Annulment Hypothetical

[LaSainte]

Let’s say that before you reached the age of consent, you were forced to marry someone for political reasons in the Catholic church. You later have a couple of children and even fall in love with your “spouse”. You also later realize that your marriage is without question, invalid-based on the fact that you were both too young to be married and were also compelled to be married against your will. You are 100% certain that if you chose to seek an annulment, it would be granted. You are NOT married. Would it be fornication to continue to have marital relations with your significant other? Are you morally compelled to seek to be properly married first?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I’m not sure what the answer would be…but you have a great imagination, Maybe you should consider writing novels.

 

[LaSainte]

I’m not sure what the answer would be…but you have a great imagination, Maybe you should consider writing novels.

Haha, thanks Mary Gail! I know that when seeking an annulment, the marriage is always presumed valid until the Church issues a declaration, but I was wondering if the inverse is also true.

 

[Bookcat]

Right --not only would there have been the problem with the age…but the force too can thus invalidate things even if they were of age.

Yes it would be fornication if one has entered an invalid marriage.

Now there can be of course ways a marriage can become valid. But per se one is not to engage in sexual relations if one is not married…one needs to become married first.

 

[Castello]

Define your meaning on “age of consent”.

 

[runningdude]

You would need a dispensation to be married in the Catholic Church before the age of consent. As such, there is no cut and dry reason to believe the marriage is defective. Even if consent were initially an issue, the church’s major road block due to the ages involved would have been renewed, so it would be possible for the consent develop later.

If the lack of initial consent cannot be externally proven, then it can be given privately. The church’s supervision of the wedding provides the framework for consent to marriage to be exchanged and marriage consent is heavily implied by living in a peaceful domestic relationship.

If true doubt continued to exist, then the couple ought to speak to their pastor the situation to see if a convalidation might be in order, otherwise the hypothetical couple should simply not give the situation undo stress.

 

[Joe_5859]

I would tell the couple to go talk to a priest.

 

[Leegal]

Let’s say that before you reached the age of consent, you were forced to marry someone for political reasons in the Catholic church. You later have a couple of children and even fall in love with your “spouse”. You also later realize that your marriage is without question, invalid-based on the fact that you were both too young to be married and were also compelled to be married against your will. You are 100% certain that if you chose to seek an annulment, it would be granted. You are NOT married. Would it be fornication to continue to have marital relations with your significant other? Are you morally compelled to seek to be properly married first?

I can’t imagine the political reasons. But it would seem to me if you did not apply for a decree of nullity then the marriage is valid. I don’t think it works in this way – it works as a reason to declare a marriage as invalid that has broken down due to the inability to properly form consent, I gather that this marriage is not broken, even if the parties were too young at the time.

You would have to ask a priest

 

[Gorgias]

Right --not only would there have been the problem with the age…but the force too can thus invalidate things even if they were of age.

Yes it would be fornication if one has entered an invalid marriage.

Yikes! No! This is not correct!

Canon 1060 assures us that “(m)arriage possesses the favor of the law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.” That is, unless and until the marriage is proven invalid, then it is presumed to be valid! (Therefore, no fornication!)

Let’s look at the OP’s question, though…

Let’s say that before you reached the age of consent,

I’m not sure about “age of consent”, but c.1083 lays down the minimum age for valid marriage: 16 for men, 14 for women. Are you saying that the marriage happened when one or both spouses were younger than the requirements, and without a dispensation for age?

you were forced to marry someone for political reasons

you mean that there was a defect of consent?

in the Catholic church.

Here’s the kicker. You’re saying that there was at least an undispensed impediment and a defect of consent, and yet the marriage was witnessed in a Catholic Church? Wow.

Nonetheless, “favor of the law”, remember? Presumed valid.

You also later realize that your marriage is without question, invalid

No: your marriage is valid. Until you went the nullity route, or the convalidation route, your marriage is presumed valid. (You could nuance your statement by saying that, “you later realize that, if you attempted the nullity process, your marriage would be found invalid”… but that’s a whole different statement!)

You are NOT married.

Wrong. You ARE married. (Congratulations!) Now, the question is, what do you want to do? If you wished to stay married (as you seem to be saying), then you would approach your pastor and ask about convalidating your marriage, which would include in it a new manifestation of valid consent (since there seems to have been defective consent earlier). Moreover, presuming that the husband is now at least 16 AND the wife is now at least 14, there is no need to worry about the impediment – it no longer exists (at the time of the new consent).

At the point the convalidation happened, the (first attempt at marriage) would have had the presumption of validity, and the convalidation establishes the validity of the marriage from that point forward.

Would it be fornication to continue to have marital relations with your significant other?

No.

Are you morally compelled to seek to be properly married first?

Interesting question – is there a canon lawyer in the house? My gut feel is “no”, since you already are married; but if it sets your mind at ease, then convalidation is a wonderful way to approach the issue!

 

[Bookcat]

Yikes! No! This is not correct!

Canon 1060 assures us that “(m)arriage possesses the favor of the law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.” That is, unless and until the marriage is proven invalid, then it is presumed to be valid! (Therefore, no fornication!)

!

If the person knows that it was not valid then they can not morally act as though it was…

We are discussing a person who knows it was invalid. (now of course THAT can be rectified but it needs to be so --before the person continues relations).

If I was not married (I am …so it is moot) and I “marry” a person outside the Church for example without the proper form etc and thus only attempt a marriage…I cannot engage in martial relations.

We are talking moral theology here…

---

For all readers…please note that the case is “fictional”. (a Priest did not attempt to carry out a wedding here…)

 

[Gorgias]

If the person knows that it was not valid then they can not morally act as though it was…

The person doesn’t know it’s invalid; he believes it’s invalid. Up until a documentary process is complete, the marriage is putatively valid. If the process chosen is convalidation, then there is never a time when the person wasn’t at least putatively married. Therefore, no moral dilemma.

If I was not married and I “marry” a person outside the Church for example without the proper form etc

NB: you’ve changed the ballgame. in the previous example, the spouses had attempted to follow form, but there were potential undispensed impediments and a defect of consent. In your new example, I presume you’re asserting lack of form – which demonstrates a lack of intent to enter into a valid marriage (or at least, an ignorance of proper form, which doesn’t dispense, of course).

Which example do you wish us to discuss? The first, or the second?

i cannot engage in martial relations.

Yikes! I shudder to think what, in this context, “martial relations” might be!

 

[Leegal]

If the person knows that it was not valid then they can not morally act as though it was…

We are discussing a person who knows it was invalid. (now of course THAT can be rectified but it needs to be so --before the person continues relations).

If I was not married (I am …so it is moot) and I “marry” a person outside the Church for example without the proper form etc and thus only attempt a marriage…I cannot engage in martial relations.

We are talking moral theology here…

---

For all readers…please note that the case is “fictional”. (a Priest did not attempt to carry out a wedding here…)

Okay, but we all know that a Catholic cannot marry outside the Church.

But, if the parties were too young (and we don’t know the age), but the marriage is successful, is that not consent – albeit even if after the fact?

I simply do not believe that The Church works in this fashion – to create doubt about marriages where there is none. This sounds more like scrupulosity than a nullification. Is not the purpose of the decree of nullity to say that no marriage took place where the marriage has broken down and events existed which pre-dated the marriage or at the time which would have prevented two people from properly entering the sacrament?

I assume this marriage is working, and he or she is not looking to get out but worried about the reasons for which one can get a decree of nullity. Isn’t that like finding sin where there is none? See the difference?

I would say though that if two had married in the Church, but one had lied about a previous marriage, not being free to marry and withheld the fact, that that would create a serious impediment and that would have to be dealt with, even if the new knowledge of the previous lie did not destroy the marriage and the two wanted to remain married. The first marriage would have to be dealt with by the Diocese before the two could marry – assuming the second person would want to marry this person again.

I would think he or she takes it up with a priest who would know if this is even an issue for the Tribunal. It really makes no sense to get a decree of nullity to marry the same person again, now that they are older.

My grandparents were a contract marriage and my grandmother did not want to come here and marry him – yet they remained married until her death. Her parents did it to punish her, in a way. She met a protestant doctor and wanted to marry him, but they would not allow it. So, she tried to enter a convent and they prevented that too. Instead, they put her on a boat to the U.S. In retrospect, that would be grounds for a decree of nullity yet, even if they were alive today, I know that my grandmother never felt as though she were not validly married.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Basically they would have a get out of jail free card, an ace in the hole.

Nobility used to take that very same tactic taken when making marriages for political gain. What they usually did was find a great-great grandfather or other distant relative that was shared and have the marriage annulled on grounds of consaguinity when it was politically prudent to do so.

 

[Bookcat]

Therefore, no moral dilemma.

It would be gravely contrary to engage in relations when the person knows they did not enter a valid marriage.

That was the persons question.

 

[Gorgias]

It would be gravely contrary to engage in relations when the person knows they did not enter a valid marriage.

That was the persons question.

And again, there’s the belief, not the knowledge that the marriage was invalid.

Let’s take it from another angle. Let’s suppose that the person goes to a canon lawyer and asks the question, “is my marriage valid?”. The canonist would answer, “putatively, yes”.

Now, then… where’s the “knowledge” of invalidity? Where’s the moral dilemma?

 

[LaSainte]

The person doesn’t know it’s invalid; he believes it’s invalid. Up until a documentary process is complete, the marriage is putatively valid. If the process chosen is convalidation, then there is never a time when the person wasn’t at least putatively married. Therefore, no moral dilemma.

NB: you’ve changed the ballgame. in the previous example, the spouses had attempted to follow form, but there were potential undispensed impediments and a defect of consent. In your new example, I presume you’re asserting lack of form – which demonstrates a lack of intent to enter into a valid marriage (or at least, an ignorance of proper form, which doesn’t dispense, of course).

Which example do you wish us to discuss? The first, or the second?

Yikes! I shudder to think what, in this context, “martial relations” might be!

But if a person was only 13 at the time of the marriage and was forced by her family to lie about her actual age, then she would “know” that the marriage was invalid, for a fact, yes?

 

[dans0622]

…

We are talking moral theology here… …

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

 

[Bookcat]

And again, there’s the belief, not the knowledge that the marriage was invalid.

Let’s take it from another angle. Let’s suppose that the person goes to a canon lawyer and asks the question, “is my marriage valid?”. The canonist would answer, “putatively, yes”.

Now, then… where’s the “knowledge” of invalidity? Where’s the moral dilemma?

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.

 

[Bookcat]

But if a person was only 13 at the time of the marriage and was forced by her family to lie about her actual age, then she would “know” that the marriage was invalid, for a fact, yes?

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.

Can. 1103 A marriage is invalid if entered into because of force or grave fear from without, even if unintentionally inflicted, so that a person is compelled to choose marriage in order to be free from it.

(from Intratext Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana)

 

[Gorgias]

But if a person was only 13 at the time of the marriage and was forced by her family to lie about her actual age, then she would “know” that the marriage was invalid, for a fact, yes?

Aah… that’s a different question! “parent telling minor child to marry” is objectively different than “parent telling minor child to lie about age”, wouldn’t you say?