Catholic Weddings

S/O Discussion below...

2»

Re: S/O Discussion below...

  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_so-discussion-below?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:2342e20a-20cc-4afe-9e48-e3461d850632Post:08cc73c5-c234-4b5d-a711-e8649f427ec6">Re: S/O Discussion below...</a>:
    [QUOTE]ive always interpreted "open to life" to also be inclusive of open to adoption.  this probably isnt the catholic teaching on it, but in the example of the person in the wheelchair, he can still be open to life through adoption with his spouse.
    Posted by Calypso1977[/QUOTE]

    I think "open to life" as a phrase, while useful in some ways, causes confusion because of this...it is more than just a description of one's attitude toward adding children to the family (though that is important.) By that definition a single person can be "open to life" or a pair of sisters can be "open to life" by raising one or the other's children together. When we say the marital ACT has to be "open to life" we are not only talking about a lack of contraception but also a *specific* act, the one whose nature/end/telos is intrinsically linked to  childbearing, to the exclusion of other sexual acts which for the most part have no end or telos at all.
    Our little saint, 12/18/2010-12/28/2010

    [IMG]http://i40.tinypic.com/2hnyji0.jpg[/IMG]
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_so-discussion-below?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:2342e20a-20cc-4afe-9e48-e3461d850632Post:e9fe131d-9f04-4922-a145-dba6415313fa">Re: S/O Discussion below...</a>:
    [QUOTE]Here is the related Canon Law: Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage. Canon 1084.2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null. Canon 1084.3 Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.
    Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

    <div>This is where interpreting canon law gets tricky. It may seem its talking about validity as we understand it, (the kind that goes under trial in a tribunal), but its not.</div><div>
    </div><div>there are these canons too</div><div><p style="color:#000000;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium;line-height:normal;" class="MsoNormal">DISSOLUTION OF THE BOND</p><p style="color:#000000;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium;line-height:normal;" class="MsoNormal">Can.  1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.</p><p style="color:#000000;font-family:'Times New Roman';font-size:medium;line-height:normal;" class="MsoNormal">Can.  1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.</p></div>
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_so-discussion-below?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:2342e20a-20cc-4afe-9e48-e3461d850632Post:a1ead7c6-fa88-48ca-86c5-3a0a55d89c06">Re: S/O Discussion below...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Discussion below... : This is where interpreting canon law gets tricky. It may seem its talking about validity as we understand it, (the kind that goes under trial in a tribunal), but its not. there are these canons too DISSOLUTION OF THE BOND Can.  1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death. Can.  1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
    Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

    I'm sure it isn't quite easy to do.... but could you try explaining the different "forms" of valid/invalid?

    Is it that in one way a marriage can be "valid" in the sense that it is "recognized" by the Church as a marriage (like a civil marriage), but in another way the only "true" or "valid" marriage is a Catholic marriage, according to the Church?
  • agapecarrieagapecarrie member
    Knottie Warrior 1000 Comments 100 Love Its Combo Breaker
    edited September 2012
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_so-discussion-below?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:2342e20a-20cc-4afe-9e48-e3461d850632Post:8dcc88c2-ef28-4db0-a165-18fb7bbb4879">Re: S/O Discussion below...</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Discussion below... : I'm sure it isn't quite easy to do.... but could you try explaining the different "forms" of valid/invalid? Is it that in one way a marriage can be "valid" in the sense that it is "recognized" by the Church as a marriage (like a civil marriage), but in another way the only "true" or "valid" marriage is a Catholic marriage, according to the Church?
    Posted by Riss91[/QUOTE]

    <div>I can't speak about this with any expertise. There aren't specific categories of "Valid" that are layed out like that. It's the way things are worded (almost as if Yoda wrote it) that changes the meaning. This is why its so problematic to using marriage canon law to give advice when one isn't educated in it. (or self advise). (Not saying anyone was doing it here). </div><div>
    </div><div>By using "in its very nature" is pre-emptive. That's one clue. Also, whether its known before marriage or not is an issue.</div><div>
    </div><div>The fact that another canon says a marriage can be disolved says there IS a valid marriage to begin with. That's another clue.</div><div>
    </div><div>So one cannot read the previous posted canon about impotence and valid marriage as it seems to say that one can get a decree of nullity because of impotence. This is not necessarily the case. </div><div>
    </div>
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards