[quote=Code of Canon Law]Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suVer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.
I read that EWTN article, and you’ll notice in a later post I linked to it myself. That said, when I linked it I also pointed out that it has absolutely no references aside from the quoted pieces of Canon Law.
That particular list of essential obligations of marriage is not in the Canon Law, but is the personal interpretation of the individual who wrote the article. He gives no sources!
While I have nothing against EWTN contributors or Jimmy Akin, I see no reason to value their personal opinion as Catholics any more than the personal opinion of any other Catholic.
I would like to see an official Church source listing the essential obligations of marriage, not someone’s individual interpretation of the phrase used in Canon Law.
[quote=chevalier]Think we’ve dealt with that part.
We really haven’t dealt with this. The only thing you have linked is an unsourced EWTN article. I guess you showed me what an individual Catholic thinks. This to me is entirely irrelevant, and I would like to see an official source from the Church listing the essential obligations of marriage that 1095.3 is talking about, not one man’s interpretation of it.
[quote=chevalier]Anyway, once again, I’ve never claimed that actually having and bringing up children is an essential duty. The duty is to accept and bring up the offspring as it comes. But removing that duty from marriage invalidates. Being unable to assume that duty for psychic reasons invalidates.
You are splitting hairs at this point. In an earlier post you told me that ability cannot be an essential obligation, but that having and bringing up children is.
[quote=chevalier]Ability is not an obligation because ability cannot be an obligation. Having and bringing up children may be an obligation, and is.
Now you’re saying that being unable to assume the duty to accept and bring up offspring invalidates (only for psychic reasons too, if someone is physically disabled and can’t “assume the essential duty” he’s good to go).
All this is completely irrelevant until we know what essential obligations 1095.3 is referring to. You seem to agree with the EWTN contributor’s interpretation, I don’t. I’m sure we both know that just as there are ultra-liberal Catholics there are also ultra-Conservative Catholics (like the kind who’ll argue that NFP can only be used if the woman is going to die) and that neither represents the Church’s position.