Annulment Hypothetical

[Bookcat]

I concur. This is not really a canon law question. For what it’s worth, I also concur with your overall conclusion. The hypothetical person is certain that the “marriage” is invalid. How can the person then not conclude that marital relations would be fornication? This seems to be a case where the action (conjugal relations) is not objectively sinful (since the marriage appears to be valid) but is subjectively sinful (because the person is certain that he/she is not married yet is acting as a married person).

Dan

For the first --thanks.

For the later I would say it would be “objectively sinful” too for it does not appear to be valid but rather has the appearance of an invalid marriage (see canons above). And objectively an underage person cannot enter into a valid union.

 

[Gorgias]

(because the person is certain that he/she is not married yet is acting as a married person).

Dan,

I’m confused: unless we’re talking about the case where the parents told the child to lie (which seems a whole 'nother ballgame), and unless the minor(s) married since their teens have had recourse to a canonist who has given their opinion (which the example didn’t assert), then we’ve got a spouse who’s sitting there saying, “I think that my marriage didn’t meet Church laws, and yet, I’m married. The Church would say I’m married, if I asked. Am I committing sin?”

That doesn’t seem to fit well, given the case that they have a putatively valid marriage…

 

[dans0622]

For the first --thanks.

For the later I would say it would be “objectively sinful” too for it does not appear to be valid but rather has the appearance of an invalid marriage (see canons above). And objectively an underage person cannot enter into a valid union.

Hello again,

Since the hypothetical couple legitimately manifested their consent, the presumption of validity/favor of law would apply to this “marriage.” That proper manifestation of consent (in other words, the couple married according to a legitimate form, either canonical or civil) is what gives the marriage the appearance of validity.

Dan

 

[Gorgias]

Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.

§2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.

Isn’t this a dispensable impediment, though?

 

[Bookcat]

Hello again,

Since the hypothetical couple legitimately manifested their consent, the presumption of validity/favor of law would apply to this “marriage.” That proper manifestation of consent (in other words, the couple married according to a legitimate form, either canonical or civil) is what gives the marriage the appearance of validity.

Dan

Listen I am a married man.

I decide – I will leave my wife (not!) and go to some other country …and figure a way to lie and “get married” to another nice Catholic girl…no matter what form was used I am simply not married objectively. No matter how it appeared on the outside.

I know I am committing adultery in this case on that ‘wedding night’.

As Canon Law notes…underage person “cannot enter into a valid marriage”.

 

[Bookcat]

Isn’t this a dispensable impediment, though?

That I do not know.

But it was “not” said to be dispensed in the fictional case in any case.

 

[dans0622]

Dan,

I’m confused: unless we’re talking about the case where the parents told the child to lie (which seems a whole 'nother ballgame), and unless the minor(s) married since their teens have had recourse to a canonist who has given their opinion (which the example didn’t assert), then we’ve got a spouse who’s sitting there saying, “I think that my marriage didn’t meet Church laws, and yet, I’m married. The Church would say I’m married, if I asked. Am I committing sin?”

That doesn’t seem to fit well, given the case that they have a putatively valid marriage…

Hello,

Hmm. I am sorry to say that I do not quite follow you here. But, I’ll try to give an answer anyway. If the person came to me, I’d say “Well, your ‘non-age’ seems to be irrelevant since you married in the Church and therefore must have been dispensed from that impediment or there was no impediment. Since you properly manifested your consent you are in a presumptively valid marriage. Objectively, then, there can be no accusation of the sin of fornication. Since we are now talking about sin, I have reached the end of my competence.”

There is no such thing as a “putatively valid marriage.” If a marriage is putative, it is invalid. Further, if both Parties are certain of the invalidity of the [putative] marriage, it is no longer even putative since neither Party would be “in good faith” (c. 1061.3).

If I have missed the mark, I apologize.

Dan

 

[Bookcat]

The person believes on good grounds that it was an invalid marriage --they know that they were both-- underage and were forced to marry.

This is not here a “canonical” question for a canon lawyer…the person is asking the ‘moral question’.

So their conscience judges “I am not married and thus it is a grave matter for me to have relations with a man who I am not married to”. If they go ahead with full knowledge and deliberate consent they commit a mortal sin.

They need to rectify things so it is a valid marriage before they seek to engage in marital relations.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here at CAF, we get passionate about even hypothetical moral/canonical/theological questions.

I still think my advice to “talk to a priest” is the best way to handle the situation.

 

[Bookcat]

Here at CAF, we get passionate about even hypothetical moral/canonical/theological questions.

Now…say hypothetically my boxer dog was married …to a collie …

hee hee…

 

[puzzleannie]

Let’s say that before you reached the age of consent, you were forced to marry someone for political reasons in the Catholic church. ?

there is no such thing you have been reading to many historical novels by folks like Dan Brown
a forced marriage is by definition invalid and no Catholic priest would witness it if he was aware of the force

were this fact to become known later, after a civil divorce, there would be an annulment granted even in the bad old days of historical fiction

case in point: the plot of Jane Eyre could not have happened because by all accounts Mrs. Rochester was Catholic, and the arranged marriage was invalid because her mental illness was already known by the family and the fact withheld from Mr. Rochester. So no Catholic priest would have witnessed the marriage, even had their been a dispensation for the marriage to an Anglican, and in any case, an annullment could have been obtained, even in the Anglican church.

But getting back to your OP
consent supplies the deficiency
so time would take care of the immaturity issue, and the fact that both of you came to consent to the marriage remedied any defect in consent, so the marriage is now valid.
This is something the defender of the bond examines during an annulment investigation. Even the beloved plot element of kidnapping the bride and taking her over the border which figures so prominently in the works of Sir Walter Scott et al was foreseen and dealt with in canon law.

Since you are both still married, there is no question of divorce, neither is there a question of invalidity and the marriage is presumed valid, so you still have no issue (and no plot for your novel).

 

[Gorgias]

If the person came to me, I’d say “Well, your ‘non-age’ seems to be irrelevant since you married in the Church and therefore must have been dispensed from that impediment or there was no impediment. Since you properly manifested your consent you are in a presumptively valid marriage. Objectively, then, there can be no accusation of the sin of fornication. Since we are now talking about sin, I have reached the end of my competence.”

OK… so, this person, having heard a competant canonist’s opinion, would walk away thinking that they might be in a state of sin? That’s what’s making me scratch my head. Having heard this opinion, how can they then say, “but i’m in an invalid marriage, and therefore, sinning!” …?

There is no such thing as a “putatively valid marriage.”

whoops – you’re right. i should’ve said “presumptively valid marriage”

Further, if both Parties are certain of the invalidity of the [putative] marriage, it is no longer even putative since neither Party would be “in good faith” (c. 1061.3).

Aah… this is a good point for a question: from a canonical perspective, what qualifies as “certainty” in this case?

 

[Bookcat]

Listen I am a married man.

I decide – I will leave my wife (not!) and go to some other country …and figure a way to lie and “get married” to another nice Catholic girl…no matter what form was used I am simply not married objectively. No matter how it appeared on the outside.

I know I am committing adultery in this case on that ‘wedding night’.

As Canon Law notes…underage person “cannot enter into a valid marriage”.

I cannot say my “marriage” there in that other country was “presumptively valid” nor ought I seek to engage in the act that is reserved for marriage. I would add to my sins…

The person who what forced to “marry” and who was under age and thus could not enter into a valid marriage…ought not either to act as if they were married …without first rectifying things.

 

[dans0622]

Listen I am a married man.

I decide – I will leave my wife (not!) and go to some other country …and figure a way to lie and “get married” to another nice Catholic girl…no matter what form was used I am simply not married objectively. No matter how it appeared on the outside.

I know I am committing adultery in this case on that ‘wedding night’.

As Canon Law notes…underage person “cannot enter into a valid marriage”.

Perhaps we are using the word “objectively” differently… I suppose *you *would know that you are an adulterer. Yet, to the outside world (i.e., objectively), there is no reason to suspect adultery. Yes, you (as a married person) and the underage person cannot enter into a(nother) valid marriage. The fact is, though, it looked like you/he/she did just that. As a canon lawyer, I’d have to say that such a couple is, objectively, in a presumptively valid marriage and it would remain such until a judicial process determined otherwise. At the same time, if I accept all of the circumstances of your hypothetical and the hypothetical of the OP, I would be comfortable in saying “In reality, you are not married.”

So, my use of “objectively” might equate to “legally” while your use might equate to “actually.”

Dan

P.S. Yes, you couldn’t talk about a presumption of validity but I could.

 

[Bookcat]

Perhaps we are using the word “objectively” differently… I suppose *you *would know that you are an adulterer. Yet, to the outside world (i.e., objectively), there is no reason to suspect adultery. Yes, you (as a married person) and the underage person cannot enter into a(nother) valid marriage. The fact is, though, it looked like you/he/she did just that. As a canon lawyer, I’d have to say that such a couple is, objectively, in a presumptively valid marriage and it would remain such until a judicial process determined otherwise. At the same time, if I accept all of the circumstances of your hypothetical and the hypothetical of the OP, I would be comfortable in saying “In reality, you are not married.”

So, my use of “objectively” might equate to “legally” while your use might equate to “actually.”

Dan

P.S. Yes, you couldn’t talk about a presumption of validity but I could.

Objectively meaning “in reality itself”.

---

They would be unable to enter into such a marriage due to the age. I too was unable to marry another no matter how it appeared. I also would be unable to marry my sister (even though I did not know she was)…objectively there would be no marriage in any of the cases.

Again we were speaking of the “moral” nature of engaging in the martial act here.

One could not engage in marital relations here.

It was a moral theology question…

 

[dans0622]

OK… so, this person, having heard a competant canonist’s opinion, would walk away thinking that they might be in a state of sin? That’s what’s making me scratch my head. Having heard this opinion, how can they then say, “but i’m in an invalid marriage, and therefore, sinning!” …? …

Aah… this is a good point for a question: from a canonical perspective, what qualifies as “certainty” in this case?

It seems that they walked *in *thinking that they were in a state of sin and the canon lawyer could only speak to what was apparent from the legitimate manifestation of consent. The individual, though, “knows” things which the canon lawyer cannot accept as being established facts. So, the opinion of the lawyer would not really change anything. (I’m used to that result!)

Since the canon speaks of being “in good faith,” the certainty would seem to be limited to the certainty of the couples’ consciences, not a certainty that resulted from a legal procedure of some sort.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

…

It was a moral theology question…

Yes, just as the “presumption of validity” is a canonical one.

Thanks for your time and for the discussion.

Dan

P.S. Yes, the impediment of age can be dispensed by the local ordinary (c. 1078).

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, just as the “presumption of validity” is a canonical one.

Thanks for your time and for the discussion.

Dan

P.S. Yes, the impediment of age can be dispensed by the local ordinary (c. 1078).

Yes I understand that- thanks.

While I started reading canon law way back in high school --including at lunch for fun…I am not a canon lawyer. I was addressing mainly the moral aspects that the person asked about.

thanks for the further info

 

[LaSainte]

there is no such thing you have been reading to many historical novels by folks like Dan Brown
a forced marriage is by definition invalid and no Catholic priest would witness it if he was aware of the force

were this fact to become known later, after a civil divorce, there would be an annulment granted even in the bad old days of historical fiction

case in point: the plot of Jane Eyre could not have happened because by all accounts Mrs. Rochester was Catholic, and the arranged marriage was invalid because her mental illness was already known by the family and the fact withheld from Mr. Rochester. So no Catholic priest would have witnessed the marriage, even had their been a dispensation for the marriage to an Anglican, and in any case, an annullment could have been obtained, even in the Anglican church.

But getting back to your OP
consent supplies the deficiency
so time would take care of the immaturity issue, and the fact that both of you came to consent to the marriage remedied any defect in consent, so the marriage is now valid.
This is something the defender of the bond examines during an annulment investigation. Even the beloved plot element of kidnapping the bride and taking her over the border which figures so prominently in the works of Sir Walter Scott et al was foreseen and dealt with in canon law.

Since you are both still married, there is no question of divorce, neither is there a question of invalidity and the marriage is presumed valid, so you still have no issue (and no plot for your novel).

Are you saying that an invalid marriage can later BECOME valid without any action on the part of the couple? But isn’t an annulment granted solely on the basis that the marriage was invalid AT THE TIME of the actual wedding, and therefore was never legitimately contracted? If a marriage can later somehow EVOLVE into validity, then wouldn’t the opposite also be true, opening the door for annulments based NOT solely on the conditions present at the time of the actual wedding but on later occurances and situations?

 

[puzzleannie]

Are you saying that an invalid marriage can later BECOME valid without any action on the part of the couple? But isn’t an annulment granted solely on the basis that the marriage was invalid AT THE TIME of the actual wedding, and therefore was never legitimately contracted?

short answer, it depends
if the impediment was in natural law then nothing could change that fact.
If the impediment was simply age and maturity the fact that the remain together when they are older and presumably wiser, the tribunal may very well find that they have since given proper consent and are now in a valid contract. That is the same reasoning behind a couple convalidating a civil marriage. The consent that may have been deficient when the vows were exchanged in front of a priest has now been supplied. These are the types of argument the defender of the bond makes.

You are all missing the point that in OP there has been no divorce, the couple is still married, so the question of validity has not arisen.