B
BlackFriar
Guest
Hear hear…
- Status
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Exactly so and how any experienced pastor, amongst my own colleagues, would treat the matter…satisfying the somewhat over zealous canon law at the same time.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I personally would do the same also.
As I am confident many other sincere Catholics would also do.
Which is likely why many priests do not open up this issue and make use of the canon unless there is some other very good reason to do so.
To put it bluntly in a diocesan PreNup form would in my mind unecessarily trip up and deny the scrupulous or less mature couples for, usually, no good pastoral reason.
As I am confident many other sincere Catholics would also do.
Which is likely why many priests do not open up this issue and make use of the canon unless there is some other very good reason to do so.
To put it bluntly in a diocesan PreNup form would in my mind unecessarily trip up and deny the scrupulous or less mature couples for, usually, no good pastoral reason.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Thank God Pope Francis is reasserting the primacy of Pastors not Canon Lawyers in decisions re particular marriages then.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
I’m not sure what “reassertion” you are referring to here. “Decisions regarding particular marriages” are entrusted to judicial process and, ultimately, made by those with a degree in canon law (as well as other degrees, too, if that is worth pointing out). Many times, these Judges are also pastors.
I appreciate how you capitalized “Canon Lawyers”, by the way.
Dan
B
BlackFriar
Guest
As Pope Francis says such decisions are primarily the jurisdiction of a Pastor.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Its common knowledge…just do a Google search on his reasons for changing some of the Tribunal processes of around two years ago and it should come up.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
I’m moderately familiar with his reasons for instituting those changes but am more familiar with the changes themselves. In neither arena do I recall a statement or even an implication that the Pope thinks that “such decisions are primarily the jurisdiction of a Pastor”, unless, by “Pastor”, you mean diocesan Bishop. Even so, there is no way anyone could think that the Pope intends a diocesan bishop to make decisions on typical marriage cases.
Dan
P.S., I’m not going to do a Google search and sift through all the results, looking for that statement from the Pope. If you can provide a reference to this “common knowledge”, please do.
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I assure you that the Church does.
Investigating possible dire impediments to marriage is not optional. It does not vary from one country to another.
R
Rau
Guest
I would think that’s right. My observation (very limited data), is that the priest may make “safe assumptions”. For example when the couple are 25 years old and walk into the presbytery on their own legs, he might move to the next question.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
It surprises me you would attempt to gainsay (by means of a speculative assertion of an inherently unprovable universal) the actual reported practice of a celebrant in their own country.
Last edited:
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Dire impediments are indeed universal.FrDavid96:
It surprises me you would attempt to gainsay (by means of a speculative assertion of an inherently unprovable universal) the actual reported practice of a celebrant in their own country.
I am not merely speculating when I say that all priests (regardless of location) are obligated to investigate the possibility of dire impediments; and to assume that such investigations actually occur*. Canon 1084 applies to the U.S. no more or less than anywhere else.
I am surprised that you seem to think that some countries are either exempt from or ignore canon 1084.
- the specifics of how this is investigated will vary of course.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Please carefully read my contributions FrDavid96.
You universally attempted to deny a practice I observed in my country re questionairres. Noone denies the meaning or intent or possible consequence of the canon.
I merely observe this “obligation to investigate” as you put it has not and possibly still is not routinely practised by means of a pre nup questionairre in some countries.
I think that wise, even if some prudentially judge failure to routinely and explicitly do so in a questionairre somehow amounts to a denial of the principle behind the canon.
That does not seem to coercively follow, though I discern you personally disagree.
You universally attempted to deny a practice I observed in my country re questionairres. Noone denies the meaning or intent or possible consequence of the canon.
I merely observe this “obligation to investigate” as you put it has not and possibly still is not routinely practised by means of a pre nup questionairre in some countries.
I think that wise, even if some prudentially judge failure to routinely and explicitly do so in a questionairre somehow amounts to a denial of the principle behind the canon.
That does not seem to coercively follow, though I discern you personally disagree.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
The prenuptial investigation is required. The priest is obligated to determine whether any impediments exist.
Are there priests who have failed in this duty? Perhaps. If you know of priests who fail to inquire you are demonstrating a failure of an individual priest to follow the law (one that cannot be dispensed by the way), not demonstrating diversity of practice in various countries.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
I am simply observing canon law does not state that this must be done by a routine questionairre or even asked of the couple…as far as I am aware.
Further some countries have never done so to the best of my knowledge but leave that discerment to the minister.
FrDavid attempted to state as a universal fact no country did this in practice.
Make of that what you will.
Lets not attempt to change facts of actual practice around the world.
Further some countries have never done so to the best of my knowledge but leave that discerment to the minister.
FrDavid attempted to state as a universal fact no country did this in practice.
Make of that what you will.
Lets not attempt to change facts of actual practice around the world.
Last edited:
1
1ke
Guest
No one said he had to be done on a questionnaire. In fact, several people have said the priest may do it orally, he may fill out a form, or the couple might.
The Church requires the investigation occur before marriage can take place.
Likewise it must be determined that no impediment exists.
The conference of bishops must establish norms that applies throughout their jurisdiction. Certainly the priest— or in some cases deacon or lay person— conducts the investigation, in whatever manner the conference lays out. But it must be conducted.
No he didn’t.
You attempted to say that this impediment is ignored in some places. It cannot be ignored.
How the person conducting the investigation determines there are no impediments is up to the bishop’s conference— form, questionnaire, discussion, flash cards… whatever.
But no, it cannot be ignored.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
You make a mountain of a molehill and for some reason raise concerns I have never denied.
As originally stated it has been the practice of my country and others that this discernment need not involve an explicit templated questionairre or direct question from the priest on the matter.
Thank God for that.
You may personally disagree.
I am aware of no Magisterial instruction that faults this undeniable practice.
Do come back if you find one that clearly requires one. I doubt such exists for if it did my NCBishops would certainly have implimented it.
As originally stated it has been the practice of my country and others that this discernment need not involve an explicit templated questionairre or direct question from the priest on the matter.
Thank God for that.
You may personally disagree.
I am aware of no Magisterial instruction that faults this undeniable practice.
Do come back if you find one that clearly requires one. I doubt such exists for if it did my NCBishops would certainly have implimented it.
H
Herculees
Guest
Yes, they can still be married in the church! One doesn’t need to be fertile to get married,
but simply to be open to the idea of having kids should our Lord allow you to get pregnant.
I’m sure you are aware sometimes people think they are infertile and then out of the blue
they end up pregnant, and their doctors had previously told them it was impossible.
but simply to be open to the idea of having kids should our Lord allow you to get pregnant.
I’m sure you are aware sometimes people think they are infertile and then out of the blue
they end up pregnant, and their doctors had previously told them it was impossible.
S
Sugabee43
Guest
If I’m interpreting you correctly, I don’t know that I agree with your statement. If a man is permanently impotent, that doesn’t preclude them being spiritually open to children. If impotent due to a physical deformity, it’s not his fault he can’t have children. Likewise, if a woman physically cannot have intercourse (that would be very rare, by the way), that doesn’t preclude her from every marrying sacramentally. If both parties know this before the marriage and are okay with it, and they did not “make” themselves impotent/barren on purpose with no confession and penance afterward, why couldn’t they be married?
- Status