TOPIC VII Module 2 Pt 2

Continuing where you left off.

In topic seven module to we're looking at at inter

I'm sorry marty's Khalsa transfers and we send marty's can

also transfer is an act transferring the ownership of the

temporal goods to the pious cause upon the death of

the donor.

So here whereas the interview evils transfer is when the

donor is still alive.

The mortise Tulsa transfer is upon the death of the

donor. And we said that because of that certain implications

flow from that of course the capacity of the donor

to give has to be there.

But it may or may not be contractual depending on

how this mortis causa transfer is done.

So because of that it may or may not require

delivery. It may or may not require acceptance even depending

on how it's set up the what instrument is used.

The donor intent is still there and still controls.

It's revocable by the donor.

Unlike the interview evils transfer.

Because the intervals transfer transfer creates pretty much a contractual

relationship. Its contractual, it's a contract.

The the the donor then locks it in and it's

irrevocable unless both parties revoking.

But by the donor himself or herself cannot be revoked.

However, for mortise khalsa, it is not uh irrevocable.

In other words, it can be revoked.

And why is that?

Because the donor is still alive and more importantly for

revocation purposes?

The transfer has not yet happened because it's dependent upon

the death of the donor.

So because of that, it's still revocable so you can

have whatever instrument for a mortise khalsa.

But that instrument can't make it irrevocable.

That instrument is still revocable by the donor until and

upon the occasion of the donor's death.

That's why it's revocable.

The effect is that it's effective upon death.

Now, what about other civil law requirements and formalities Then

recall that in the interview evils transfer because it created

a contract.

It baptizes all of the civil law requirements.

You don't have that here because it's not a contractual

relationship. The civil law of contracts of the area does

not kick in.

So therefore, the code encourages the the other civil law

requirements because they can flesh out things a little bit,

they can make things a little bit more clear.

But it's not required for canonical validity.

And that's a really important distinction to keep in mind.

For intervene.

Evils transfers.

It is contractual.

Therefore, the Civil War requirements of the area kick in

unless of course, it's contrary to natural law.

Divine law or canon law.

However, for uh, for for more discussion on the occasion

of death, it's not considered contractual.

So therefore, the, the civil law contracts of the area

is not required for validity.

It's encouraged that we follow those those those, uh, those

little provision of civil law and the formalities and things

like that because it makes things clear, but it's not

required for for validity if civil law formalities have been

omitted and thus presumably civilly invalid or illicit.

What should we do?

So, in other words, we have a situation here where

this uh this transfer, calcium Ortiz on the occasion of

somebody's death has been done like say for through a

will or something last will and testament.

But the civil law formalities, we're not done so in

effect, what we have is we have a situation where

that instrument, whatever was done, that pious will, that instrument

that conveys that property upon the occasion of death.

That's invalid civilly because it didn't follow, they didn't follow

the civil law requirements.

What happens then the answer is that is not considered

invalid economically economically, we still consider it valid even though

it's invalid civilly.

Once again, remember, because it's not a contractual relationship because

it's not contracture of the civil law hasn't kicked in.

So we have to follow that logic that if the

civil law requirements, not their civilly speaking, it may be

invalid, but technically it's still valid.

But we can have a pretty strange situation here.

Pretty tough situation here.

What should we do?

The church says, well, if that's the case then what

we should do is we should go to the heirs

of the deceased, no causa mortis.

That means the person has died.

Now the donor has died.

Then we look at it and the civil law instrument

is invalid under civil law, but still we consider it

valid under canon law.

What should happen?

The heirs of the disease should be quote admonished admonished

about which about the deceased intent.

Now, the word admonished there, by the way, in english

is a little harsher than than than it sounds.

We don't go and we wag our finger at at

the the chairs and things like that.

What it's saying is that that's the odd Maneri in

in in latin to to warn towards give notice to

bring to the attention of I think maybe a better

translation in in this context here, the authority, usually the

ordinary should bring it to the attention of the deceased

members to say, look, this, even though there's a technicality

that made it invalid under civil law, the intention of

the deceased is clearly to convey this property to these

purposes to this pious cause.

The hope there is that the conscience of the deceased

members, uh heirs would kick in.

Uh And so that admonishment, that warning is to say,

look, we're the moral thing to do.

The right thing to do is to honor the intent

of the deceased.

Now, can we make them?

Of course not.

We can't make them unless there's something under civil law

that we can do.

But economically, especially if somebody isn't bound to canon law,

we can't make the air's, uh, turn over the money,

turnover the property.

What we can do is to admonish them to warn

them to bring them up, bring it up to them,

that this the moral thing, the right thing to do

is to honor the intent of the deceased and then

let them work through that.

Let them struggle with that, perhaps, and hopefully that they

would still say, yeah, that that's the intention of the

deceased. And so therefore we're going to have some sort

of a provision some way we can work this out.

In other words, Canon law is saying that there is

still a moral canonical obligation to honor the donor intent,

even if there was a technicality not done under civil

law. Okay, so that's the mortise Cossack.

The main thing, the main takeaway is to remember interview

evils transfers are contractual.

And so all those things kick in because we baptized

the kind of law, the civil law of contracts.

Whereas Morsy's Tulsa transfer transfers upon death are not contractual.

So therefore those things don't kick in.

And then we have these other provisions that follow from

that going on.

Then what are the two ways then that we can

transfer mortis causa?

Because remember we said that it may or may not

be contractual.

I'm sorry.

It may or may not have these requirements and things

like that, depending on how it's done.

Here are the two ways that it's done.

So there's two ways where we can have a transfer

mortise Khalsa.

The first way is My last will and testament.

Last Will and testament.

What's a transfer by Last Will and testament.

This is a final declaration for the disposition of one's

temporal goods upon one's death.

And this is what we know and understand in the

silver realm as making your will, your last will and

testament. This is something that you convey property, convey a

convey ownership and things like that upon death marty's Khalsa.

A last will.

And testament is not a gift.

It's not a gift.

It's a convenience, but it technically is not a gift.

Therefore, this last will and testament is not considered a

contract. If it's not considered a contract.

Those things that we said just just a little while

ago, all kick in, which means that the civil law

contracts does not kick in.

So therefore there is no requirement of formal delivery by

the donor.

If the last will and testament says I give such

and such to the church or to the parish or

something like that.

There's not a requirement that that actually be put on

the truck and driven over to the parish garage.

Yet the conveniences still valid even though that delivery has

not happened.

So delivery is not required, there's no need for acceptance

by the beneficiary before the donor's death.

The parish doesn't have to accept that before the beneficiary

before the donor dies because it hasn't been conveyed yet.

Remember it's it's effective upon death.

So therefore we don't require delivery.

We don't require acceptance by the beneficiary.

So in this, in our example, the parish doesn't have

to accept it before the donor's death because it hasn't

happened yet.

It's revocable by the donor once again because the donor

is still alive.

So, so long as the donor is still alive, it's

revocable. Nobody can come later on and say no, you're

locked into that.

You can't change it and know that as long as

the donor is alive, it hasn't kicked in yet.

So therefore it can still be revoked, it can still

be changed.

It can still be the other provisions made.

Things like that.

That's not binding yet.

Of course it becomes effective at death.

So a last will and testament.

All these things are applicable.

What about the civil law requirements then for for uh

last Will and testament don't.

The civil law contracts kick in.

And the answer as well.

No, it doesn't.

Because it's not a contract, it's a last will and

testament. We don't consider that contractual.

So therefore, the civil law formalities are encouraged but not

required for canonical validity.

So even if a will, a last will and testament

is invalid under civil law.

For purposes of pious wills.

In other words, purposes of conveying to a supernatural purpose

or or spiritual purpose.

We do not require for economical validity that the Civil

law requirements of will's last wills and testimony be all

there once again, though.

Remember that strange situation that we would have then where

it would be civilly invalid but economically valid.

That's where that admonition that that that that bring to

the attention of the heirs.

That's when that needs to happen.

The civil law formalities have been omitted and then the

admonishment, is there just repeated before.

Note that though Canon law does not require here the

civil all formalities to be done for canonical validity, proof

of the presence of the intent of the donor and

the last will and testament must be present.

The civil law requirements for a valid last will and

testament greatly helped to prove this, but Canon law does

not require the Civil law requirements for validity.

Okay, So what are we saying here?

What we're saying is, yeah.

Even though when we have a last will and testament,

we don't require all the civil law formalities of it.

We still have to be able to prove that that

was the intent of the donor.

We still have to be able to prove that that

was the intent of the deceased.

If we can't prove that, then obviously we can't show

that there was some sort of a last will and

testament that envisioned a conveyance upon the death of the

of the donor.

So, the civil law requirements can greatly help with that,

but they are not required.

So the civil law requirements, we say, yeah, look, in

the civil law requirements.

This happened.

This happened, this happened.

So that's as proof.

But we're making a distinction here that even though we

accept that as proof, we don't require exactly a B

and C.

Under civil law in order to prove canonical validity.

So we accept other kinds of proofs.

In other words, if there is something that's outside of

what civil law requires and may not affect the validity

under civil law, we may still accept it so long

as we can show clearly in a proof way that

this was the intent of the donor.

That's incredibly important because it's a distinction.

We don't follow civil law requiring a B and C.

But if a B and C happened, it helps to

prove economically that there was the intent that's there.

So I hope you see that the distinction there, it's

a very fine distinction.

But we're not beholden to civil law in this case

because it's not contractual, but we still do need to

prove that that was the intent of the donor.

And to prove it will adopt.

We can adopt, we can show as proof some of

the civil law requirements, but we don't require that.

We accept other proofs as well.

We'll continue with the uh, with this module.

News a little bit of a longer module with the

second way the gift mortise call.

So what we call the gift in Contemplation of death

will do that in the next part here.

TOPIC VII Module 2 Pt 2

Chapters

Audio TranscriptAuto-generated