Is Canon 1099 an Easy Annulment?

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Let me ask you this:

Is it wrong to live together, as husband and wife, after a civil marriage, but before the Church Sacrament?

In a case where this occurs a priest would have to counsel the couple as to the circumstances. There are some, mainly involving children, where the answer is almost automatically a yes, it’s ok to live together. There are others where it would not be permissible. In countries outside the US one must get civially married before the sacrament. In these places it would be wrong to live together.

 

[rcwitness]

the other is malicious intent to deprive people of sacraments. The accusation that the priests are doing it on purpose, rather than accidental is what is not allowed on CAF. Even if the result is the same.

You have a tendancy to dramatize the situation. I never claimed clergy to do so out of malicious intent. Its more of a “If i tell them this is necessary as a Catholic, then they might not like it, or i might appear to not want them to be happy and do what they want, so i’ll keep quiet.”

 

[rcwitness]

Thank you. So a pastor who knew this was happening, and even asked, but said nothing, would that pastor want the couple to know the Truth, or be ignorrant of the Truth?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

You have a tendancy to dramatize the situation. I never claimed clergy to do so out of malicious intent. Its more of a “If i tell them this is necessary as a Catholic, then they might not like it, or i might appear to not want them to be happy and do what they want, so i’ll keep quiet.”

LOL it’s not drama. The priest is there to ensure that a couple can validly administer the sacrament to eachother. If he intentionally withholds information than he becomes party to falsely administering a sacrament. This is not the same if he doesn’t ask/doesn’t think to ask or assumes.

This is different than when he is not aiding in administering a sacrament.

Your statement is very vague. If you’re talking about who takes out the trash and marital life…yeah the priest is being a bit soft and could stand to do better. This is what I’m referring to. I

f this is in regards to the insolubility of marriage the priest is maliciously neglecting his duties. This is between the Priest and God and hopefully his superiors would be having these conversations with him. One would have to know what is going on in the mind of a priest. This is a huge and serious accusation–I expound upon that below.

Thank you. So a pastor who knew this was happening, and even asked, but said nothing, would that pastor want the couple to know the Truth, or be ignorrant of the Truth?

He asked the couple or he was asked by the couple?

He cannot be responsible if the couple ignores his invitation to speak, no matter if it is one or both parties. If the priest is preparing them for marriage he should be instructing them in this matter. However, if there are other pressing matters that come up in marriage prep and he forgets to address that one, it’s TOTALLY different than if he actively avoids answering their questions. In the case of the former, we cannot know if this was intentional or accidental. It is only in the case of the latter where we can presume he withheld information for his own comfort.

Council of this nature should always be done in private and that can mean that only one party of a couple is counseled at a time. The other party could share this information but doesn’t have to. There is nothing in sacramental prep or general counsel of a priest that indicates a couple must be approached in public. There is nothing that indicates a couple must be counseled together. There is no right of a civilly, sacramentally or otherwise “married” or engaged individual to know what a priest did or didn’t say to the other spouse.

 

[rcwitness]

Let me be very specific, since you desperately try to make the case differently than what im explaining:

Couole has Church wedding planned in 6 months. Couple gets civil marriage and moves in together. Pastor asks husband, “Are you living together?” Husband says “yes”. Pastor does not reply, but moves to another topic.

I can give other examples if you want. And none will be hypothetical, but very real life!

Man is Catholic, Marries non Catholic Christian outside Church. Couple struggles with relationship and is working on it with pastoral counseling. Couple is receiving Communion and Baptizing children, but has not convalidated Marriage. Parishioner friend knows this and tries to encourage husband to convalidate marriage and is criticized.

Here’s another:

Catholic husband is struggling in marriage. Wife refuses to stop using contraception. Husbands conscience is bothering him. Pastor says “use condoms”. Husband says “but its wrong”. Pastor says “no, priests are able to advise under some situations” husband “i dont think so, please show this teaching” pastor “haha, you wont find it, its just something they teach in seminary”

Here’s another:

Same couple, with different priest. Husband says he struggles with masturbation, and wife refuses sex without contraception. Priest advises “mutual masturbation”. Husband says “are you sure thats morally ok?” Priest says “of course im sure!”

I can give some other examples if you want. In each of them, our pastors are preferring that the faithful just trust that the pastor knows better and they dont need to actually have Church Teaching affirm these decisions.

 

[LaetenturCaeli12]

Pastor says “use condoms”. Husband says “but its wrong”. Pastor says “no, priests are able to advise under some situations” husband “i dont think so, please show this teaching” pastor “haha, you wont find it, its just something they teach in seminary”

Let’s put aside the question of the reliability of any information you might have on this specific “case.”

What does a Priest who clearly has an erroneous understanding of Church teaching on this topic have to do with the point you’re trying to make? Namely: the certain Priests prefer their parishioners to be ignorant so as not to be offended by some truth of the faith.

Your examples could just as easily be explained by Priests being bad Priests as they could by attempting to read motivations into their actions.

 

[rcwitness]

Thats true. But when the parishioner asks for some support of this advise, and is condescended, and told “you wont find it”, well that doesnt help your point.

That is an attitude of “you dont need to know, just trust that we know better.”

 

[rcwitness]

And by the way, he is not a bad priest! And i love him more than any other priest I know.

He was wrong about this, however. And it was because he preferred to take the easy “use condoms” approach instead of wanting his flock to know the truth, even when it means a more narrow path.

And i did not want him to be ignorrant, so i wrote the diocese. I didnt use names, but wanted an affirmation about his claim and what the Church Teaches.

Under no circumstances is clergy permitted to advise people to use contraception for the intention to avoid pregnancy.

 

[Phemie]

AlNg:

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

We were there with 60 couples and my then fiancé and I were the only ones with separate addresses.

In Catholicism, is it still a mortal sin to live together before marriage, or is it OK, or at least not a big deal, for couples who intend to get married soon?

@darklight nailed it. It’s scandal and is only “ok” in very rare circumstances. For practicing Catholics it should be the other way around…maybe one in 60 live together. It strong textis very sad that at the “beyond the basics for actively practicing Catholics” marriage retreat 60 lived together and one did not.

In my parish, the majority of parents who present children for Baptism are in common-law relationships these days.

 

[rcwitness]

In my parish, the majority of parents who present children for Baptism are in common-law relationships these days.

Wht do you mean by this?

That they are only civilly married? That they arent Catholic?

 

[Phemie]

Wht do you mean by this?

That they are only civilly married? That they arent Catholic?

That they are not married, civilly or otherwise.

 

[rcwitness]

But Catholic?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

In my parish, the majority of parents who present children for Baptism are in common-law relationships these days.

But the parents are not the recipients of the Baptism, the child is. One only has to have reasonable belief the child will be raised Catholic to confer the sacrament.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Couole has Church wedding planned in 6 months. Couple gets civil marriage and moves in together. Pastor asks husband, “Are you living together?” Husband says “yes”. Pastor does not reply, but moves to another topic.

This is way too vague to address. The priest could have noted it and forgot to address later, etc. That sounds like figuring out groundwork, not malice. Not enough information.

Man is Catholic, Marries non Catholic Christian outside Church. Couple struggles with relationship and is working on it with pastoral counseling. Couple is receiving Communion and Baptizing children, but has not convalidated Marriage. Parishioner friend knows this and tries to encourage husband to convalidate marriage and is criticized.

Again, not enough information. If the pastor is still counseling the couple he should not deny the children sacraments. The couple receiving communion is iffier, the non-Catholic should absolutely not be receiving communion. The marriage CANNOT be co-validated until the pastor knows they are ready for marriage. My friend actually went to the church seeking convalidation and she and her (now ex) baptized their child. However, during the process of marriage prep it became clear that he was severely mentally ill and was not able to consent to marriage. He never received communion and my friend did. I do not know about their sex life.

Catholic husband is struggling in marriage. Wife refuses to stop using contraception. Husbands conscience is bothering him. Pastor says “use condoms”. Husband says “but its wrong”. Pastor says “no, priests are able to advise under some situations” husband “i dont think so, please show this teaching” pastor “haha, you wont find it, its just something they teach in seminary”

Same couple, with different priest. Husband says he struggles with masturbation, and wife refuses sex without contraception. Priest advises “mutual masturbation”. Husband says “are you sure thats morally ok?” Priest says “of course im sure!”

If the priest is going against church teaching that is immoral and a grave sin. If a person is aware they should go to the Bishop. Teaching Mortal sin is unacceptable under any circumstance. This is wholly and undenyably an issue with the individual priest.

 

[Phemie]

But Catholic?

Yes, they’re Catholic.

 

[Phemie]

Phemie:

In my parish, the majority of parents who present children for Baptism are in common-law relationships these days.

But the parents are not the recipients of the Baptism, the child is. One only has to have reasonable belief the child will be raised Catholic to confer the sacrament.

My point wasn’t that they shouldn’t be baptized but an acknowledgement that 59 out of 60 couples preparing for marriage are living together is par for the course in our community also, as we can see by the number of children of unmarried couples who are presented for Baptism.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Phemie:

In my parish, the majority of parents who present children for Baptism are in common-law relationships these days.

But the parents are not the recipients of the Baptism, the child is. One only has to have reasonable belief the child will be raised Catholic to confer the sacrament.

My point wasn’t that they shouldn’t be baptized but an acknowledgement that 59 out of 60 couples preparing for marriage are living together is par for the course in our community also, as we can see by the number of children of unmarried couples who are presented for Baptism.

Oh definitely. I only wanted to add the caveat that while no amount of irregularity of a parent’s marriage can change the fact that a Baptism took place, due to the constraints of living together (spiritual, financial, physical, mental) issues that cohabitation can hide, it makes the chance that a sacramentally invalid marriage would occur very high.

But you’re right. The number of people who are cohabitating and then presenting children for candidacy in the faith is extremely concerning. While it gives hope, it also shows how deeply inadequate their Catholic education was (beit Catholic school or CCD).

 

[Phemie]

The number of people who are cohabitating and then presenting children for candidacy in the faith is extremely concerning. While it gives hope, it also shows how deeply inadequate their Catholic education was (beit Catholic school or CCD).

The first question we ask when doing preparation is “Why are you asking for Baptism for your child?” The point of the question is to get the parents thinking about why they are requesting it but it’s not exactly rare to hear “To get my mother off my back” or “My grandmother will kill me if I don’t.”

In all my years of doing preparation I’ve had one, count 'em, one father reply with so much theological explanation that I almost asked him to switch places and teach the session.

Contrast that with the couple who decided that they wouldn’t have their child baptized because they had not realized that having their child baptized in the Catholic Church made him Catholic and they weren’t sure that they wanted him to be Catholic. Say what?!?!?

 

[Tulitas]

That is an old saw perpetuated by folks who don’t think annulments are right.
There were fewer annulments int he past because of the stigma of divorce among Catholics an priests who kept telling people to “offer it up” when they could have been released from an abusive marriage. I know that is what they told my sister.
In the past, there were nearly as many canonists around as well. The average layperson did not know they had recourse.

 

[rcwitness]

This is way too vague to address. The priest could have noted it and forgot to address later, etc. That sounds like figuring out groundwork, not malice. Not enough information.

You are desparate to paint the picture in a way that “exonerates” these actions. And im not even judging them. Im merely recognizing a lack of conviction, which demonstrates a lack of concern that parishioners know and understand the relative Church Teachings.

Again, not enough information. If the pastor is still counseling the couple he should not deny the children sacraments. The couple receiving communion is iffier, the non-Catholic should absolutely not be receiving communion. The marriage CANNOT be co-validated until the pastor knows they are ready for marriage. My friend actually went to the church seeking convalidation and she and her (now ex) baptized their child. However, during the process of marriage prep it became clear that he was severely mentally ill and was not able to consent to marriage. He never received communion and my friend did. I do not know about their sex life.

The non Catholic does receive Communion. And the Catholic spouse does also, yet has not convalidated the marriage. Ive said my peace, and am certainly friendly with them. I have my own problems. It has nothing to do with judging others. But recognizing where we are all failing. And it is failing for sure, with ugly damage.

If the priest is going against church teaching that is immoral and a grave sin. If a person is aware they should go to the Bishop. Teaching Mortal sin is unacceptable under any circumstance. This is wholly and undenyably an issue with the individual priest.

Yep. And its actually not that uncommon. Why do you think 80% of Cats use contraception? I hear abortion homilies which dont even touch on contraception. Ive NEVER heard a single criticism of contraception or a referral to Church Teaching by a pastor in my entire 15 yrs of being Catholic!!!

Do you think that is super rare? Do you think clergy are actively educating Catholics about Church Teaching on marriage and contraception? Do you think they want us to be aware, but just keep forgetting to bring it up?