Canons 220, 1077, 1099, 1457; and Dignitas Connubii Art. 251: Regarding the Application of Article 251 of Dignitas connubii on the Imposition of a Vetitum
I offer my thanks for your and the Council’s several past provisions of clarifications of documents of the Holy See, especially the m.p. Mitis Iudex. I would like to inquire about a particular provision of the Instruction Dignitas Connubii, that is, Article 251 on the imposition of a prohibition (ve...
| Corporate Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Print Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
2022
|
| In: |
Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions 2022
Year: 2022, Pages: 11-13 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Catholic church, Verfasserschaft1, Codex iuris canonici (1917). 220
/ Catholic church, Verfasserschaft1, Codex iuris canonici (1983). 1077
/ Catholic church, Verfasserschaft1, Codex iuris canonici (1983). 1099
/ Catholic church, Verfasserschaft1, Codex iuris canonici (1983). 1457
/ Dignitas connubii
|
| IxTheo Classification: | SA Church law; state-church law SB Catholic Church law |
| Summary: | I offer my thanks for your and the Council’s several past provisions of clarifications of documents of the Holy See, especially the m.p. Mitis Iudex. I would like to inquire about a particular provision of the Instruction Dignitas Connubii, that is, Article 251 on the imposition of a prohibition (vetitum), especially whether the text’s statement of various causes is to be understood as taxative or illustrative. The paragraphs mention expressly only absolute impotence, permanent incapacity for marriage, deception (dolus), and simulation. May additional causes for imposition be admitted? The inquiry is motivated by the current efforts of a tribunal to resolve a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage by an unbaptized man with history of five civilly recognized marriages and four civil divorces. Two marriages were with the same woman. Two were entered before non-Catholic ministers of religion and three before civil magistrates. Three of the woman have had marriages and divorces antecedently, including the petitioner’s current civilly recognized spouse, who is the only Catholic involved. The petition seems to be tending toward affirmative answer according to c. 1099, error determining the will concerning the indissolubility of marriage, not expressly mentioned in Dignitas among the causes for imposition of a vetitum. Thus, there is also interest in guidance concerning canon 1077 that the local ordinary may impose a vetitum. Might a tribunal inform him, within the strictures of canons 220 and 1457 §1 et al.? And might the responses be permitted to be made known among other canonists? |
|---|---|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions 2022
|