Annullment question

[Phemie]

I don’t understand. If they were validly married and the tribunal declares the marriage invalid, the marriage is not dissolved, so they are still married?

It has happened. Usually a marriage goes to the diocesan Tribunal which makes a decision. The decision is reviewed by a Tribunal higher up (court of second instance). Usually at that point the couple accepts the decision, particularly if it’s the one they were looking for. OTOH, if they (one or both) didn’t get the response they wanted they can appeal it to the Roman Rota which has been known to overturn decisions taken at the lower two Tribunals.

As an example, Joe Kennedy was granted a decree of nullity but his ex contested it. She appealed it to the Roman Rota and 10 years or so after the marriage had been declared null she was informed that the Rota had reversed the judgment. I’ve been told that the Roman Rota in this case was the court of second instance.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Hi Corki,

I haven’t publicly said this before on these forums, but I am a canonist. Anyway, c. 1098 says: “A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.” Canon 1095.2 could come into the equation but that’s a bit more involved.

You are correct, it “could” impact validity. I only meant to point out that A = B (“A” being the withholding of this information, “B” being invalidity) is not true. It’s more complicated than that.

If that was unclear, I apologize.

Dan

I was going to chime in with malice, but I’m glad someone more competent was able to present. A clarifying question, however: is my understanding correct that invalidating malice is only found when the concealed/misrepresented quality could be considered a condition *sine qua non *for consent of the other party (that is, I would only marry this person if X, not not-X)? In other words, if one perpetrated malice so as to obtain consent out of the belief that the matter misrepresented would be critical, but it turned out the other party was not deciding on that basis, does this preserve validity? (Sorry for the unclear wording).

I don’t understand. If they were validly married and the tribunal declares the marriage invalid, the marriage is not dissolved, so they are still married? If so, while they would not be guilty of sin in remarrying, if the second marriage was valid they would have two spouses.

No one is capable of dissolving a consummated sacramental marriage. But no one is guilty of sin when they follow the informed opinion of the Church after due diligence has been followed. That’s why they say that decisions of marriage tribunals allow the parties involved to act upon the judgment with “moral certainty.” We can’t be 100% certain that the marriage was in fact invalid, but because the Church’s judges have done their human best to evaluate the situation, there is no moral culpability for acting on a mistake. You might think of this analogously to a person whose spouse is presumed dead; more specifically, a casualty of war may have been misidentified, so that all parties in fact believe there to be physical evidence of the spouse’s death - a no brainer. It might in fact turn out that the missing spouse was taken prisoner, and could languish in prison while the “surviving” spouse married again. The survivor was acting in perfectly justified good faith, however, so no guilt would be incurred for entering a “marriage” that could not in fact take place. For a clearer example apart from marriage, I could in all honesty tell a friend that his book was on my coffee table, where I left it only moments before, unaware that my wife has moved the book to our bookshelves. This false statement would be classified not as a lie, but as a mistake.

 

[dans0622]

I was going to chime in with malice, but I’m glad someone more competent was able to present. A clarifying question, however: is my understanding correct that invalidating malice is only found when the concealed/misrepresented quality could be considered a condition *sine qua non *for consent of the other party (that is, I would only marry this person if X, not not-X)? In other words, if one perpetrated malice so as to obtain consent out of the belief that the matter misrepresented would be critical, but it turned out the other party was not deciding on that basis, does this preserve validity? (Sorry for the unclear wording). …

Hello Andreas,

It wouldn’t be a canonical question if it was clearly worded. I believe you are mistaken and are, perhaps, including the requirements of c. 1097.2 in your understanding of c. 1098. Certainly, it is true that someone could be deceived about a quality which is a sine qua non. The canon doesn’t require it, though.

Yet, the canon says the quality has to have an objective seriousness–that would tend to mean a quality that the deceived party would want, very much (like fecundity, freedom from disease, etc.). And, a proof of deceit is that, once the deceived party learns of the deceit, conjugal life breaks down right away. These factors lead to a quality that is important, serious, grave–having the appearance of a sine qua non. But, in claiming deceit, the person does not have to admit that he would never have married if he had known or that all he wanted was a woman who could bear his children, etc.

You can check this out for an example of a Rotal sentence on deceit. You can skip down to paragraph 18: cormacburke.or.ke/node/429

The perspective of Msgr. Burke on why deceit can lead to invalidity–he focuses on the injustice of the deceit and the deceiver’s failure to truly give himself in marriage–is different from where I would tend to look: the error that is induced in the other party. Anyway, hopefully you can make some sense out of that sentence.

Dan

 

[Binary]

Alright, I understand now. Thanks to all who responded. I always get such good answers here.

 

[Vico]

…

For example, if a person has pre-existing knowledge of sterility. Thats grounds for annulment. But if the person in good faith does not know of any physical limitations to having children at the time of marriage, then they validly enter into marraige.

…

Yikes, I think you mean impotence, unless you mean deception about sterility. People with vasectomy or known infertilty or after menopause can be validly married.
Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.
Canon 1084.2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.
Canon 1084.3 Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

Canon 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters marriage inveigled by deceit, perpetrated in order to secure consent, concerning some quality of the other party, which of its very nature can seriously disrupt the partnership of conjugal life.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The perspective of Msgr. Burke on why deceit can lead to invalidity–he focuses on the injustice of the deceit and the deceiver’s failure to truly give himself in marriage–is different from where I would tend to look: the error that is induced in the other party. Anyway, hopefully you can make some sense out of that sentence.

Dan

Thanks for the link, Dan. You’re right, I was conflating the two canons in my memory. The sentence provided a good refresher on the difference. I didn’t get to read the whole opinion, but while I think you are more on the right track with the induction of error, I might also suggest that malice impedes marriage because it is directly opposed to the secondary end of the sacrament (the concord of the spouses), which can hardly be intended properly by one who perpetrates injustice against an intended spouse in order to defraud consent. Thus you might say that the error induced, which might not ordinary invalidate consent, is aggravated by the impairment of another end of marriage and thus rises to the level of a diriment impediment.

 

[Vico]

Alright, I understand now. Thanks to all who responded. I always get such good answers here.

OK, now for the ultimate rare case. Two Catholics marry, and we will assume it is truly valid, the consent it perfect, no impediments, done in the Church. Now, for some reason they do not consummate the marriage. At that point it is valid, and sacramental, but can be dissolved, and it would not be an annulment.