Civil marriage for Catholics who can't marry

[MountCarmel]

Tatum - I was married in a ‘Jesuit’ Catholic Church in Bristol, England.

p.s. If you re-read my opening sentence in my previous post, I think you will see/understand by its intimation, that I was not married in Germany - 'though as a child/and early teens I did live in [West} Germany.

It was you who brought up what you claimed as being the position in Germany.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Priests in Australasia do NOT customarily explicitly ask the question.
Nor do the enquiry forms.

This booklet is from the The Australian Catholic Marriage and Family Council speaks clearly of impotency as an impediment.

Catholic Australia

Catholic Australia - A work of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference.

www.acmfc.org.au

Archdiocese of Sydney short booklet speaks of the Prenuptual Inquiry form required by Canon Law

http://www.olmcmtpritchard.org.au/f...s/Other_Docs/Marriage_Preparation_Booklet.pdf

Those were the first two that popped up. It does not appear that the Catholics of Australia are somehow left in the dark with this question.

 

[Pup7]

Unless you can quote something Magisterial (other than simply the Canon itself) I think the view of the Australian hierarchy is preferable to your own.

So you’re saying that your view trumps that of the Church, and the Church’s teaching is invalid?

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s not an objective response an objective issue.

Yes. It is an objective response.

I’m not going to waste time trying to teach you vocabulary.

Priests in Australasia do NOT customarily explicitly ask the question.
Nor do the enquiry forms.

I really could care less what your absence-of-knowledge on this issue leads you to guess.

You may personally believe Canon law is injured by this approach.

Canon law is violated when a person who holds ecclesiastical office fails to perform his office as the law requires.

I’m growing weary of repeating this for no reason other than your own stubbornness and your own complete lack of any competence in this subject matter.

Just because you don’t understand something, that does not mean that someone who does understand it is wrong. You seem to think that way.

Canon law is violated when a pastor fails to due his duty. It is his responsibility under canon law to know that a couple can be validly married before he performs a marriage ceremony. Failure to do that is negligence.

I’m not going to bother listing the canons because that serves no purpose when trying to explain something to a person who has no idea how to read the canons in the first place.

Yet the Archbishops and bishops (and a good number of their priests) there do not it seems.

Again, you’re attempting an argument-from-ignorance.

Do not, repeat, DO NOT think you can sit there and speak on behalf of the bishops. I’m quite certain that they know the law and I’m confident that they are applying the law appropriately.

I do not know the exact mechanics of how pre-marriage investigations are conducted in Australia. For purposes of this topic, I do not need to know. I know what the law says, and I’m confident that the bishops and other pastors are performing their own due diligence in investigating the eligibility of couples before marriage.

I don’t care what your personal opinion might be here. You’re wrong.

The fact that you are personally ignorant of something does not mean that it doesn’t happen. Apparently, I need to explain that to you.

Unless you can quote something Magisterial (other than simply the Canon itself) I think the view of the Australian hierarchy is preferable to your own.

NONSENSE.

You obviously have no idea what you’re writing about and you are in no position to tell me that the Australian bishops are ignoring canon law.

Your ignorance of the law does not equate to the bishops violating the law.

I understand you believe they are somehow mistaken in their understanding/application of Canon Law (rather than yourself) and somehow negligent.

You understand nothing. Nothing.

Its fairly clearly a prudential judgement as to what constitutes “due diligence” and Canon Law does not demand what you assert as the only correct application of the Law.

Again, you merely prove that not only do you not understand what you’re trying to write about, you don’t even understand what I’m writing here.

 

[Tatum]

LL the documents of importance are the formal ones supplied and signed by couples as part of the enquiry with the priest before the Marriage. If you can supply a wide number of those from Australian and NZ Dioceses that do so explicitly that would better make your point.

However, at least up until the late 1990s, when I was familiar with these documents, I recall nothing explicit that a couple would understand to be referring to the principle in the Canon we are speaking of. Fr maintains it is a universally required rule and any diocese that doesn’t implement it explicitly is flouting the Canon.

Unless somebody can demonstrate a directive from the Vatican which actually states that I think this view is extreme. Of the 100s of priests I personally know in Australasia for example none I know of would explicitly broach the issue unless there were other red flags in the relationship.

 

[Tatum]

Fr when you provide a wide range of Australian or NZ Diocesan pre marriage enquiry forms that a couple would understand to be explicitly asking that question I will accept your personal view on the matter.

If you cannot then it seems a nonsense to say such Dioceses are flouting Canon Law - rather than accept that your universalised view of what is acceptable is perhaps a little simplistic or extreme in terms of pastoral application.

You obviously have no idea what you’re writing about and you are in no position to tell me that the Australian bishops are ignoring canon law.

I didnt say that Fr.
Please quote where you think I did.
What I said was that would have to be YOUR conclusion given your position and my understanding of what is actually being done in Australasia.

My position is that they are not flouting Canon Law but validly applying it if they are not being explicit about it - which explicitation you seem to demand as the only way of fulfilling the Canon.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Unless somebody can demonstrate a directive from the Vatican which actually states that I think this view is extreme

Canon law was quoted above. That IS even higher than a directive. It is the law.

I showed you the marriage prep guide that your Bishop’s Conference has compiled that covers impotency. I showed you one Diocese leaflet that tells the couples they will be completing “Prenuptual Inquiry form required by Canon Law”.

Short of calling a parish in Australia and asking them to fax me a copy of the Prenup Inquiry Form, not sure what it is going to take to convince you Australian Bishops/Priests are not flouting the law.

Edit, never mind, first Google brought this up Same website as the above booklet which lists the impediments including impotency.

The Priest/Deacon portion of the papers CLEARLY ask about impediments. The Deacon or Priest cannot complete this form unless they have asked about impediments.

https://www.catholic.org.au/commiss...nuptial-inquiry/2027-pre-nuptial-inquiry/file

Q. 1. Are there any impediments to this marriage? …
If so, state which impediments …

 

[Tatum]

When you can supply a few different prenuptial enquiry forms I am happy to reprise the issue.

Yes I am aware of the above one.
There is no question explicitly put to the couple as I have always been stating.
Fr appears to believe it should be otherwise from his other threads on CAF.

Yes, it is up to the discretion of the minister to determine the issue…which is a position I have also seen on CAF and which I agree is the best pastoral approach.
The minister is not explicitly required to explicitly ask the impotency question.
I do not believe it flouts canon Law that the diocese does not require he do so explicitly.

 

[TheLittleLady]

To my meager intelligence a booklet that provides the details of impediments (among many other things) followed by an affirmation of the cleric that there are no impediments (among many other things) is crystal clear. Most clerics are far more intelligent than I am, so, if I get it I am certain they will.

 

[Tatum]

I can only provide you the evidence of my own eyes (enquiry forms such as above) and ears (the advice of my ordained colleagues in Australasia) TLL.

That is, re the impotency question, using those Australian forms a celebrant could approve the marriage of a couple based on their written answers on that same form.

As the couple are not explicitly asked if they can perform sex acts apt for the generation of life that would mean the ceremony would go ahead.

I am stating no more of less than this fact.
It is at the discretion of the priest (and the couple) to ask further questions if red flags arise.

Hence an elderly couple who may eventually become certain that they were always impotent can and will in practise get married. As even the couple themselves cannot be certain until well into the marriage what is or is not on the cards they have no obligation to disclose anything over and above the questions asked on the form or by the priest…if they even understood the subtlety of what is actually being asked.

Should that couple two years later, when they are certain, self accuse and seek an annulment?
I leave that question to FrDavid.

Personally I know of no sane priest or couple who would suggest such.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Not to put too fine a point on it, or gross anyone out here, but there are usually physical signs of impotence above and beyond the obvious. Men experience a testosterone surge first thing in the morning, for example, and there are physical signs of that.

 

[Tatum]

That is not really the level of certainty needed. Viagra can clearly assist in this case.
Pre-existing impotence only becomes an issue if there is certainty that its perpetual and cannot be overcome by use of the interventions of modern medicine. In 99% of presenting couples (including the elderly) there will be no such certainty and therefore explicit questions do not need to be asked nor positively answered if they are.

Nor are the couple required to test their uncertainties beforehand as far as I know there is no case law on that point.

 

[Tatum]

Apologies but I don’t quite understand what you are saying or why.

 

[MountCarmel]

Tatum - Right - we will start again. It was postulated/claimed that in Germany there were 2 separate ‘marriage services’ required - one religious and one secular. I pointed out my surprise, since here in the UK, both functions, the religious and secular, could be achieved in the one service - and I explained how. First, the priest can also be licenced to serve in both the religious AND secular requirements, simultaneously. In the case of the priest not be secularly licenced, a civil licenced representative can also be there, to put his or her signature to the marriage certificate. Will that do you?

Of course if the person cannot ‘perform’ the marriage ‘function’, then as a Catholic, he or she would have to defer to the traditional rulings and understandings of Mother Church, and not trendy modern ‘interpretations’. And yes, we are all asked to bear crosses in this life, some more so than others. but all is ultimately made fair, indeed more than fair, in the fullness of time, by God.

 

[Tatum]

Tatum - Right - we will start again. It was postulated/claimed that in Germany there were 2 separate ‘marriage services’ required - one religious and one secular. I pointed out my surprise, since here in the UK, both functions, the religious and secular, could be achieved in the one service - and I explained how. First, the priest can also be licenced to serve in both the religious AND secular requirements, simultaneously. In the case of the priest not be secularly licenced, a civil licenced representative can also be there, to put his or her signature to the marriage certificate. Will that do you?

Of course if the person cannot ‘perform’ the marriage ‘function’, then as a Catholic, he or she would have to defer to the traditional rulings and understandings of Mother Church, and not trendy modern ‘interpretations’. And yes, we are all asked to bear crosses in this life, some more so than others. but all is ultimately made fair, indeed more than fair, in the fullness of time, by God.

MC I do not live in either jurisdiction so I really cannot comment further even though your understanding of both is in contradiction to my own 2nd hand information.

I can only observe that it may not be as simple as it looks in both regions.
First up German law has recently changed so what you suggest may be now possible in Germany (though a recent German poster said it was still too difficult for most people).

In Australasia a priest is registered with the State as a marriage celebrant so his Church weddings automatically fulfil State requirements so long as the couple have already obtained a marriage licence for him.

I thought UK was the same as down under but the way you describe it maybe not.
Of course if a Catholic lay marriage celebrant down here does a wedding it is not recognised by the Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr when you provide a wide range of Australian or NZ Diocesan pre marriage enquiry forms that a couple would understand to be explicitly asking that question I will accept your personal view on the matter.

If you cannot then it seems a nonsense to say such Dioceses are flouting Canon Law - rather than accept that your universalised view of what is acceptable is perhaps a little simplistic or extreme in terms of pastoral application.

They are either following the law or they are not.

The fact that you are unaware of what they are doing in no way means that they are failing in their responsibilities.

If, as you claim from your position of ignorance, they are ignoring the law, then they are negligent.

You are wrongly assuming that just because you personally don’t see something that means it’s not happening.

On the other hand, I am saying that because I know (objectively) that it would be downright negligent of them to ignore such a basic truth about the sacrament of marriage, I can be confident that they are not ignoring the law and not being negligent in their pastoral responsibilities.

You obviously have no idea what you’re writing about and you are in no position to tell me that the Australian bishops are ignoring canon law.

I didnt say that Fr.
Please quote where you think I did.
What I said was that would have to be YOUR conclusion given your position and my understanding of what is actually being done in Australasia.

My position is that they are not flouting Canon Law but validly applying it if they are not being explicit about it - which explicitation you seem to demand as the only way of fulfilling the Canon.

Your post proves that have no idea what you’re writing about.

That much is plain.

I am not expressing my opinion. You could not be more wrong when you call it that.

The requirement that a couple be capable of entering into a valid marriage before a pastor allows a marriage ceremony is universal.

I couldn’t care less what your personal opinion might be in this regard.

You’re simply wrong. There’s no other way to put it.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

Yes, it is up to the discretion of the minister to determine the issue…,

This has been your premise all along.

You are flat out WRONG.

It is not a matter of discretion. It is a matter of an impediment to marriage which affects the very validity of the (attempt at) marriage itself.

All you keep proving here is that you don’t understand what you’re writing about.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Australasia

This is a regional term, however, there is no such thing as an “Australasian priest”. A priest is either of an order or he is under a specific Catholic Bishops’ Conference

https://www.catholic.org.au/about-us/australian-catholic-bishops-conference

New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference and agencies

bishops, conference, secretariat

www.catholic.org.nz

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Papua New Guinea and Soloman Islands

“The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Papua New Guinea and Soloman Islands” is the Conference of Bishops of Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands. The President is Archbishop Anton Bal, elected in 2020.

www.gcatholic.org

Etc.

The documentation for Australian Bishops Conference has been documented.

You might want to contact the other Conferences yourself.