The reasons behind the rise in the number of declarations of nullity over the past half-century are manifold: a wave of antinomianism followed the Second Vatican Council, leading to laxity in the application of canon law, and a false sense of mercy—which assumes that affirmative decrees are more “pastoral”—continues to influence legal proceedings.
"The very definition of marriage has undergone a substantial change with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law." The annulment explosion started well before 1983. What do you think was the main factor causing this?
Honestly, it takes a while for attitudes to become codified in law; usually, some mentality begins to develop first, only for it to be written on paper at a later date. I'd probably chalk it up to a few factors: (i) more people getting divorces, so logically, more people petitioning for declarations of nullity, (ii) general laxity in the application of procedural law by canonists and judges given the attitudes of antinomianism in the mid-twentieth century, and (iii) an emerging notion of marriage that expanded the essential rights and obligations already beginning to take place due to personalism.
I have a question. How does one deal with the question of consent to lifelong commitment in a society where everybody knows from when they're an embryo on that a) you can easily get a divorce b) well more than half the population does it (if they even bother to get married) and c) there is little to no social cost to doing it?
Don't all of those factors lead to at least the possibility that at least one of the parties idea of 'lifelong' commitment might be slightly suspect even before they get to the altar?
That's a good question. Error concerning the indissolubility of marriage doesn't actually invalidate consent unless it determines the will; i.e. the person positively and explicitly willed to have a *dissoluble* union. If you've been taught since birth that if things go wrong, you can always get a divorce, this is an intellectual error. However, only when the intellect takes the next step and presents the will with a defective formal object (i.e. a dissoluble "marriage"), *and* the will positively consents to it, is the marriage invalid. In practice, this means that the marriage is invalid if the erring party married only on condition that he can dissolve the marriage if something "doesn't work out."
You and future Mrs. Right must define the terms of the contract and the consequences for violating said terms. Anything after 1950 can be a problem re legal definition. IOW, those running the institution are wrong, so ya gotta DIY re "marriage prep."
"In other words, while now the bonum conjugum is considered an essential element of the consortium totius vitae, there is no accepted description of the contents of the bonum conjugum both regarding its essential and non-essential elements." Cardinal Burke does not know the legal essence of marriage. https://archive.org/details/20140411CardinalBurkeSoCalledNewGroundsOfNullity/page/n1/mode/2up
"The very definition of marriage has undergone a substantial change with the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law." The annulment explosion started well before 1983. What do you think was the main factor causing this?
Honestly, it takes a while for attitudes to become codified in law; usually, some mentality begins to develop first, only for it to be written on paper at a later date. I'd probably chalk it up to a few factors: (i) more people getting divorces, so logically, more people petitioning for declarations of nullity, (ii) general laxity in the application of procedural law by canonists and judges given the attitudes of antinomianism in the mid-twentieth century, and (iii) an emerging notion of marriage that expanded the essential rights and obligations already beginning to take place due to personalism.
I have a question. How does one deal with the question of consent to lifelong commitment in a society where everybody knows from when they're an embryo on that a) you can easily get a divorce b) well more than half the population does it (if they even bother to get married) and c) there is little to no social cost to doing it?
Don't all of those factors lead to at least the possibility that at least one of the parties idea of 'lifelong' commitment might be slightly suspect even before they get to the altar?
That's a good question. Error concerning the indissolubility of marriage doesn't actually invalidate consent unless it determines the will; i.e. the person positively and explicitly willed to have a *dissoluble* union. If you've been taught since birth that if things go wrong, you can always get a divorce, this is an intellectual error. However, only when the intellect takes the next step and presents the will with a defective formal object (i.e. a dissoluble "marriage"), *and* the will positively consents to it, is the marriage invalid. In practice, this means that the marriage is invalid if the erring party married only on condition that he can dissolve the marriage if something "doesn't work out."
I wrote an article on that topic here: https://dorothealudwigwang.substack.com/p/marriage-validity-and-the-rejection
You and future Mrs. Right must define the terms of the contract and the consequences for violating said terms. Anything after 1950 can be a problem re legal definition. IOW, those running the institution are wrong, so ya gotta DIY re "marriage prep."
These days it's gotta be treated as something like a monastic vocation I think. At least the entrance process
"In other words, while now the bonum conjugum is considered an essential element of the consortium totius vitae, there is no accepted description of the contents of the bonum conjugum both regarding its essential and non-essential elements." Cardinal Burke does not know the legal essence of marriage. https://archive.org/details/20140411CardinalBurkeSoCalledNewGroundsOfNullity/page/n1/mode/2up
Dorothea, pls email. I have a YouTube channel and want to compare notes because you are one in a million on this stuff. Seattlesuit@gmail.com