Talk:Impediment (Catholic canon law)

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Catholicism / Cath. canon law Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Catholic canon law task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Untitled

The text needs some work to specify which cases are "may not"and which are "cannot": that is, which are matters of liceity and which of validity. Some of the impediments (e.g., disparity of cult) are, if I understand aright, not matters of validity.

Also, sources should be cited for this article. Chonak 06:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I don't know much about ordination, but the part of this article that relates to marriage is in need of major editing. Being a bold Wikipedian, I will dive in.

As regards disparity of cult, it is a diriment (invalidating) impediment, but since it is part of ecclesiastical law as regards its invalidating nature, it only invalidates a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian. -- Cat Whisperer 03:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really a surprise that we're confused, given that the 1983 Code itself confuses the concepts of liceity and validity to a certain extent. It isn't really coherent to say that disparity of cult invalidates some marriages, but not others, but the Code appears to say so anyway, blissfully ignoring the operative self-contradiction. Either something is a requirement for validity or it isn't. Whether it's licit is a different story, but, as the article notes, the current code doesn't really seem to conceive of or provide for a "valid but illicit" marriage. And yet, most of the bullet points under the subheading "Other factors which invalidate marriage" actually only say the couple "may not marry," which is not the same thing as saying that if they do marry anyway the sacrament is invalid. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on Marriage Edits

Just some notes as I go -- Cat Whisperer 04:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the items previously listed as impediments are actually factors of matrimonial consent instead, so I've moved them to a separate category.
Local bishops cannot set minimum ages; only episcopal conferences can.

There is still much more to go, but I'm getting tired for now.

(above comment by Cat Whisperer).

Thanks for giving this article a boost. I'll look forward to its further refinement. Chonak 06:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further, ref ages, the age set by the Episcopal Conf is only for liceity, not for validity.DaveTroy 21:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that should be done to the article sentence: "Each national episcopal conference has the authority to set a higher minimum age as a prohibitive impediment" to make this clearer? -- Cat Whisperer 21:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really true that the church in the United States does not recognize a higher age? Just because the complementary norm is not on their website does not mean that it does not exist. Also, I thought that in the United States, age was a diriment impediment, not merely a prohibitive impediment. 69.140.164.142 02:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Navarre commentary (Code of Canon Law Annotated, 2nd edition, 2004) contains an appendix with the complementary norms for English-speaking countries, and also does not list anything for canon 1083. -- Cat Whisperer 12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding canon 1089, the Navarre commentary says:

The indications given here provide a better understanding on dispensation. Per se, the impediment as such can be dispensed and the dispensation is, in principle, reserved to the local Ordinary and not to the Holy See (cf. c. 1078). Nevertheless, one should not expect a change in the previous practice of not dispensing from this impediment, since its cessation depends really on the will of the abductor.

-- Cat Whisperer 12:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is largely technical-only, because a marriage which the State forbids needs special episcopal approval (which I don't suppose they will be granting usually). So what a episcopal conference special norm would change is the name "approval" for "dispensation" (if I'm rightly informed). Anyway, while to those who know the matter anyway the words "prohibitive impediment" or "may not take place" make the matter quite clear, we should be quite clear to point out that, with or without episcopal conference special norm, the only age that matters to validity is the 16/14 worldwide age.--2001:A60:141C:E601:D83:CBCD:E804:6CE4 (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Canon law (Catholic Church) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]