Annulments

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1287618742' post='2181154']
I'm not a very good gold-digger in that I make more money than my husband does. My MIL doesn't love my husband, she just truly hates me.
[/quote]
!

MY MIL hated me until she aquired a few more SILs and DILs. Now I am her favorite

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1287618742' post='2181154']
I'm not a very good gold-digger in that I make more money than my husband does. My MIL doesn't love my husband, she just truly hates me.
[/quote]

Obviously I had it wrong. You are planning to leave your husband because he is such a burden on you. LOL

I'm making a joke, but obviously I have lots of sympathy for your situation. My MIL was was one of my first (and thankfully very few) experiences I've ever had of someone truly hating me to the core. The only consolation was that my ex, as a clinical psychologist, understood how seriously mentally ill his mother was, and supported me in every way he could. I know some wives find themselves caught between their husbands and their MIL's, and I can't imagine what a nightmare that would be. I feel very bad for you. Life has enough challenges without our families adding to them. <hugs>

[CatholicCid]

[i]In terms of American understanding, maybe Americans are a special breed of dumb but the understand of those three requirements seem to be super-easy to meet. So easy that it is presumed after puberty.[/i]

As you mention, one thing involved in marriage is the conjugal act, sex, which has to be opened to life. Just looking at this requirement and the number of Americans who believe in the use of artificial birth control show that, apparently, many Americans do not fully understand such requirements.

[MichaelFilo]

Their conjugal act is open to life, their sin keeps them from being open to life. Their use of contraceptives is hardly a lack of understanding of Church teaching, but ignoring it. There seems to be only the need to understand the Church teaching and some intention to have children, if not immediately.

Here are the list of canons relevant to making a marriage invalid. [url="http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Tribunal/ExplanationGr.html"]My link[/url]

This one seems particularly relevant [quote]- The following are incapable of contracting marriage: those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted.[/quote]

Grave lack of discretion seems to be the issue here. The description on the link seems to directly contradict the canon that states it is assumed at puberty.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287621244' post='2181173']
Their conjugal act is open to life, their sin keeps them from being open to life. Their use of contraceptives is hardly a lack of understanding of Church teaching, but ignoring it. There seems to be only the need to understand the Church teaching and some intention to have children, if not immediately.

Here are the list of canons relevant to making a marriage invalid. [url="http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Tribunal/ExplanationGr.html"]My link[/url]

This one seems particularly relevant

Grave lack of discretion seems to be the issue here. The description on the link seems to directly contradict the canon that states it is assumed at puberty.
[/quote]
How can you say they understand? I would say, given what I've heard most people on contraceptives say the Church teaches, they DON'T understand the teaching. To KNOW something is different then UNDERSTANDING. They may KNOW that the Church says no to contraceptives, but that in no way means they UNDERSTAND the teaching.

[MichaelFilo]

Contraceptives isn't even an issue, because they must only intend to have procreative sex. There is no requirement for exclusively procreative sex (but the use of contraception is strictly forbidden.) So, what they use is besides the point. Simply, they must intend and be capable of having sex to bring forth children (capability being on the basis of the highest degree of certainty they may have of their physiology.)

[CatholicCid]

If one disrupts the conjugal act through the use of artificial birth control, the conjugal act is NOT open to life. The use of artificial contraception could represent a misunderstanding and/or ignorance of Church teaching, as well as a blatant disobedience of it. That would seem to vary on specific individuals. A couple would need to be open to life fully at the outset of the marriage, not at some future time whole intending to use artificial birth control to prevent pregnancies early in the marriage.

From the site you listed:
[quote]Canon 1101 -- §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or signs used in the celebration of a marriage.
§ 2. [b]If, however, either or both of the parties should by a positive act of will exclude[/b] marriage itself or [b]any essential element of marriage or any essential property, such a party contracts invalidly.[/b]

A marriage comes into being when two juridically capable persons express, in a legally recognized fashion, their consent to be married (c. 1057, 1). [b]By means of this consent, a man and a woman irrevocably give and receive each other (c. 1057, 2) so as to establish[/b] a relationship embracing the whole of their lives; [b]a relationship that intrinsically tends towards[/b] the good of the spouses and [b]the procreation and education of children (c. 1055, 1)[/b]. Because marital consent is an internal act not subject to direct inspection, church law presumes that two people who undergo a ceremony of marriage elicit it (c. 1101, 1). This presumption does yield to contrary proof.[b] “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” (c. 1101, 2)[/b]. Jurisprudence terms the act of excluding marriage itself total simulation and calls the exclusion of some essential element or property of marriage partial simulation (coram De Lanversin, 18 February 1984, Sacrae Romanae Decisiones, Dec. 76 (1984), 100). Total or partial simulation invalidates the marriage because either form of simulation describes the discrepancy between the words or signs used in the marriage ceremony and the internal attitude.[/quote]
The use of or intended use of artificial contraception from the outset of a marriage could be offered to a tribunal that one or both of the parties in a marriage were not open to a procreative conjugal act at the time of the marriage. This would mean that one or both of the parties involved were excluding an essential element of marriage and/or property of marriage when attempting to contract a valid marriage. They could not, then, contract a valid marriage.

As to a "grave lack of discretion", note that the Canon involving puberty is as follows:
[quote]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.[/quote]
The Canon seems to state that, after puberty, the Church assumes you would be properly disposed to offer matrimonial consent and be married. The Church ASSUMES this, but that does not mean that every person IS properly disposed. The two canons do not contradict, instead they follow one another.
The Church ASSUMES one is both able and properly disposed to enter into a valid marriage following puberty, however, IF ONE IS NOT, then they are "incapable of contracting marriage."

*Again, this is my own personal opinion.*

Edited October 21, 2010 by CatholicCid

[Deacon Joe]

[quote name='IgnatiusofLoyola' timestamp='1287616979' post='2181148']
If it weren't so sad, when I picture you taking everything from your husband, including his underwear, it's so absurd, I had to laugh at images of you collecting your husband's old, worn-out underwear from the bottom of his underwear drawer. And, the ironic thing is, what does it say about your husband that you secretly intend to leave him? Your husband's mother clearly adores her son, so why would any wife, especially a "gold-digger" like you LOL) even think about leaving such a Prince, especially a wife who is so clearly inferior to her husband, and could never catch a man in the future anywhere as good as "The Prince." I had a MIL like that, and people thought my ex and I were exaggerating, when we told stories about her, but sadly we weren't.

I have no idea what the answer is to the issue of annulments, although clearly better marriage preparation is needed. When we look at preparation for marriage, even programs that are considered very good, don't even come close to the preparation for first communion and for confirmation, much less for the sacrament of the priesthood. If a man wants to become a priest, he has to go through years of college and post-graduate study before he is ordained. Even religious Sisters/nuns, who take non-sacrament vows still must go through years of preparation before final vows. So, perhaps it isn't surprising that many marriages don't work out, even when both members of the couple honestly try. Religious life is very hard, but so is marriage. Somehow I think people feel that, because celibacy is not required in marriage, that marriage is easier than religious life. Marriage also requires sacrifices, major changes to your way of life, and not only responsibility to your spouse but to children who are entirely dependent on you. But couples (and mothers-of-the-bride) already resent things like 6-month waiting periods, and the mandatory classes and meetings with the priest that ARE required. I suspect that requiring even more preparation, and ideally, waiting time, would not be welcomed by many couples, even if the same couples went through classes for a year or more before they were allowed to be confirmed.[/quote]

My diocese has a 4 mo. waiting period, the Diocese of Phoenix has gone to a 9 mo. waiting period so maybe longer waiting periods are in the future. It does show, at least, that some Bishops are starting to address the problem.

[quote]
Speaking as a divorced person with a Catholic ex-husband, I have never sought an annulment, for many reasons, one of which is that it just doesn't "fit" to have a tribunal declaring that my marriage essentially never existed. From my point of view, I was really married, but unfortunately nonnegotiable issues arose that ended the marriage, completely against my will. Also, as the years go by, the chances that I will ever remarry get smaller, so remarriage to a Catholic is unlikely to ever come up as an issue for me. My ex-husband has never sought an annulment, and probably never will, since, even if he finds a life partner, homosexual marriage is unlikely to ever be allowed in the Catholic Church. I do find it ironic at times that, although I have been single now for quite awhile, in the eyes of the Catholic church I am still married.

I was married for 13 years before we separated, and although our marriage wasn't perfect, it was as good, and in many ways better, than many marriages I saw around me. I stood before the altar with best of intentions, knowing what the vocation of marriage meant, but I had no idea of the changes the future would bring, and that there were some things about my future spouse that he had never told me, even after dating 4 years---but they were things he was hardly aware of himself--and had our lives unfolded differently, they might not have become issues. And, in my case, I was presented with a fait accompli, and given no chance to try to work on the marriage--in essence, I was given no choice but to end the marriage.

Another very difficult thing about the annulment process is that it applies even if the marriage was not Catholic. So, if my ex-husband and I had married in the Episcopal church, I would still face the same issues of annulment, even as a non-Catholic, if I ever wanted to marry a Catholic. Even if my first marriage had been between two non-Catholics, if it was performed in a Christian church, I would have to face annulment proceedings, if I wanted to remarry a Catholic man. Not surprisingly, this is a tough issue for for non-Catholics to deal with. My marriage preparation at least was thorough enough that I understood the consequences if we ever divorced, but I also had no intention of getting a divorce.

A couple of other thoughts--brought up by some earlier comments. One was on the relatively high number of annulments in the U.S. versus European countries. One thing I have learned is that, in different countries, and among different groups of people within a country, even if they are Catholic, there can be very different expectations of marriage than we have in the U.S. For example, in the U.S., I think the general expectation is that both partners will be faithful. Although many wifes in the past tolerated adultery on the part of their husbands (and many still do), my gut feel is that, nowadays, wives (and husbands) are far less likely to tolerate adultery by their spouse, at least in the U.S.

For example, in France, although many French are at least nominally Catholic, I have met several, well-educated, intelligent French who hold a completely different view of adultery than I do. One of the reasons they have fewer divorces (and thus annulments) in France is that, even now, in many circles, adultery by both parties in a marriage is accepted, even expected. My memory of this incident is pretty faded, but, wasn't there a funeral of a prominent Frenchman (maybe even a former Prime Minister) within the past several years, where both the wife and mistress came to the funeral, as well as children from both relationships, and the wife and mistress were quite cordial to each other? I had a French roommate in college from a very affluenct, educated family, and she said that she would not divorce her husband were he to commit adultery. She said she would rather be married and unhappy, than be divorced. I think there is more divorce in France, now, but one guess about the reason for that is that perhaps women are less amenable nowadays to being "the mistress" and instead want the full recognition and rights of marriage.

I have no answers, because any possible solution that seems realistic to me would require changing the Church teachings on divorce, and I don't see that happening, and have no idea whether the majority of Catholics would want that anyway. [/quote]

The Church doesn't have the authority to change the teachings on divorce.

[quote]
In some ways, although I know this would never happen and I'm not really being serious, I could envision the sacrament of marriage having more parallels to the process of becoming a priest, or a religious. If the church would recognize a civil marriage for a period of 5-7 years (and allow the couple to take communion during this time, as long as the the couple continued to undergo periodic "marriage formation" classes) before the church allowed a sacramental marriage, the issue of annulment would probably be far less. With seminarians, and religious in formation, although they make promises, even vows, of their intentions, there are procedures in place for them to leave religious life. And, there is no shame (at least in my mind) if a seminarian or a religious in formation before final vows finds that God is now calling them somewhere else. At the time the individual entered the seminary or monastery, the person was following God's will and God wanted them there at that time. But, sometimes God wants an individual to learn certain lessons from the formation process, but has other plans in mind for the individual's long-term future. Since marriage is a very important sacrament, having a similar process for marriage would emphasize the importance of the commitment, and the sacrifices required in marriage, just as sacrifices are required in religious life. I know this idea has gaps (I was just fantasizing), and I do fully realize that it will never happen because it goes against church teachings. But, it illustrates the amount of preparation before allowing lifetime vows (and the sacrament of ordination) compared to the relatively small amount of preparation before the lifetime vow of the marriage sacrament.

So, all I am left with is that, even more marriage preparation and time is definitely needed (even if it's not 5-7 years as in my fantasy above), but with more emphasis on the seriousness of the sacrament, the sacrifices involved in married life, and the expectations of the Church for married couples.
[/quote]

[MichaelFilo]

Catholiccid, wouldn't that require that they have no intent to have children rather than no intent to have children at that time? At the time of the marriage you must only assent to the fact that marriage is procreative, not even that every act must be procreative (this is a teaching of the Church, but not a requirement of marriage.) It seems that must intend to be faithful and to procreate. Some intention of procreation is necessary, not that every act must be intended to be procreative.

[MithLuin]

While it is true that many couples are resistant to the Church's attempts at marriage prep, I think that some do appreciate the efforts.

In my diocese, many parishes give a couple three choices: a weekend retreat (ie, Engaged Encounter), a group class with multiple couples at the parish, or a one-on-one series of six evening meetings with a couple from the parish. I think this last option has the best opportunity for the engaged couple to really learn what the Church teaches on marriage, because they have time to process in between meetings, and it's more intimate/personal, so they can ask questions more freely. Of course, this only works if the older couple is well catechized in the teachings of the Church, and I'm sure programs vary.

In many parishes, it is the deacons who are responsible for the marriage prep programs. I think that very few couples meet with priests for any extensive marriage prep these days, because priests do not have the time.

My parents have been a sponsor couple for several years, since before my father entered the training program for deacons. Now, he is an ordained deacon, and he and my mom still do marriage prep (they have been involved with programs at three different local parishes). They try very hard to talk through issues with the couples, even when sometimes the guy starts out at the first meeting silent with his arms crossed. Anyway, the couples tend to be very gracious and thankful, and some even say that they wish it were more than 6 meetings to talk about these things.

What things?

Communication. Money. Sex and kids. Family of origin. Serious issues that somehow, not everyone has discussed prior to getting engaged. Maybe people don't know what they don't know? But yes, they certainly go over the wedding vows and discuss what precisely you are saying 'I do' to, and NFP is brought up.

When a couple is already living together (not uncommon), they recommend a period of separation prior to the marriage. In once case, my dad was going through this spiel, and the couple interrupted him to say, 'I think you are misunderstanding our situation.' Turns out, they were living in the same house, but...separate bedrooms. They were waiting til marriage for sex. So...you never know what situations you are going to come across! [Could they have been lying? Sure. But I have no reason to think they were.]

Strangely enough, my parents didn't have any Pre-Cana themselves. The requirement was waived, because they were living in different states (and the priest/parish was in a third state). They had a [i]very[/i] difficult first year of marriage, but they eventually worked through it. They think it might have been helpful if someone had sat them down and forced them to talk about some of that stuff prior to their wedding, so I guess they are happy to provide that opportunity to others.

The six month requirement for engagement is not extreme. Most couples plan for their wedding a year in advance anyway, since a lot of the elaborate stuff takes that much planning (booking a hall, etc). If a priest/parish requires a one year warning before setting your wedding date, that wouldn't be the end of the world. I'm not saying no one would complain (people will always complain), but rather that 6 mo. isn't a crazy short time. Of course, my parents were engaged at New Years and married by the end of June, so....it's not like [i]everyone[/i] plans a year out!

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1287601975' post='2181069']
People stay married all the time who don't really love each other. I had an aunt and uncle who only stayed married by him having a job out of town and just coming home on weekends. I've known people who stayed together because of finances, but lived in different parts of the house. There are also people who didn't know what a sacramental marriage meant, went into it planning to use birth control, and only married in church because their parents insisted. Later, they can mature, go back to church, reconciliation, etc. I have known priests to remarry couples like that. That's certainly what I'd do.

You have to remember that marriage is a sacrament that the couple confer on each other. Just as I think we renew our sacrament to each other living a good married life together, I think people can bring a sacrament into a marriage where one wasn't before. The priest is just a witness. I saw a lot of broken people in the tribunal. The saddest ones were where one party believed they had a good marriage, and the other was living a lie. I never saw a couple there that I thought had a good marriage and should have stayed together. Even on the cases that were turned down because they couldn't prove their case, I didn't feel that there was a "marriage" there.

We plan to renew our vows every five years. Mainly just to irritate his family though. His mom is still telling him in every phone call and letter that they will be there for him when I leave him. She's always telling him that I'm going to divorce him and take everything including his underwear. That's just scary.
[/quote]
Thanks. Side note: how do you go about renewing vows? Our 5th anniversary is coming up this year, and I was thinking about doing that. Just haven't spoken to the priest yet.

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287621244' post='2181173']
Their conjugal act is open to life, their sin keeps them from being open to life. Their use of contraceptives is hardly a lack of understanding of Church teaching, but ignoring it. There seems to be only the need to understand the Church teaching and some intention to have children, if not immediately.
[/quote]
Not necessarily. Many people are truly unaware of Church teaching on contraception, and are completely unaware of NFP. Believe me, I've met some who truly don't seem to know that taking the pill is a no-no.

[MichaelFilo]

Oh, but see that is irrelevant, because the requirement of the Church is not that you should have proper knowledge of the Church's teaching on contraception. All that matters is that there is an intent to have children. They are two separate things. If you had no intent to have children then you have a dilemma, since it is essential. There is a distinction. There is nothing in the canon that suggests you must never engage in contraceptive use (obviously, in other canons, but they do not pertain to marriage) but rather that the marriage must lead to some attempt to procreate. Catholics wants kids, even if they use contraceptives at first. If they intended to avoid it their whole marriage, then there is a problem, but I am not convinced any great majority of people have that view.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287664307' post='2181253']
Oh, but see that is irrelevant, because the requirement of the Church is not that you should have proper knowledge of the Church's teaching on contraception. All that matters is that there is an intent to have children. They are two separate things. If you had no intent to have children then you have a dilemma, since it is essential. There is a distinction. There is nothing in the canon that suggests you must never engage in contraceptive use (obviously, in other canons, but they do not pertain to marriage) but rather that the marriage must lead to some attempt to procreate. Catholics wants kids, even if they use contraceptives at first. If they intended to avoid it their whole marriage, then there is a problem, but I am not convinced any great majority of people have that view.
[/quote]

The point is, does someone who uses contraceptives at the beginning of a marriage understand what sex is for? You seem not to believe it, but in my experience the VAST majority of Catholics can not explain why we are not allowed to use artificial birth control. They know it's forbidden but they don't know or understand WHY. If someone doesn't understand what "being open to life" really means, that person likely has a "grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations."

[quote]Canon 1095.2 -- The following are incapable of contracting marriage: those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted.[/quote]

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287628549' post='2181194']
Catholiccid, wouldn't that require that they have no intent to have children rather than no intent to have children at that time? At the time of the marriage you must only assent to the fact that marriage is procreative, not even that every act must be procreative (this is a teaching of the Church, but not a requirement of marriage.) It seems that must intend to be faithful and to procreate. Some intention of procreation is necessary, not that every act must be intended to be procreative.
[/quote]
Every act MUST be open to life, or include the possibility of being procreative. The embrace of marriage has two aspects - a unitive aspect and a procreative aspect. These are not either/or aspects, but both/and. Even if the couple is focusing on the unitive aspect at one time, the act must still be open to the procreative aspect. The disruption of the procreative act via artificial birth control also disrupts the unitive act as one or both of the partners are stating, by disrupting the procreative aspect, that they are not fully giving themselves to each other.
[quote][b]By means of this consent, a man and a woman [u]irrevocably give and receive each other[/u] (c. 1057, 2) so as to establish[/b] a relationship embracing the whole of their lives; [b]a relationship that intrinsically tends towards[/b] the good of the spouses and [b]the procreation and education of children (c. 1055, 1)[/b].[/quote]
If the couple is unwilling to allow that each and every instance of the conjugal act be open to life, then they are are not fully and "irrevocably" giving and receiving each other. In this way they are intending to exclude an essential element or property of marriage, specifically that it be FULLY open to life.

Note also that the relationship has to "intrinsically", or essentially or inseparably or must, tend toward the procreative aspect of marriage. Again, to say that "we're open to life, just not right now" means that that relationship is not intrinsically tending toward the procreative aspect of marriage, which is an essential element and/or property of marriage.

[quote]“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” (c. 1101, 2).[/quote]

You could also refer back to Canon 1095.2, as Maggie did, in this aspect. If the couple claims to be "open to life", but "not at this time", then there could be a "grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted."


Note: These are, again, my own personal opinions, lacking in formal education toward marriage.

Edited October 21, 2010 by CatholicCid

[MichaelFilo]

Well, just out of curiosity, if Catherine reads this, how many people received annulments for this reason ?

The matrimonial rights include having procreative sex. I think they understand what having procreative sex is. They understand they must have sex with each other. I cannot find where it says, in the matrimonial rights, that all sex must be procreative (while understanding that it is what the Church teaches, but does not list it as part of the requirements.) They can have a shallow understanding of sex, but they understand procreative sex. In fact, you must if you are going to use contraception to avoid it.

What does "discretion of judgment" mean? What is a grave lack? What are the "essential matrimonial rights and obligations."

Well, I turned to one of the guys who wrote the canon.

Here is the canon in question:

[quote]Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1° those who lack sufficient use of reason;
2° those who suffer from a grave lack of discretionary judgement concerning the essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted;
3° those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. [/quote]

Here is a [url="http://www.marysadvocates.org/syllabus/EganDiscretion.html"]link[/url] to the article he wrote in regards to our understanding of this canon.

Now, what does he say about the second case, which you will see is nestled between retardation and and mental illness to understand the meaning.

A judge, in deciding on the second clause, must compare what a "true marriage is" and the "demonstrated limited capacity" of the person to understand that. He suggests that this maybe onset by psychiatric disorders like psychosis.

This hardly is anywhere near the definition we have given it, myself included. The author of the canon understood the grave lack of discretionary judgement to come upon a person by psychosis or neurosis, not some lack of understanding of the intricacies of the faith.

Also taken from the article [quote]
VII. - The vast majority of adults are capable of a valid marriage, and the vast majority of marriages are therefore valid.

There are a number of ways to attack the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. ...

THE NULLITY OF MARRIAGE FOR REASON OF INSANITY [page] 37

... All the same, marriage is also a commonplace in the scheme of Nature, the usual way in which most people are to work out their lives and their salvation. Virtually all men and women are attracted to it. Few children can develop properly except in the environment which it creates. In fact, no state, no community of any kind, can long endure without marriage of some sort. It is part and parcel of the ordinary flow of things this side of eternity. Consequently, unless the Creator and the Nature He has brought into being are to be judged outrageously deficient in things essential, marriage must be something that almost every adult who is not obviously gravely defective in mind or body can do.

All of this should be kept ever before the attention of officials in ecclesiastical tribunals which accept cases concerning the nullity of marriage because of insanity or lack of due discretion of judgement. .... In such a situation, it is easy to slide across realities, overstate indications, inflate proofs, and thus manufacture certitudes which are certain not at all.

In so doing, one might resolve the personal problems of one or two or even several individuals; and one might have the feeling that all of this is very << pastoral>>. However, at the same time, one might also be reducing the religious commitment of the Faithful as a whole to the permanence of the marriage bond and, as a consequence, raising doubts about the solidity of all other elements of the Gospel message as well, an extraordinarily unpastoral enterprise which, for some melancholy reason, has not of late been accorded the attention and censure it would seem to merit.


Most people today who live in areas of the world where ecclesiastical marriage tribunals are active are sophisticated enough to know that most marriages are valid because most men and women, however pleasant or unpleasant, however educated or uneducated, are able to marry. These people can understand an extraordinary case, something unusual having happened in peculiar circumstances, in a word, an exception; and they can admit that exceptions are at times operative even in the doing of something as ordinary and plain as marrying. However, when the exception becomes the rule, they may remain silent; but they are not without thoughts. The vast majority of marriages are valid, the vast majority of people know it, and they know we know it too.[/quote]

The understanding of this line has nothing to do with the ability to understanding of the Church's teachings on contraception. A grave lack of discretion of judgment has to do with psychosis and neurosis.