This essential reality is a possibility open in principle to every man and woman; indeed, it represents a true vocation for the great majority of the human race. Consequently, in assessing the capacity or the act of consent necessary for the celebration of a valid marriage, one cannot demand what it is not possible to require of the majority of people. It is not a question of a pragmatic or convenient minimalism, but of a realistic view of the human person, as a being always growing, called to make responsible choices with his inborn abilities, continuously enriching them by his own efforts and the help of grace.

From this perspective, the favor matrimonii and the presumption of the validity of marriage (see c. 1060) can be seen not only as the application of a general principle of law, but as consequences perfectly in keeping with the specific reality of matrimony.

JPII

?????

-- kjw (info@juno.com), June 02, 2003

Answers

I think what JPII is saying is that both parties in a marriage must say that they are marrying out of freewill. If someone is forced into a marriage, the marriage is not valid. You cannot ask everyone in the world to have freewill marriages because some religions the couple is made to marry (i.e. Hinduism). The freewill marriage is a realistic view of people because everyone has free will. So this kind of marriage takes into account everything about a person and not just their family or what not. Does that help? JPII is sometimes hard to read.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

JPII is sometimes hard to read.

Personally, I blame the translators! Just kidding...

-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 01, 2003.

well...

Regarding the meaning, I would say that the context is important here...

JPII is of course referring to the questioning of Marriage validity by Tribunal...

WHY would he make this statement? Of course because it was needed as some Tribunals (namely US) are not applying themselves diligently to what Rome/Pope and Church require...

In essence what JPII is saying is that almost all (the great majority) have the capability (EVEN psycholigically) to consent to marriage with all it entails AND because of this known truth a Tribunal can NOT question or presume that THIS consent may be lacking simply because there may be some indirect evidence suggesting it. There must be factual evidence specific to the invalid consent question OTHERWISE presumption and favor are for validity.

JPII's statement flies in the face of the US pastoral Tribunals preferred modus operandi -- the psychologally (expert OPINION) based 'lack of discretion' stuff that is being jammed down the throats of many...

Further strengthening his statement, JPII implies a truth that we ALL develop emotionally, physically and spiritually toward some ideals. The ideals are NOT what we contrast/compare or consider when questioning validity as we the majority are not at ideals we are just 'normal' etc...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 01, 2003.

[omitted from previous post:]
"Daniel Hawkenberry" ... alias "kjw"

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.

Dear Catherine,

You may have been just kidding, but you are absolutely right! A translator can take a magnificent work in one language and turn it into a literary nightmare in another language, even while translating each and every word "accurately" from a technical viewpoint. The most obvious example that comes to mind is John Paul II's "Love and Responsibility", probably the most profound spiritual/philosophical treatise on human love and sexuality ever written (written before he was John Paul II). Plowing through the english translation of this astoundingly insightful work should carry a plenary indulgence! The stilted phraseology and lack of fluid style makes every page a challenge, yet every page contains a treasure, once you decipher it.

Also, consider the thread on "Marian worship" in this forum. Did the pope actually say "Marian worship" in his sermon? No, he didn't, because he was not speaking english. Whatever he said, it obviously should have been translated into English as "Marian devotion", not "Marian worship"!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 01, 2003.

John,

If I was a betting man I would wager you a twit; however, I can not determine your 'status' on postings here alone...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 02, 2003.

The pillars of this forum can not bear the thought that the Pope himself actually has the unmitigated gall and audacity to say that every day people can actually give binding consent to marriage!

Oh my God, what an amazing thought. Binding consent!

That is why, Daniel, they refuse to listen to his words or to seek the facts were they are enumerated, instead opting for the "spin" of the "orthodox" American Canonists. It is Dumb and Dumber and Dumberer together. And on top of that they call themselves Catholics.

I do hope there are others who watch this forum who are not bamboozled by these pillars, who are right about many things, even most things I dare say, but are clueless regarding what the Church practices in America regarding annulments.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.

If persons who have thoroughly studied the teachings of the Church regarding marriage are still "clueless" about it, then why would you expect that rank and file Catholics who have NOT studied the teachings of the Church would understand what sacramental marriage is all about? And how can they give "binding consent" to something when they don't even understand what that "something" entails??

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

Sometimes you just speak nonsense, Paul.

one cannot demand what it is not possible to require of the majority of people.

It can not be clearer that you are diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Pope. If you cannot see it you ARE clueless.

I think you choose to be blind.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.

Men and women like you ARE THE PROBLEM. You refuse to adopt the historical, anthropological and Papal view of the fundamental simplicity and normality of marital consent.

Do yourself a favor and find some articles written by Cardinal Egan from the eighties. I wish I remember where I read them. His writings exactly echo the Pope's, why do you think he was NOT a favorite of his predecessor, O'Connor One reason was annulments, they had heated disagreements in front of the Pope over them.

Perhaps you will believ him? American Canonists have the same mindset as you, that is at the epicenter of the conflict. Heads thick like the mantle of the earth.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.

One does not have to "understand" how gravity works(even the best physicist's do not yet, fundamentally, I believe) to make a conscious decision not to jump from a two hundred foot bridge.

One has to know, permanence, fidelity, openness to children and not purposefully exclude them. That is consent. An act of the will. That makes it a sacrament, not the extrajudicial touchy feely often new age descriptions of the perfect marriage. Those "qualities" are not marital consent. That is what you do not understand.

Consent is basic, not idealized.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.

That's right Karl,

"permanence, fidelity, openness to children"

What does the current epidemic of divorce, adultery, birth control and abortion tell you? Did these couples have a correct understanding and appreciation of permanence, fidelity, and openness to children?

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

"Did these couples have a correct understanding and appreciation of permanence, fidelity, and openness to children?"

Paul,

I can speak to my case only and this is regarding my wife's 'change' in understanding...

Initially my wife and I had the same view/understanding regarding "permanence, fidelity, and openness to children" AND this understanding carried us through when times were rough throughout the 11 years prior to the 'event'... The event was my wife being counseled over a period of several months by a secular 'therapist' 'working' for Catholic Charities... The therapist convinced my wife that all problems were mine, that she should seek individual fulfillment; further, that our marriage was but a fantasy? The 'counselor' went further and schooled my wife on all the ins and outs of the annulment process and how best to accomplish this...

This therapist works for our Church... There are many cases of bad therapy AND this is but another; however, this one was funded by the Catholic Church...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 02, 2003.

Paul,

There are clear avenues of annulment based upon a positive decision to exclude fidelity, permanence and the openness to children other than using the catch all "lack of due discretion", which is what is abused by tribunals in America in general. These big three invalidate on their own not generally through consent but through simulation, which I believe is now beginning to get morw consideration in the tribunals which listen to Rome.

But even among those there are ways of beating the system, through perjury, which the Church does not seek to discern carefully and with sufficient punitive measures if falsehodd is ever discerned, therefore such laxity encourages abuse. Common sense, Paul.

I agree with the moral dumbing down present in society today but that is entirely different than the simple act of consent which the Pope clearly states is suffieiecnt for validity. The other things are really separate issues, which would seem today to be more prevalent then in the recent(past few decades and more) past.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

I suspect that kjw could be a bot.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 03, 2003.

What is a bot?

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

Stephen,
"kjw" = "Karl."
"Karl" is probably "Daniel Hawkenberry" too.
("Karl" is less likely to be "Patrick Delaney," though they are pretty much like two peas that fell out of the same sorry pod.)
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

Stephen,

"J.F. Gecik"=="Angel of Darkness masquerading as an Angel of Light"

Gotta love those touchy feely catholics like, John.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

Karl,

"bot" is an acronym for "base of tongue", how that would apply here is beyond me ;-)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 03, 2003.

John=Barry Manilow?

-can someone confirm this rumour?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 03, 2003.

"What is a bot?"

Karl,

Just in case you still seek the definition:

bot: Abbreviation for robot. A relatively small and focused computer application that (a) runs continuously, in the background (i.e., simultaneously), as other programs are being run, and (b) responds automatically to a user's activity. Synonyms agent, droid, infobot. Note 1: Many bots are created for the benefit of the user, e.g., those that send information upon request, perform automated searches, or monitor messages in a network forum. Other robots (e.g., a computer virus) are intended to harm the user or to spam the user (e.g., with advertising). Note 2: Many bots have nicknames that loosely describe their function.

In the context used here it may have been referring to a spambot: a bot that sends unwanted, unrequested, and usually repetitive messages directly to a message forum. In most cases, this unwanted information is commercial advertisements, although the message can be propaganda supporting a cause or just nonsense messages.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), July 08, 2003.