P
parvenu74
Guest
For the chapels with which I am familiar, the SSPX does announce the bans, the FSSP does not.
- Status
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Well, the banns still exist:
Can. 1067 The conference of bishops is to establish norms about the examination of spouses and about the marriage banns or other opportune means to accomplish the investigations necessary before marriage. After these norms have been diligently observed, the pastor can proceed to assist at the marriage.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3W.HTM
… but it seems they are in the end just as optional as Friday penance has proven to be. I was married in the N.O. in 2005, and even though I didn’t read the bulletin for the three weeks preceding the wedding (I was at school until a week before the date) I’ll take the pastor’s word that our banns were published.
I think our annulment situation is highly problematic, but I’m not sure exactly where to place the blame. Snorter Luster seems to think it is due to an apparent failure to contract valid marriages. I think openness to life, or more appropriately a lack thereof, actually is invalidated an enormous number - probably the vast majority - of marriages nowadays, but I don’t think that’s what is getting the licit marriages (i.e., in the Church) declared null.
I think, rather, that tribunals (and maybe it’s just the rules they have follow) are not rigorous in their application of principles. It seems that they are operating according to a probabilist rationale that if we can see how something might have invalidated a marriage we’ll go ahead and declare it null. What comes especially to mind are cases of infidelity a decade or so into the marriage when it is determined that this fact exhibits a lack of a commitment from the beginning. I don’t know the intricacies of using infidelity to determine nullity, but I think the preference should certainly be to err in favor of the bond (which John Paul II explicitly instructed as a general principle). If I were examining cases it would be really hard for someone to convince me they were either unaware of what marriage entailed or else never actually intended to marry (try, just try to build a case beyond a reasonable doubt for anything if it is based only on inaccessible internal dispositions).
Can. 1067 The conference of bishops is to establish norms about the examination of spouses and about the marriage banns or other opportune means to accomplish the investigations necessary before marriage. After these norms have been diligently observed, the pastor can proceed to assist at the marriage.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3W.HTM
… but it seems they are in the end just as optional as Friday penance has proven to be. I was married in the N.O. in 2005, and even though I didn’t read the bulletin for the three weeks preceding the wedding (I was at school until a week before the date) I’ll take the pastor’s word that our banns were published.
I think our annulment situation is highly problematic, but I’m not sure exactly where to place the blame. Snorter Luster seems to think it is due to an apparent failure to contract valid marriages. I think openness to life, or more appropriately a lack thereof, actually is invalidated an enormous number - probably the vast majority - of marriages nowadays, but I don’t think that’s what is getting the licit marriages (i.e., in the Church) declared null.
I think, rather, that tribunals (and maybe it’s just the rules they have follow) are not rigorous in their application of principles. It seems that they are operating according to a probabilist rationale that if we can see how something might have invalidated a marriage we’ll go ahead and declare it null. What comes especially to mind are cases of infidelity a decade or so into the marriage when it is determined that this fact exhibits a lack of a commitment from the beginning. I don’t know the intricacies of using infidelity to determine nullity, but I think the preference should certainly be to err in favor of the bond (which John Paul II explicitly instructed as a general principle). If I were examining cases it would be really hard for someone to convince me they were either unaware of what marriage entailed or else never actually intended to marry (try, just try to build a case beyond a reasonable doubt for anything if it is based only on inaccessible internal dispositions).
S
SnorterLuster
Guest
I think we are saying the same thing. From the number of annulments there must be something wrong with the system. The Church instituted counselling to inform the parties of their rights and duties before they get married. If the Church in America is finding 60,000 marriages a year that were null from the beginning, how many of us are living in sin, so to speak, because there is some defect in our marriage. If there is no systemic defect, how are the tribunals finding so many marriages null?
L
Lover_of_Jesus
Guest
My wife and I were married after attending 3 pre-cana classes in 1988.
I thought the classes were a waste ot time.
However our wedding was wonderful and we know we have recieved rich graces and blessings from the sacrament.
I thought the classes were a waste ot time.
However our wedding was wonderful and we know we have recieved rich graces and blessings from the sacrament.
G
GoLatin
Guest
I am **very **glad that this concept went away! It is totally unnecessary.
S
SnorterLuster
Guest
I just ran across some numbers on the state of Catholic marriages. Folks, the state of the Church in the United States is in serious decline.
Link to the full article in Crisis
Additionally, the article stated:
Only 4% of the young marrieds are actually practicing their Faith in their family life. Think about that, 4 out of 100! What is the Church teaching in the pre-Cana classes? It certainly doesn’t look like it is Catholicism.
Link to the full article in Crisis
W
Windmill
Guest
As someone who has participated in pre-Cana, both as an engaged couple and as a teaching couple, I can tell you that no matter how good the program is, it can’t make up for a lifetime a catechetical neglect.
At the local student’s parish (St. Mary’s Catholic Center), they have a one-day pre-Cana class that is pretty good about hitting all the hard subjects head-on. Last time we were there, the workbook they used left something to be desired, but the speakers are always very good about key aspects of a Catholic marriage (living the sacraments, no birth control, finances, communication, prayer, permanence of marriage, etc…).
Even so, you look into the eyes of some of these couples and know they are just jumping through necessary hoops to get to the altar. They have already made up their minds based on ill-formed consciences, and they will not be swayed over the course of one day.
It starts at home, then in the Religious Education at the local parish. Pre-Cana should put the finishing touches on the formation of a Catholic couple, not be the substitute for a lifetime of catechesis.
At the local student’s parish (St. Mary’s Catholic Center), they have a one-day pre-Cana class that is pretty good about hitting all the hard subjects head-on. Last time we were there, the workbook they used left something to be desired, but the speakers are always very good about key aspects of a Catholic marriage (living the sacraments, no birth control, finances, communication, prayer, permanence of marriage, etc…).
Even so, you look into the eyes of some of these couples and know they are just jumping through necessary hoops to get to the altar. They have already made up their minds based on ill-formed consciences, and they will not be swayed over the course of one day.
It starts at home, then in the Religious Education at the local parish. Pre-Cana should put the finishing touches on the formation of a Catholic couple, not be the substitute for a lifetime of catechesis.
G
Genesis315
Guest
I think it’s a combination of many factors.
Our Lady at Fatima predicted many, many marriages would not be of God. Due to the culture, many people enter into marriages planning on contracepting, clinging to the possibility of divorce, etc. These things all invalidate a marriage are reasons for annulment. I also believe people have less integrity today as the culture has destroyed the sense of sacred. People are more likely to tell a tribunal what they know leads to annulment. Likewise, I’m sure there are tribunals that are more lenient as well.
Our Lady at Fatima predicted many, many marriages would not be of God. Due to the culture, many people enter into marriages planning on contracepting, clinging to the possibility of divorce, etc. These things all invalidate a marriage are reasons for annulment. I also believe people have less integrity today as the culture has destroyed the sense of sacred. People are more likely to tell a tribunal what they know leads to annulment. Likewise, I’m sure there are tribunals that are more lenient as well.
W
Windmill
Guest
i don’t think contraception is an impediment to marriage. it is illicit, but not invalidating. if the couple comes to repentance after the sacrament of marriage, they don’t have to get their marriage “re-blessed”.
i agree that many should read the messages of fatima. it is very prophetic.
i agree that many should read the messages of fatima. it is very prophetic.
S
SnorterLuster
Guest
Golly, I am really starting to sound like an old man, but “back in the old days” I knew people that the priest just flat refused to marry in the Church until they got more mature. Often, that maturity was age based, in other cases it had to do with the couples knowledge of the Faith. If the priest thought the couple was not firm in their Catholicism, he would have sessions with them so they understood and agreed with the Church on their responsibilities and duties.
And yes, their formation begins at home. It is a sad state of affairs that parents aren’t forming their children as they should. But it is also the responsibility of the Church to administer the Sacrament of Matrimony. If the system was working, then pre-Cana classes would have a pass or fail component.
W
Windmill
Guest
People also were catechized enough to know that they should:
- listen to the priest
- not search around for another parish priest to marry them if the first says “No”
- tell the truth when asked frankly by priests about the upcoming marriage
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
If you do not intend to be open to life you do not intend to marry. It invalidates the marriage, because you have to mean to get married in order to do so.I have to run to class, but I’ll consult the canons later.
W
Windmill
Guest
Even the SSPX website says that contraception is not immediate grounds for invalidity, and they have a beef with the “new” definition of the purpose of marriage. You’d think if there was merit to this argument, they’d be all over it trying to discredit the post-concilliar church.
However, this does not mean the marriage vows with the condition of limiting children by artificial contraception or natural family planning are invalid. The exclusion of children is certainly a grounds for a declaration of nullity, but only when there is an explicit, provable and positive act of the will to avoid all children, for this is an intention contrary to the substance of marriage itself. The difficulty in such cases is to determine whether it is the obligation of having children which is refused, or whether it is simply the fulfillment of this obligation. (Cf. Bouscaren, Canon Law Digest, I, pp. 532, 533). Those couples who accept the obligation of having children are certainly validly married, even if they do not always fulfill this obligation, e.g. by limiting the number of their children. This is the case of those selfish couples who are determined to limit the size of their family from the beginning of their marriage. They are truly married, although their marriage is not pleasing to God, and they will never be able to communicate to their children generosity, the spirit of sacrifice, the love of the Cross, of souls and the Church.
Moreover, even if a couple deliberately excludes all children, the Church always presumes that it is the fulfillment of the duty that is excluded, and not the obligation of having children itself, and that consequently the marriage is valid.
Here is the link to that page.
However, this does not mean the marriage vows with the condition of limiting children by artificial contraception or natural family planning are invalid. The exclusion of children is certainly a grounds for a declaration of nullity, but only when there is an explicit, provable and positive act of the will to avoid all children, for this is an intention contrary to the substance of marriage itself. The difficulty in such cases is to determine whether it is the obligation of having children which is refused, or whether it is simply the fulfillment of this obligation. (Cf. Bouscaren, Canon Law Digest, I, pp. 532, 533). Those couples who accept the obligation of having children are certainly validly married, even if they do not always fulfill this obligation, e.g. by limiting the number of their children. This is the case of those selfish couples who are determined to limit the size of their family from the beginning of their marriage. They are truly married, although their marriage is not pleasing to God, and they will never be able to communicate to their children generosity, the spirit of sacrifice, the love of the Cross, of souls and the Church.
Moreover, even if a couple deliberately excludes all children, the Church always presumes that it is the fulfillment of the duty that is excluded, and not the obligation of having children itself, and that consequently the marriage is valid.
Here is the link to that page.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Can 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
§2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty
Can 1101
§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P40.HTM
Those seem to be the relevant canons. I think the SSPX is basing their case on the first two. I, on the other hand, was thinking of the last citation, Can 1101.2. (And, just to be clear, I was thinking muddily when I said the vast majority are invalid on grounds of openness to life because I was lumping together two cases - a) those who intend to never have children and b) those who intend to contracept but who I highly doubt actually believe marriage is ordered toward procreation; the cases are different.)
Taking those who fully intend from the beginning never to have children, I think this falls under canon 1101. They are willfully excluding the end of marriage from their vows. The end of marriage is an essential component thereof, so it seems excluding it would render the marriage invalid.
In the case of those who merely intend to contracept, however, I think the SSPX has a case from the canons while I would also contend that the presumption in this day and age that a couple knows what marriage is turns out to be rather ludicrous. Will a priest possibly mention that procreation and education of children is integral to marriage? Sure, so they would have heard it commented on once in their lives. But can we really presume that they understand the centrality of this to the Church’s teaching on marriage? In today’s world I highly doubt it.
In the end, I’ll stand by my assertion for those who intend 0 children but I’ll give you a touchee for the presumption that couples know what they’re getting into.
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
Can. 1096 §1. For matrimonial consent to exist, the contracting parties must be at least not ignorant that marriage is a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation.
§2. This ignorance is not presumed after puberty
Can 1101
§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P40.HTM
Those seem to be the relevant canons. I think the SSPX is basing their case on the first two. I, on the other hand, was thinking of the last citation, Can 1101.2. (And, just to be clear, I was thinking muddily when I said the vast majority are invalid on grounds of openness to life because I was lumping together two cases - a) those who intend to never have children and b) those who intend to contracept but who I highly doubt actually believe marriage is ordered toward procreation; the cases are different.)
Taking those who fully intend from the beginning never to have children, I think this falls under canon 1101. They are willfully excluding the end of marriage from their vows. The end of marriage is an essential component thereof, so it seems excluding it would render the marriage invalid.
In the case of those who merely intend to contracept, however, I think the SSPX has a case from the canons while I would also contend that the presumption in this day and age that a couple knows what marriage is turns out to be rather ludicrous. Will a priest possibly mention that procreation and education of children is integral to marriage? Sure, so they would have heard it commented on once in their lives. But can we really presume that they understand the centrality of this to the Church’s teaching on marriage? In today’s world I highly doubt it.
In the end, I’ll stand by my assertion for those who intend 0 children but I’ll give you a touchee for the presumption that couples know what they’re getting into.
W
Windmill
Guest
Andreas,
I agree with you that these couples are probably not comprehending the facts that priests give them in regards to the nature of marriage. It is tragic when a couple goes into “marriage” deliberately excluding the possibility of children.
My purpose in posting what I did was to allay fears of those who have come to accept the church’s teaching on NFP and have stopped using contraceptives (all the while being open to future children). Though they are in the minority, they are probably more common on these fourms than we think. I don’t want them to have a moment of scruples regarding the validity of their marriages.
If in doubt, people, consult your local priest.
I agree with you that these couples are probably not comprehending the facts that priests give them in regards to the nature of marriage. It is tragic when a couple goes into “marriage” deliberately excluding the possibility of children.
My purpose in posting what I did was to allay fears of those who have come to accept the church’s teaching on NFP and have stopped using contraceptives (all the while being open to future children). Though they are in the minority, they are probably more common on these fourms than we think. I don’t want them to have a moment of scruples regarding the validity of their marriages.
If in doubt, people, consult your local priest.
- Status