Is Canon 1099 an Easy Annulment?

[rcwitness]

Sorry you interpret it that way.

 

[rcwitness]

Will you (if you are or were a woman) want to become pregnant by a man who is rejecting the Christian faith in serious, unrepented sin?

Or will you (if you are or were a man) want to impregnate your wife who is rejecting the Christian faith in serious, unrepented sin?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Ok, but people who have actually received a decree of nullity have said they were not told, as if they dont even know.

They know the grounds from the day their case is accepted by the Tribunal. They may not choose to reveal those grounds to anyone else.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Seriously, you might want to consider fact checking some of the things you read/watch/believe.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I got a lack of firm, not an annulment because my marriage was not done in the Catholic church even though I am Catholic as is my ex-wife, but on her end she has denounced the church.

Yep. Baptism as a Catholic bound both of you to form. You married outside the Church, so, it is a simple lack of form. Takes around 6 weeks, some Diocese it is faster.

I have to be miserable the rest of my life because for me to not have female companionship of the most intimate kind means I live a miserable life because I am a divorced man, who was divorced by his wife.

Two things, people are miserable because they choose to be miserable, it has nothing to do with marital status.

If you have received a lack of form, and you have no other impediments, you are free to seek a new spouse.

 

[AlNg]

Seriously, you might want to consider fact checking some of the things you read/watch/believe.

I was sorry to hear the testimony here of someone who says that the Catholic mandatory marriage prep program is a joke. It seems to me that it should be serious business, just like Catholic education, which the poster also says is often a joke. I have no reason to believe that this person is dishonest, do you? My impression here at CAF is that most people who post here are honest people of good character.

I said the “mandatory prep” is a joke.

The training of diocesan priests was a joke up until the Counter Reformation

Catholic schools are often a joke

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I was sorry to hear the testimony here of someone who says that the Catholic mandatory marriage prep program is a joke. It seems to me that it should be serious business, just like Catholic education, which the poster also says is often a joke. I have no reason to believe that this person is dishonest, do you? My impression here at CAF is that most people who post here are honest people of good character.

AINg

No one is saying that it its a good think that it’s a joke. No one is saying it should be that way. However, the reality is that bare-minimum watered down required marriage prep is nothing more than some rather obvious butt-covering. The FOCCUS test is good but having that, and only that as the requirement for the dioceses with the priest getting the option to add more? That is the very definition of making a complete farce of marriage prep. NOT a good thing and in no way the way it should be at all, but it is what it is.

Same with Catholic schools. In order to stay viable, many have become more about offering a strict education to all people, dropping Catholic things that might frighten off people willing to shell out a car payment every year for attendance. Therefore, it’s a joke that anyone can call it “Catholic” when all that’s Catholic are the crosses in the Classroom and once a month Mass.

Again, its not the concept of it that’s a joke is that in many cases the execution is a joke.

PK-12 Catholic schools should be Catholic–Daily or at minimum weekly Mass. No “library” option unless the child has medical issues. Religious education needs to be part of the curriculum and incorporated into every subject possible. (Many homeschool programs do this, no reason it can’t be done in a traditional classroom).

Marriage prep needs to be much, much harder. There should be many more postponed weddings and broken engagements. This sounds terrible but it’s the truth…the overall maturity of my compatriots means that quite a bit of council needs to happen before marriage and more times than not that couldn’t be done in the traditional “6 months” that churches have as a bare minimum.

 

[TheLittleLady]

No one is saying that it its a good think that it’s a joke. No one is saying it should be that way. However, the reality is that bare-minimum watered down required marriage prep is nothing more than some rather obvious butt-covering. The FOCCUS test is good but having that, and only that as the requirement for the dioceses with the priest getting the option to add more? That is the very definition of making a complete farce of marriage prep. NOT a good thing and in no way the way it should be at all, but it is what it is.

What it is in some Dioceses, parishes, etc.

At our last parish, Marriage Prep was 6 monthly meetings with only the couple and the Pastor, the FOCCUS test, a retreat and an NFP class in the couple’s method of choice. We provided info on everything from online to Skype to in person in about 4 different methods.

 

[AlNg]

the reality is
that bare-minimum watered down required marriage prep is nothing more than some rather obvious butt-covering.

That is very distressing.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

That is very distressing.

Which is why I call it a joke and place considerable blame on the church itself for the number of annulments. Parents don’t teach morals, schools don’t and the final measure to ensure a sacrament is administered is pretty much erased.

It’s extremely distressing. My marriage preps lacking makes my stomach churn to this day. My husband and I were smart enough to educate ourselves— but most are not. Even the retreat we sought out as our NFP/retreat requirement of the priest was awful. Watered down garage. We were there with 60 couples and my then fiancé and I were the only ones with separate addresses. And that was the optional long form retreat for “those who wanted to go deeper”. I shutter to think what took place at the short ones.

 

[AlNg]

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]

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?

It is a mortal sin to engage in sexual activity before marriage. For that reason, and for reasons of scandal, it is extremely rare for it to be ok for the couple to live together beforehand, although it is possible in certain cases.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

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 is very sad that at the “beyond the basics for actively practicing Catholics” marriage retreat 60 lived together and one did not.

 

[rcwitness]

Which is why I call it a joke and place considerable blame on the church itself for the number of annulments.

Thats why I said what i said, and my comment was removed and blamed as “inciting animosity for clergy”.

Parents don’t teach morals, schools don’t and the final measure to ensure a sacrament is administered is pretty much erased.

Parents are just as responsible as clergy. They promise to be “the Church” also.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Thats why I said what i said, and my comment was removed and blamed as “inciting animosity for clergy”.

You are saying the church is incorrect it’s number of annulments. That is very different. That is a legitimate and binding church decision. Criticizing marital prep is not binding.

Parents are just as responsible as clergy. They promise to be “the Church” also.

Responsible to God, not the Church. They failed at the promises they made at that child’s baptism.

However, when it comes to marriage, it is the priest, and only him who is the final gatekeeper as he allows the couple to administer the sacrament of matrimony to eachother. At that point it is a terrible thing that parents failed but the responsibilty of the priest and welcoming parish to stand in the way of that failure.

 

[rcwitness]

The Sacrament of Marriage is conferred from one spouse to the other. So the responsibility is on each spouse to participate in the Rite in a worthy manner.

This doesnt mean that its the responsibility of one spouse to know that the other is consenting and conferring the sacrament. Some things we just cant know.

But we are responsible for ourselves, and clergy is responsible for keeping watch of our souls!

Hebrews 13
Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

You are saying the church is incorrect it’s number of annulments. That is very different. That is a legitimate and binding church decision. Criticizing marital prep is not binding.

I didnt say that, I said even if they are ligit annulments, its still a sad state of affairs, and that its not an infallible decision.

But im not talking about that. Im talking about my comment about clergy (though not all) keeping parishioners ignorrant. Its the same thing as blaming the Church for lousy instruction. But John tells us we have the Holy Spirit to instruct us! So while their are teachers and guides, each Christian is able to avoid error by his relationship with the Spirit.

Yeah, that’s still totally different. WAY different. Priest failing to do their job is completely different than if they intentionally withhold information. While one is callous disregard for the sacrament, 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.

 

[Mi_Rose]

Yes. True. Flagged rcwitnesses post. Clergy do the best they can to catechize.

 

[rcwitness]

Let me ask you this:

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

 

[rcwitness]

Its already been done. Im explaining that.