I don’t think it was valid

Reuters cites the Roman Rota’s annual report on annulment appeals:

Smoke got in his eyes. Too much of it, so he asked the Roman Catholic Church to annul his marriage when his wife refused to kick the nicotine habit.
That is just one of the, well, hazy cases that wound up before the
Vatican’s Sacra Romana Rota, a top court which hears the most complicated of marriage annulment requests. […]
In the case of the non-smoking husband, the health and physical fitness enthusiast asked his girlfriend to marry him on condition she would eventually quit smoking.
She said yes and after they tied the knot she tried her best but her addiction was stronger than her and the marriage went up in smoke — at least from the husband’s point of view.
A first diocesan marriage tribunal granted him the annulment but a second tribunal overturned that decision. They are still married in the eyes of the Church and the case is now before the Vatican’s Rota.

Hey, Pete, what do you think of this one? Is it even possible for someone to validly vow marriage when his or her consent depends on a future condition?

Wanting something more than the self

Philosopher John Haldane:

One thing that I would point to as a looming crisis — which is also an opportunity –is the disintegration of the family… In Italy by 2050, halfway through this century, 60 percent of Italians, almost two thirds of Italians, will have no brother, no sister, no first cousin, no uncle, no aunt. In 45 years time… people will just be isolated atoms with no familial relationships. When that happens it will be a disaster and a tragedy, and we should be preparing ourselves, trying to warn people, trying to say that “Look what you’ve chosen, your lifestyles, haven’t enriched your lives. It has impoverished your lives. You’re poorer than you were, not richer than you were, and the only richness that you cannot recover is the richness of deep personal relationships, of family, intergenerational relationships and so on…

Who protects you from an abusive CPS?

If any of our readers happen to be family lawyers in the state of Arizona, would you take a moment to look into a family that needs help?
Nancy Sandrock is a practicing midwife and mother of twelve in Maricopa County. Seven of her children live at home, but they were removed by the Arizona CPS recently in connection with a complaint against her 18-year-old son.
Our blog neighbor Alicia the midwife (May archive) has visited the family in the past and knows the mother well, so she’s been posting about the case.
What they need most now is legal help to stop apparently abusive state social workers from bulldozing their family.

Is gay sex necessary?

The L.A. Times tells us that “Sex is essential, kids aren’t,” in an editorial by David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington. It seems that the psychiatric profession, or at least this guy, embraces the idea of free will wholeheatedly:

And evolutionary biologists (including me) are asked, “How can this be?” If reproduction is perhaps the fundamental imperative of natural selection, of our genetic heritage, isn’t it curious — indeed, counterintuitive — that people choose, and in such large numbers, to refrain from participating in life’s most pressing event?
The answer is that intentional childlessness is indeed curious — but in no way surprising. It is also illuminating, because it sheds light on what is perhaps the most notable hallmark of the human species: the ability to say no — not just to a bad idea, an illegal order or a wayward pet but to our own genes.
When it comes to human behavior, there are actually very few genetic dictates. Our hearts insist on beating, our lungs breathing, our kidneys filtering and so forth, but these internal-organ functions are hardly “behavior” in a meaningful sense. As for more complex activities, evolution whispers within us. It does not shout orders.
People are inclined to eat when hungry, sleep when tired and have sex when aroused. But in most cases, we remain capable of declining, endowed as we are with that old bugaboo, free will….

Ignore (if you can) the smug, facile cheerleading for the culture of death, and the blithe disregard for what German depopulation will mean for the world’s future. (Hint: no beer, no pork sausages.) Isn’t this the perfect argument against those who argue that homosexual behavior is pre-programmed into certain people? Even if it is, David P. Barash, professor of psychology at the University of Washington, says that homosexuals don’t have to obey it.
Taking this a bit further, we often hear that teenagers “are going to have sex anyway” so we might as well equip them with condoms and pills to protect against the consequences. But if David P. Barash is right — and I think he may be — young, unmarried people don’t have to get it on! It’s just an urge, and they can say “no” to it!
Wait…you say the professor might not agree? But those are the clear implications, aren’t they?