Divine Mercy Chaplet
#11
My main question is: why is frowned upon for someone to enter religious life despite family's preferences?  If she were running away to become an actress in Hollyweird, or some other unsavory path that would lead to degradation and exploitation, I'd understand.  In this instance, I don't understand how joining a convent against her parents' wishes was a "bad thing"...aside from MM's point that at that time, 21 was considered the age of majority. 

As mentioned in another thread, my father was (and still is) against me becoming Catholic.  Our parents do generally want what's best for us, and have a certain authority always, but after a point, their preferences can interfere with our calling.  For that reason, you could say I'm highly sympathetic to Faustina's situation.
Reply
#12
Quote:In the 1917 Code, Canon 88 and 89 define a person who is under 21 as a minor and subject to their parents' except where Canon Law exempts them.
 

Ah, OK. Sorry about the error, Augustinian.

MM, how did the above canon pertain to marriage, the obligations of filial obedience, and, given a place like the U.S. where the age of majority is 18, legal rights pertaining to legal majority? For ex., it's 1888, NYC. A 19-yr old Catholic wants to marry. His parents forbid it, or want him to marry someone else. Or he wants to attend university X. Or enter a seminary or religious life. Or enlist in the Army. Or he signs a contract and enters into some debt: were his parents canonically bound to pay it off? Were 20-yr old Catholics expected to get parental permission before entering into contracts and were his parents canonically "signing for him" if they gave permission? What were the exemptions you refer to?
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#13
(11-16-2020, 04:44 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:In the 1917 Code, Canon 88 and 89 define a person who is under 21 as a minor and subject to their parents' except where Canon Law exempts them.
 

Ah, OK. Sorry about the error, Augustinian.

It's fine, I didn't even know that myself. The thanks goes to MM.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation. - Ps. 145:2-3

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables." - 2 Timothy 4:3-4
Reply
#14
(11-16-2020, 04:44 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
Quote:In the 1917 Code, Canon 88 and 89 define a person who is under 21 as a minor and subject to their parents' except where Canon Law exempts them.
 

Ah, OK. Sorry about the error, Augustinian.

MM, how did the above canon pertain to marriage, the obligations of filial obedience, and, given a place like the U.S. where the age of majority is 18, legal rights pertaining to legal majority? For ex., it's 1888, NYC. A 19-yr old Catholic wants to marry. His parents forbid it, or want him to marry someone else. Or he wants to attend university X. Or enter a seminary or religious life. Or enlist in the Army. Or he signs a contract and enters into some debt: were his parents canonically bound to pay it off? Were 20-yr old Catholics expected to get parental permission before entering into contracts and were his parents canonically "signing for him" if they gave permission? What were the exemptions you refer to?

Canon Law would not govern whether a minor who is of majority under civil law could exercise civil rights and freedoms, and generally where there were civil laws in place, the Church would adapt local laws to them.

So, for the university or Army enlistment, contract law or other such things, the Church recognized the freedom of said person in most cases since Canon Law does not regulate these things.

When it came to marriage, religious profession or entrance to a seminary, that is a matter for Canon Law, and the Church would usually demand someone wait until 21 or obtain permission. If there were a serious reason why parents were being unreasonable, the pastor would approach the bishop who would supply permission for the parents.

This is still done in the SSPX as far as I am aware for marriage. The 1983 Code says that one cannot marry under age 18 without parental permission. The former law was 21, and so because they are no pastors and are not obliged to marry anyone, SSPX priests will not marry any one under 21 unless they have parental permission, or the District Superior judges that the parents are objecting without good reason.

Now, that said, Canon Law has changed and until 1917 was not codified, but existed in a plethora of Papal and episcopal decisions that one had to study for a long time to understand. This is why St Pius X's decision to produce a Code was such a radical and welcome thing. Previous to the 1917 Code there may have been times where the age of majority was much lower. My only point was that at Sr Faustina's time, the 1917 Code was in force and she seems to have been permitted to do things that do not accord with it. I don't know the full story, though, so perhaps it's all kosher.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Augustinian, VoxClamantis
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)