Is Canon 1099 an Easy Annulment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rcwitness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Xantippe said:
40.png
rcwitness:
Something like “The Church Teaches that sterilization and contraception for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy is intrinsically evil, and opposed to the love of God.”
Click to expand...
You know, a lot of parents are very resentful about sex ed type stuff being usurped by school or church programs. Not to mention, a lot of people even homeschool CCD…

I’m not as much that way as some people, but it’s just not possible to present that material in a convincing, age-appropriate way to a large group containing people from 1 month old to 90.
Click to expand...
Oh, some parents are resentful? By all means, lets cater to their fellings!

Come on! We have 80% of Catholics using contraception!!! I dont think we can afford to cater to this kind of sensitivity!

You act like its an innappropriate Teaching. There are ways to inform Catholics, and remind them without talking about inappropriate things.
 
We have 80% that don’t attend Mass, either. Homilies are not the place nor the time to address the issue.

It isn’t about feelings–its about decorum and ensuring the homily meets the requirements of a homily. Abortion relates to everyone, social justice relates to everyone, contraception only pertains to those 18-50ish who are married. (premarital sex is a different issue). Even in a very lively church that’s going to be a small portion.
Relevant GIRM Ref Here: usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter2.shtml#sect3b

B. THE LITURGY OF THE WORD -The Homily

The homily is part of the Liturgy and is strongly recommended,63 for it is necessary for the nurturing of the Christian life. It should be an exposition of some aspect of the readings from Sacred Scripture or of another text from the Ordinary or from the Proper of the Mass of the day and should take into account both the mystery being celebrated and the particular needs of the listeners.64
Click to expand...
 
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
We have 80% that don’t attend Mass, either. Homilies are not the place nor the time to address the issue.

It isn’t about feelings–its about decorum and ensuring the homily meets the requirements of a homily. Abortion relates to everyone, social justice relates to everyone, contraception only pertains to those 18-50ish who are married. (premarital sex is a different issue). Even in a very lively church that’s going to be a small portion.
Click to expand...
Yeah, come to think of it, which gospel would you hang your sterilization sermon on?
 
How does abortion relate to everyone?

How many Catholics are getting abortions these days? Compare that to contraception.

Its a problem in the Church. And many Catholics think its just a recomended practice since its never talked about. And it snowballs because everyone else is doing it. And then when one spouse doesnt want to, they have to contend with all this crap!
 
All I know about a 1099 is that it is a form to declare on your income taxes. Sorry, couldn’t resist. Forgive me please. :cry:
 
rcwitness said:
Oh, some parents are resentful? By all means, lets cater to their fellings!
Click to expand...
You realize that the most resentful might be the most protective parents, who are trying to shelter their children, and might well resent the fact that the pastor is introducing inappropriate subjects to their children?

Remember that parents are supposed to be the primary teachers of children and that it really isn’t the place of pastors to introduce sensitive subjects willy nilly to children of all ages against their parents’ will.
rcwitness said:
Come on! We have 80% of Catholics using contraception!!! I dont think we can afford to cater to this kind of sensitivity!
Click to expand...
I’m waiting to hear what would be a persuasive and at the same time appropriate presentation for all ages…

“Don’t use contraception, mmmmkay?” is not going to persuade anybody, and there’s also potential for scandal if you accidentally get across the idea that married Catholics are called to have all the babies that they physically can.

I personally think that this material would be best presented (at different levels of detail) to youth group kids, to Newman Center students, to pro-life groups, in RCIA, to young adult groups and in marriage prep. If you think about it, there are many opportunities. Not to mention confession, come to think of it.
rcwitness said:
You act like its an innappropriate Teaching. There are ways to inform Catholics, and remind them without talking about inappropriate things.
Click to expand...
It’s inappropriate material for certain age groups.
 
rcwitness said:
How does abortion relate to everyone?

How many Catholics are getting abortions these days? Compare that to contraception.

Its a problem in the Church. And many Catholics think its just a recomended practice since its never talked about. And it snowballs because everyone else is doing it. And then when one spouse doesnt want to, they have to contend with all this crap!
Click to expand...
Abortion relates to the human condition and social justice. There are several gospels related to protecting the innocent that could be tied in. The homily should NEVER be about getting an abortion. Good grief. Talking about praying and even protesting those who do not respect life is entirely different. Everyone can participate in that.
 
casslean said:
40.png
rcwitness:
If someone is forcing you to marry against your will, then consent is impaired. It doesnt mean they dont have the ability to consend. It means they actually didnt consend.

Everyone has the ability to suffer persecution to deny consent. But giving in to pressure doesnt mean free will
Click to expand...
You are completely incorrect on this point. Free will means that you made the decision without coercion, undue influence, or due to substantial error.

It is one of the reasons we do not accept consent from people who are impaired by drugs, alcohol, or mental illness.

You may personally believe this, but it is not legally correct or theologically sound.
Click to expand...
From this article: http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/...unds-and-obstacles-to-annulments#.Wt3H5NBOnqA

"Other consent cases involve psychological impediments, Nguyen said, but he said the number of these cases has dropped somewhat, as tribunal judges have been applying these grounds more appropriately over the last decade or so. The most recent Vatican clarification of the law was the 2005 instruction Dignitas Connubi. These cases can involve things such as whether mental illness, sexual abuse, traumas or addiction to drugs, alcohol or sex render a person incapable to consent to or live out marriage.

Nguyen said the tribunal has to keep in mind that the presence of a “psychic anomaly” at the time of marriage does not necessarily mean a person was unable to consent.

“Just because a person, for example, has an addiction, are we saying all persons with addictions can’t get married? No, we’re not saying that,” he said. “We have to examine whether ‘this person, because of this addiction, could not discern, consent or live out this marriage.’ It has to be that kind of one-to-one [relationship]. We have to distinguish between a capacity-consent issue and just simple moral failing.”"
 
Last edited:
I’m not sure what the point of this is? Nowhere did I say every case of addiction would be grounds for annulment, only that addiction may be considered as grounds for annulment, which is exactly what the article is saying. If the addiction issue goes to the heart of the capacity to give consent, then it would nullify the marriage.

All you’ve done is add support for what I was already saying.
 
Ok. Then i agree. I thought you were saying that addictions make it impossible to consent. When actually there has to be proving evidence that an addiction rendered capacity to give consent. Addictions in themselves dont mean a person cant give consent.

Or said another way, while an addiction doesnt mean the person could not give consent, that addiction did happen to impair consent.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Ok. Then i agree. I thought you were saying that addictions make it impossible to consent. When actually there has to be proving evidence that an addiction rendered capacity to give consent. Addictions in themselves dont mean a person cant give consent.
Click to expand...
No, you are still misunderstanding me.

What I am saying is that merely asserting presence of an addiction cannot be held as conclusive proof in every instance that an individual is unable to give consent (which is the same thing that the article is saying). It is a fact-specific analysis that has to consider how that addiction affected the individual’s ability to understand the circumstances of their decision and the consequences of that decision.

In the case of a marriage, the presence of an undisclosed addiction in a partner may also give rise to a substantial error that would amount to a lack of consent on the part of the other party. Again, this is a fact-specific analysis.
rcwitness said:
Or said another way, while an addiction doesnt mean the person could not give consent, that addiction did happen to impair consent.
Click to expand...
There is no difference between impaired consent and inability to consent. You either give consent or you don’t. If there is something impairing your ability to give consent, you did not consent.
 
Last edited:
Lets say an alcoholic is drunk at the wedding. Does that mean he is unable to intend to marry, or that he was impaired as to give true consent?

He may still want to marry, or he got married without actually intending to marry.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
Lets say an alcoholic is drunk at the wedding. Does that mean he is unable to intend to marry, or that he was impaired as to give true consent?
Click to expand...
It dosn’t really matter. He couldn’t give consent. If you can’t give consent intentions have absolutely no bearing on the matter. We see this with minors. A child under 16 cannot consent to sex with an adult no matter how much they intend to.
 
Well, if it can be reasonably inferred that in a sober state the person still would have given consent, there should be no canonical problem.

However, save the Jack & Coke fo the reception, bud
 
A minor is different. They are always in a natural condition which cannot yet give consent.

An alcoholic can want and understand marriage and agree to it. Yet he could also be too impaired as to give consent due to his drinking.
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
A minor is different. They are always in a natural condition which cannot yet give consent.

An alcoholic can want and understand marriage and agree to it. Yet he could also be too impaired as to consent due to his drinking.
Click to expand...
I’m addressing what you said. An alcoholic is drunk at the wedding (not reception) wedding—your own words. There is no situation in which that person could have provided consent to get married. None. No matter what they intended.

Also, according to the Catholic church and at least 3 American states girls as young as 14 can get married. However, it’s been in modern times that we understand children can’t really consent. 200 years ago you’d be laughed out of the room if you tried to claim a 15yo and 17yo shouldn’t be married because they couldn’t consent. Today, those persons would be granted an annulment redily because we understand that a 15yo simply dosn’t have the capacity.
 
And she gave consent to the Holy Spirit- “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to Thy Word.”
 
rcwitness said:
Its believed that Marry was 15 yrs old when she conceived.
Click to expand...
She was also sinless and fully able to give consent–what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Besides Jesus, I know of no other sinless 15yo’s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top