Thank you and God Bless you!! I don’t have a disability,(although in my old age I’m beginning to get some pretty strong aches and pains), but I do know what you mean about wonderful, kind and loving people that help when in need. I call them my Simons. and I pray for them every day. You will be one of my Simons now as you helped lift my faith in the human race once again. God Bless, Memaw
This may all be true, but the question at hand is whether one might reasonably decide to avoid pregnancy (by licit means) in circumstances where the chance of an horrendous disease is 25%.
Who has said that anyone was terrible? Let’s not get into over-exhagerrating language. The closest thing to an actual judgement of the parents’ character that has shown up in this thread is your claim that parents that would be open to life were “selfish”. All anyone has said is that this belief is not compatible with being open to life, which is a requirement of Catholic marriage. Saying something that someone does is wrong is not judging them and is not calling them “terrible”.
Actually, it was said that parents that think like that are only thinking of themselves, I suppose you should go back and read instead of dwelling about one comment that I made. Also, yes I do think it’s a little selfish, when you know your child is at such a high risk to go ahead and have children. I don’t know why anyone would want to give their child such a life. I know you disagree, that’s your business. At least they’re not going around and getting abortions though. I’d rather someone prevent pregnancy than get a bunch of abortions.
As far as I know, every marriage is considered valid unless otherwise proven. Which means, one would have to ask the diocese about it. If both of them are content, they’re not going to ask their diocese to examine the marriage. Once they’re married, and their priest should have determined their eligibility at the time of the marriage), they’re presumed validly married unless otherwise determined.
Stating that the parents are thinking primarily of themselves isn’t saying that they are terrible. It isn’t necessarily terrible to look after one’s self and in many situations, one’s comfort can morally be the primary consideration when making a decision. Sometimes, however, it can’t. It depends of the circumstances.
You are correct that they are presumed valid until a degree of annullment is granted. That doesn’t mean they are valid in the eyes of God. Most of us probably can think of an example of a couple who are presumed validly married, but probably aren’t. (ex. The situation where the groom was in his mistress’ bed the night before the wedding or the situation where the wife lied about being a practicing Catholic during pre-cana and has no intention of raising her children in the faith.) In fact, every marraige that has now been declared null was once presumed valid.
And yet, the wife of the man who cheated on her the night of their wedding is not allowed to date after filing for divorce — until an annulment has been granted. The point is, it doesn’t go both ways at the convenience of the onlooker. It’s either not up to lay people to decide whether or not a marriage is valid (and the responsibility of the diocese) or it is.
I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say in your first statement. Lay people do not decide whether a specific marriage is nul or not. This is the responsibility of the tribunal. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t common, public knowledge what sort of circumstances constitute a reason for a marriage to be invalid. How else can lay people avoid entering into such a marriage themselves?
I’m trying to say that even if some might assume they know that a marriage is invalid, they don’t have a right to say whether or not the marriage in question is valid or not. It’s the responsibility of the tribunal. So unless someone is going to apply for an annulment, it’s a valid marriage until a tribunal says it’s not. We, as laypeople, do not see through the eyes of God.
No. The marriage is either valid or it is not valid. Whether or not an annullment is sought has nothing to do with it. Presuming means that we act as though the marriage is valid, even though it may not be. That does not mean that lay people do not know the situations that make a marriage invalid. It means that those who have not been given the opportunity to see inside the marriage the way a tribunal has do not have the ability to know if those conditions actually existed in that specific marriage. In this hypothetical situation, we are already assuming that such a condition exists. The questions is objective. Is it an impediment to a sacramental marriage when a couple predetermines that they will never be open to having children?
Then why do some here say one has to wait for an annulment before they are allowed to date, when everyone “knows” that the marriage is invalid due to some impediment? According to you, a wronged spouse (using your own example: The situation where the groom was in his mistress’ bed the night before the wedding or the situation where the wife lied about being a practicing Catholic during pre-cana and has no intention of raising her children in the faith.) who has been granted a divorced is allowed to date others without waiting for a decree of nullity because they “know” they have grounds for an annulment. Good to know.
I had a older friend that was married in the Catholic Church to a bigamist and never knew it for about 10 years, until his real wife showed up. He lied to the priest. Did that make their “marriage” valid, No it did not, not from the beginning, even if she didn’t know a thing about it. Sometimes people are not always honest with the priest. God Bless, Memaw.
That’s silly and makes no sense. One can’t date until they have recieved a decree of nullity, even if they know their situation is grounds for it. That doesn’t mean their marriage isn’t null. It just means that the tribunal has not yet made that declaration. This is mostly to protect the innocent third party. He or she may have been told by the previously married spouse that their situation was definately grounds for annullment, but they could easily be lying or stretching the truth in order to get what they want or justify their behavior. With a decree of nullity, the third party has the knowledge that the tribunal has looked into that specific situation and determined the specifics.Then why do some here say one has to wait for an annulment before they are allowed to date, when everyone “knows” that the marriage is invalid due to some impediment? According to you, a wronged spouse (using your own example: The situation where the groom was in his mistress’ bed the night before the wedding or the situation where the wife lied about being a practicing Catholic during pre-cana and has no intention of raising her children in the faith.) who has been granted a divorced is allowed to date others without waiting for a decree of nullity because they “know” they have grounds for an annulment. Good to know.
OR, the tribunal simply may not grant one, which is why lay people can’t just claim with certainty that any marriage is valid or not valid. They have to wait for a tribunal to declare it. Period.
This couple definitely needs the help of a knowledgeable priest and possibly Catholic counseling. Our opinions really don’t matter at all. God Bless, Memaw
Firstly, you are making the assumption that they decided not to have children before they were married.
We need to get this straight. Her sister has “always said” So she evidently had the fear that she could pass something on to her children before she ever got married. Also she said, “if she were to ever want a child” Well she found out they could pass something on to them, So now "she " decides she will never chance it. She doesn’t think she can handle it. Seems shes very concerned about herself more than anyone else. I still think “she” needs help in more ways than one. God Bless, Memaw