Invalid Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter kainosktisis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
otjm said:
Jimmy Akin, while being quite knowledgeable in matters of the Faith, is a lay apologist. That does not make him an expert in every matter that he expounds on or expresses an opinion about.

I have listened to him many times, learned a few things, and on more than one occasion, known that he is expressing his personal opinion and is not acting as part of the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Yes. I also quoted a canon law commentary. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14691454&postcount=33
 
Vico said:
Retroactive refers to those that wanted to apply the 2006 clarification retroactively back to 1983-2006 to those that had married after defection in that period, but then rejoined the Catholic faith before 2006, to invalidate their marriages.
Click to expand...
Right… which isn’t in play in this case.
Majority at age 18 (Can. 97).
Click to expand...
So, c.97 identifies the OP as a ‘minor’ at the time she was baptized into the Baptist denomination. According to the commentary from which you quote, since the OP was a minor when she entered the Baptist denomination, she was unable to formally defect from the Church at that time. In other words… my analysis still holds. 😉
For baptism, age 14 can choose their church (Can. 111.2). Just to emphasize age of consent in answer to your shrug.
Click to expand...
Umm… canon 111 talks about choosing between churches, not between (non-Catholic) Christian ecclesial communities. It’s not really relevant here. Moreover, it doesn’t create an “age of consent” vis-a-vis formal defection.
 
Gorgias said:
Right… which isn’t in play in this case.

So, c.97 identifies the OP as a ‘minor’ at the time she was baptized into the Baptist denomination. According to the commentary from which you quote, since the OP was a minor when she entered the Baptist denomination, she was unable to formally defect from the Church at that time. In other words… my analysis still holds. 😉

Umm… canon 111 talks about choosing between churches, not between (non-Catholic) Christian ecclesial communities. It’s not really relevant here. Moreover, it doesn’t create an “age of consent” vis-a-vis formal defection.
Click to expand...
Formal enrollment in the Baptist church as a minor with the parental consent.

CIC Can. 98 §1. A person who has reached majority has the full exercise of his or her rights.

§2. A minor, in the exercise of his or her rights, remains subject to the authority of parents or guardians except in those matters in which minors are exempted from their authority by divine law or canon law. In what pertains to the appointment of guardians and their authority, the prescripts of civil law are to be observed unless canon law provides otherwise or unless in certain cases the diocesan bishop, for a just cause, has decided to provide for the matter through the appointment of another guardian.
 
Vico said:
Formal enrollment in the Baptist church as a minor with the parental consent.

CIC Can. 98 §1. A person who has reached majority has the full exercise of his or her rights.

§2. A minor, in the exercise of his or her rights, remains subject to the authority of parents or guardians except in those matters in which minors are exempted from their authority by divine law or canon law. In what pertains to the appointment of guardians and their authority, the prescripts of civil law are to be observed unless canon law provides otherwise or unless in certain cases the diocesan bishop, for a just cause, has decided to provide for the matter through the appointment of another guardian.
Click to expand...
While I do not consider that every priest is a Canon lawyer, or even necessarily clear on Canon law as it applies to people entering the Church, it would appear that we have gone off the tracks on an esoteric field trip through various parts of the Code.

I am willing to cede the issue to the priest who convalidated their marriage, that he found it appropriate to do so. And by doing so, I also cede any questions concerning whether or not the OP ever formally defected, or didn’t, or if it is even relevant.

I know that Abraham Lincoln individually studied the law; but a) that was civil law; and b) it was a tad less complex then than it is now. The matters discussed herein are not civil law, however, and I don’t recall anyone who has individually read the law (as opposed to having taken classes in it),sitting for exams in hopes of achieving a JCD orJCL… Further, in reading the Canons themselves one can easily presume that all necessary information concerning the application of a passage is contained within the passage, forgetting that the Church may consider other passages relevant, not to mention prior decisions.

In any event, the discussion is not relevant to the OP’s post. If there was an issue, it has been resolved; and if there was not an issue (formal defection) that also has been resolved.

Perhaps we can get back to responding to the problems the OP has encountered from individuals she has encountered, and who have caused a great deal of consternation to her?
 
otjm said:
While I do not consider that every priest is a Canon lawyer, or even necessarily clear on Canon law as it applies to people entering the Church, it would appear that we have gone off the tracks on an esoteric field trip through various parts of the Code.

I am willing to cede the issue to the priest who convalidated their marriage, that he found it appropriate to do so. And by doing so, I also cede any questions concerning whether or not the OP ever formally defected, or didn’t, or if it is even relevant.

I know that Abraham Lincoln individually studied the law; but a) that was civil law; and b) it was a tad less complex then than it is now. The matters discussed herein are not civil law, however, and I don’t recall anyone who has individually read the law (as opposed to having taken classes in it),sitting for exams in hopes of achieving a JCD orJCL… Further, in reading the Canons themselves one can easily presume that all necessary information concerning the application of a passage is contained within the passage, forgetting that the Church may consider other passages relevant, not to mention prior decisions.

In any event, the discussion is not relevant to the OP’s post. If there was an issue, it has been resolved; and if there was not an issue (formal defection) that also has been resolved.

Perhaps we can get back to responding to the problems the OP has encountered from individuals she has encountered, and who have caused a great deal of consternation to her?
Click to expand...
Do you remember how this came up? I asked the OP: “Nobody discussed the idea that you may have been formally defected being raised non-Catholic since age 10 at least?” I received my answer so that so am content with it. Others wanted to tear it apart.
 
Vico said:
Formal enrollment in the Baptist church as a minor with the parental consent.
Click to expand...
Since you seem to have missed reading it in the commentary which you cite as an authority, and also have missed my quotation from that same article, I’ll repeat the quote from the commentary again: “ince minors lack the full exercise of their rights, they are incapable of positing a formal act of defection for themselves, and their parents are incapable of making this act for them.”

I get that you’re unwilling to concede the point. Whatever. 🤷
 
otjm said:
While I do not consider that every priest is a Canon lawyer, or even necessarily clear on Canon law as it applies to people entering the Church, it would appear that we have gone off the tracks on an esoteric field trip through various parts of the Code.
Click to expand...
Yep. Yet, it’s an interesting discussion on the applicability of the (since abrogated) notion of “formal defection” in the 1983 Code.
40.png
Vico:
I received my answer so that so am content with it. Others wanted to tear it apart.
Click to expand...
‘Content’ doesn’t seem to be your response to the reaction to your suggestion. But hey… “iron sharpens iron”, right? Interesting discussion on the ways that the notion of “formal defection” might or might not be applicable in cases such as these… 😉
 
Gorgias said:
Yep. Yet, it’s an interesting discussion on the applicability of the (since abrogated) notion of “formal defection” in the 1983 Code.

‘Content’ doesn’t seem to be your response to the reaction to your suggestion. But hey… “iron sharpens iron”, right? Interesting discussion on the ways that the notion of “formal defection” might or might not be applicable in cases such as these… 😉
Click to expand...
Content to the answer to my question not to the reaction to the actual canons and canon law commentary from CLSA posted.
 
Vico said:
Do you remember how this came up? I asked the OP: “Nobody discussed the idea that you may have been formally defected being raised non-Catholic since age 10 at least?” I received my answer so that so am content with it. Others wanted to tear it apart.
Click to expand...
What answer did you receive?

Dan (jcl 🙂 )
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top