Is Canon 1099 an Easy Annulment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would say yes! That’s between them and God, not you!
you can encourage them to repent, but not probe into their personal spiritual life!
 
For God’s sake, i was referring to the tribunal not telling the couple!!!
 
If i sin publicly, yes I want those who r are aware of my sin to know i am sorry.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
40.png
rcwitness:
Making annulment records public and asking the impediment are a far cry from one another.

Id love gor people to address the OP!
Click to expand...
Again–it’s about decorum and privacy. We can ask someone why they just went to confession but it’s not really right.

And no, no one needs to know but the married couple “what went wrong” what kind of justification can you think of that permits that sort of behavior? A child of those parents can be guided without nitty gritty examples.
Click to expand...
If someone publicly sins, is it wrong to ask if they have repented?

Again, i never suggested “nitty gritty details” be exploited.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is wrong to ask someone if they have repented unless it directly affects you. In this case only a future spouse and priest would even remotly be appropriate to know this information.

Annulments are even more complicated. There are two people involved, so yes, it’s wrong to ask because you don’t know who comitted the sin. One should not go around listing other’s sins for the fear of sinning themselves by detraction nor should someone be forced to reveal a sin in which the victim is well known.
 
Marriage is a public declaration and promise. To violate that vow is to sin publicly, causing scandal.

Please understand im respectfully discussing this. I dont personally make people’s reason for annulments public, or gossip about them.
 
When these postings come up, I remember word problems in math class. They taught us to ignore all of the irrelevant info.

A man met a woman, they entered what would have been a presumably valid natural marriage.

When they became Catholic, that would mean the husband was baptized and the marriage became a presumptive valid Sacramental marriage.

This marriage would require a review by the Tribunal. My opinion would be that the pregnancy may be considered to have been a pressure to marry.

Neither are free to romance new partners until the Tribunal makes a decision.
 
casslean said:
Do you understand what the annulment is saying? It says that the Sacrament never occurred for the marriage to exist.
Click to expand...
Non-sacramental marriages are called “natural marriages” and they can be every bit as valid as a Sacramental marriage.
 
rcwitness said:
Marriage is a public declaration and promise. To violate that vow is to sin publicly, causing scandal.

Please understand im respectfully discussing this. I dont personally make people’s reason for annulments public, or gossip about them.
Click to expand...
Marriage is a public sacrament. To not make a valid vow may or may not be a sin. For instance, many people, unfortunately, have no Marriage prep and are unaware that something like a prenup can show they never intended to stay married. So it can be that no sin was involved, just ignorance.

My husband and I did the FOCCUS test, because we scored highly we had literally no marriage prep…not even a book to read. The priest didn’t even have any Catholic materials to suggest. To me, priests, bishops and archbishops are the ones who often sin–trying to appease a couple rather than be concerned with a sacarament.

You also are not addressing the issue of the victim if there was a party that sinned. A public list could very well insinuate that sin occurred and that one or both parties sinned when they were innocent victims.
 
Yes. Again i never claimed that annulment records should be publicly posted.

And St Joseph was a just man to prefer to keep what he thought was a sin in Mary.

But to ask what happened to impede the marriage can be a sincere question, as long as its not demanded of the person.

And if Catholics were more willing to praise God for the faults that occured in their lives, we could glorify God more.

I mean, if we did wrong, or wrong done to us, show how God and His Church has helped heal that wrong.
 
rcwitness said:
Yes. Again i never claimed that annulment records should be publicly posted.

And St Joseph was a just man to prefer to keep what he thought was a sin in Mary.

But to ask what happened to impede the marriage can be a sincere question, as long as its not demanded of the person.

And if Catholics were more willing to praise God for the faults that occured in their lives, we could glorify God more.

I mean, if we did wrong, or wrong done to us, show how God and His Church has helped heal that wrong.
Click to expand...
You said that annulments themselves should be posted. It’s private for all the reasons I listed and more.

And yes, for anyone but the tribunal, future spouse or a future priest marrying a couple to ask about an annulment is not a just question to be asking.

This has nothing to do with God’s justice and everything to do with privacy.

EDIT: It’s not to say that they should be kept secret if a person wishes to talk, but asking about them is disrespectful to all parties involved.
 
Last edited:
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
You said that annulments themselves should be posted. It’s private for all the reasons I listed and more.
Click to expand...
Where did I say this?
EDIT: It’s not to say that they should be kept secret if a person wishes to talk, but asking about them is disrespectful to all parties involved.
Click to expand...
I disagree its always disrespectful.
 
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
EDIT: It’s not to say that they should be kept secret if a person wishes to talk, but asking about them is disrespectful to all parties involved.
Click to expand...
Do you think it was disrespectful to ask the poster from post #11…

“If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?”
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
EDIT: It’s not to say that they should be kept secret if a person wishes to talk, but asking about them is disrespectful to all parties involved.
Click to expand...
Do you think it was disrespectful to ask the poster from post #11…

“If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?”
Click to expand...
Yeah, it kinda was. There’s no legitimate reason for a child to know what impeded his parents before he was even conceived. This information could only stand to embitter a child against the parent who was in the wrong.

Perhaps a better question would be, “Do you think that time truly diminishes an impediment?” IT seems his hang-up was due to the length of the marriage and not that there could have been something that occurred before it.

You are basically asking the OP to confess the private sin of his mother, his father or a priest(who didn’t do his job in sacrament prep).
 
rcwitness said:
is that if someone consented to marriage only on the condition that they could always get a civil divorce and dissolve the marriage for what they consider a just reason, the Sacrament was never confered because of this
Click to expand...
I can basically accept that way of paraphrasing/interpreting canon 1099 (except the final clause about "the Sacrament) but, in the cases I’ve seen (let’s estimate it at 750), I’ve seen perhaps 5 people contend that they actually had this perspective and it was such that it determined their will. Perhaps more people would have said this, had the tribunal asked questions along these lines. Nevertheless, it is not a common allegation.

Anyway, I’d say “no, canon 1099 is not an easy annulment.” An error can (I’d say, in this sphere, usually does) remain in the intellect and so amount to nothing more than speculation. For example, one’s conversation (perhaps interior) might go like this: “if such and such happens, what would I do? Get a divorce? Try to work it out? I really love this person so I might try to work it out. I don’t know for sure.” Rarely (again, in my view and, I’d add, in the perspective of jurisprudence) does the error about indissolubility/unity/sacramental dignity move from the intellect into the will and “determine the will” in an actual decision to marry. Besides that, it’s not all that easy to prove this movement from the intellect to the will.

Dan
 
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
40.png
rcwitness:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
EDIT: It’s not to say that they should be kept secret if a person wishes to talk, but asking about them is disrespectful to all parties involved.
Click to expand...
Do you think it was disrespectful to ask the poster from post #11…

“If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?”
Click to expand...
Yeah, it kinda was. There’s no legitimate reason for a child to know what impeded his parents before he was even conceived. This information could only stand to embitter a child against the parent who was in the wrong.

Perhaps a better question would be, “Do you think that time truly diminishes an impediment?” IT seems his hang-up was due to the length of the marriage and not that there could have been something that occurred before it.

You are basically asking the OP to confess the private sin of his mother, his father or a priest(who didn’t do his job in sacrament prep).
Click to expand...
Sorry i disagree. A child should not be kept in the dark about that kinda mistake made by his parents. And when he publicly criticizes the Church tribunal’s decission, and disrespects his parents, the right thing to do is help him understand how their particular impediment did not allow the Sacrament to be conferred on one another.

Mistakes should not be perpetually shamed.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
40.png
rcwitness:
40.png
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
EDIT: It’s not to say that they should be kept secret if a person wishes to talk, but asking about them is disrespectful to all parties involved.
Click to expand...
Do you think it was disrespectful to ask the poster from post #11…

“If you dont mind me asking, what was their “impediment”?”
Click to expand...
Yeah, it kinda was. There’s no legitimate reason for a child to know what impeded his parents before he was even conceived. This information could only stand to embitter a child against the parent who was in the wrong.

Perhaps a better question would be, “Do you think that time truly diminishes an impediment?” IT seems his hang-up was due to the length of the marriage and not that there could have been something that occurred before it.

You are basically asking the OP to confess the private sin of his mother, his father or a priest(who didn’t do his job in sacrament prep).
Click to expand...
Sorry i disagree. A child should not be kept in the dark about that kinda mistake made by his parents. And when he publicly criticizes the Church tribunal’s decission, and disrespects his parents, the right thing to do is help him understand how their particular impediment did not allow the Sacrame t to be conferred on one another.

Mistakes should not be perpetually shamed.
Click to expand...
In that case should a father who suddenly had to work 80 hours a week because he couldn’t get a good job have to confess to his children he wasn’t there for them because he had a drug conviction on his record?

If his children were simply kind and appreciative does it make a difference? What about if they were little jerks?

Parents divulging their sins depend how their children act now? Really?

It’d be nice if he did, but its none of his children’s business.

And again, if it was the sin of the priest what right do the parents have to divulge—or one parent vs another. What right does one person have to divulge anothers sin?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top