANONICAL, NOT SACRAMENTALLY VALID. THEY ARE LIVING IN SIN BECAUSE THEIR UNION IS NOT BLESSED BY GOD. THAT IS WHY CIVILLY MARRIED CATHOLICS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE HOLY COMMUNION BECAUSE THEY COMMIT FORNICATION THROUGH A UNION NOT ESTABLISHED ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF CHRIST.
GETTING MARRIED IN NON-CATHOLIC SECT IS AN ACT OF BETRAYAL AGAINST THE CHURCH AND ONCE AGAIN MAKES THE UNION SACRAMENTALLY INVALID.
[parang set-up lang yung marriage nila for whatever reason and they are both aware of it?]
AGAIN, THAT KIND OF MARRIAGE IS BASED ON HYPOCRISY AND DECEPTION. THEY ARE NOT HONEST TO THEMSELVES AND BY DOING SO THEY DECEIVED THE PEOPLE.
[ Is this a ground for annulment?]
IT IS A GROUND FOR ANNULMENT, YES. BUT SINCE THEY DID IT INTENTIONALLY THEN THEY COMMITTED A GRAVE SIN AGAINST THE LORD AND AGAINST THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THAT MARRIAGE: THE MINISTER, THE WITNESSES AND SPONSORS, ETC. THEY MADE A CHARADE OF THE HOLY MATRIMONY.
[ If they were married in a protestant church, got divorced, and one of them wanted to marry a catholic in the catholic church, will this be allowed? Kasi sa pagkakaintindi ko para sa catholic church hindi valid ang marriage outside it. So does it mean papayagan siya ng catholic church to marry a catholic in a catholic church? Or kailangn pa talagang mag pa anull?]
INDEED, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CONSIDERS THE MARRIAGE OF PROTESTANTS AS INVALID AND THAT OF CIVIL MARRIAGE AS HAVING NO CANONICAL OR SACRAMENTAL EFFECT AT ALL. SO IF THEY LATER WANT TO GET MARRIED PROPERLY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AFTER THE HAVING RECEIVED ANNULMENT THEN THERE IS NO PROHIBITION. BUT, THE PREVIOUS MARRIAGE MUST BE PROPERLY ANNULLED. THE BINDING LEGAL CONTRACT MUST BE RESPECTED AND THE CHURCH RESPECTS THE CIVIL AUTHORITY ON THAT ASPECT.
IF THEY HAVE DIVORCED BEFORE THAT IS NOT WILLED OR CAUSED OR ALLOWED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THEY CAN BE ACCEPTED IN CATHOLIC MARRIAGE IF THERE IS NO IMPEDIMENT FOR THEM TO BE MARRIED IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. AND IF THEY WANT TO MARRY A CATHOLIC THEY MUST BE BAPTIZED AS CATHOLIC FIRST OR IF THEY WISH TO REMAIN PROTESTANT THEY MUST AGREE THAT THE CHILDREN TO BE BORN SHALL BE BROUGHT UP IN THE CATHOLIC FAITH.