12 Comments
Commenting has been turned off for this post
Bai Macfarlane's avatar

With the non-profit educational organization, Mary’s Advocates, I work to reduce no-fault divorce and support those who are unjustly abandoned.

Expand full comment
Bai Macfarlane's avatar

Marriage is more than permanent animal unity. Casti Connubii, issued in 1930 teaches "This mutual interior conformation of spouses, this constant effort to perfect each other, can, in a very true sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, also be called the primary cause and reason for marriage, provided, however, that marriage is not understood more narrowly as an institution solely for the proper procreation and education of children, but more broadly as a communion, partnership, and fellowship of the whole of life." (unofficial translation "Haec mutua coniugum interior conformatio, hoc assiduum sese invicem perficiendi studium...." no. 24 on Vatican's English.

Expand full comment
Dorothea Ludwig-Wang, Th.M.'s avatar

Thanks for commenting. I believe the quote you refer to is discussing a different matter: that the reason why marriage exists as a vocation is to help the spouses perfect each other in the Christian life and help each other get to heaven. God established marriage for this end, as He intends to save each person through his or her vocation.

It is not saying that the partnership of the spouses or the mutual help offered to each other is necessary for validity. In other words, what Casti connubii discusses is quite distinct from the "primary cause and reason for marriage" in a legal sense being the mutual consent of the spouses with regard to the right over the body concerning the act suitable to the procreation of offspring, which gives rise to the contract of marriage.

If the purpose of marriage is to help sanctify people, then it must be something which is necessarily possible for the average person, despite all of his or her existing character defects, to enter into. Otherwise, this would defeat the purpose of marriage in the first place, if the means of sanctification are pre-emptively closed off to those not already sanctified.

Expand full comment
Bai Macfarlane's avatar

If a tribunal uses "anything that renders it difficult for the parties to live together peaceably—alcoholism, financial irresponsibility, or even a generally unpleasant temperament" as proof of grave lack of discretion, I believe the case should be overturned by the Rota. However, I think a bigger abuse is a tribunal pointing out any difficulty in a party's upbringing, or stress prior to the wedding, as their so-called proof of grave lack of discretion of judgment. I pray the Signatura and Pope work to correct the abuse.

Expand full comment
Bai Macfarlane's avatar

Dear Dorothea, would you be willing to join me on Mary's Advocate Youtube channel to discuss?

Expand full comment
Dorothea Ludwig-Wang, Th.M.'s avatar

I'd be open to the idea, but I'm not sure what I could add beyond what I've already discussed on Substack. My concerns have been mostly focused on the theological errors contained in canons 1055 and 1057, along with the fact that canon 6 enables attitudes of disrespect toward law. In other words, my writings on this topic have mostly focused on general principles rather than the application of these laws to particular cases, as I have no personal tribunal experience of my own.

Expand full comment
Bai Macfarlane's avatar

Have you seen Egan on grave lack of discretion? https://marysadvocates.org/insanity-lack-of-discretion-edward-egan/

Expand full comment
Dorothea Ludwig-Wang, Th.M.'s avatar

Thanks for the link. Will read tomorrow.

Expand full comment
Bai Macfarlane's avatar

Have you seen Kate Godfrey Howell’s doctoral dissertation, “Consensual Incapacity to Marry”? She points out how the Canon Law Society of America was spreading notions contrary to the Rota. We are waiting for paperback version of her book, as the hardback is sold out.

Expand full comment
Dorothea Ludwig-Wang, Th.M.'s avatar

I haven't, but I will check it out. I am not surprised that the United States happens to be a major player in this mess.

Expand full comment
Annulment Proof's avatar

"this would defeat the purpose of marriage in the first place, if the means of sanctification are pre-emptively closed off to those not already sanctified." Good point. If one must be all that in order to have "capacity" for marriage, validity would become political, subjective and apart from natural law. Kinda like now.

Expand full comment
Annulment Proof's avatar

DLW, I think Bai IS saying that "the partnership of the spouses or the mutual help offered to each other is necessary for validity." Yes, marriage is "more," but not legally. "..blessing in children. This was also the sole reason, why God instituted marriage.." Roman Catechism referenced by Casti 24.

Expand full comment