Another marriage question, conval/rad san/sin?

[SighGuy]

I searched and searched but found nothing regards to this.

If a marriage can be annulled, even though the people wouldn’t want it to be so/aren’t aware it is able to be annulled, is that marriage de facto invalid? I’m not talking about obvious canon violations (getting married outside a Church sans dispensation for a Catholic), but about the non-obvious things that create grounds for annulment.

So if two Catholics got married, the one being pregnant, that issue would be grounds for an annulment (one might argue the father felt pressure to marry). Supposing though that they recognize their marriage as a good one and have no intentions for divorcing, is it invalid just because it could be annulled? Do they need to get it convalidated, or go through radical sanation? If they fail to do this, and their marriage is invalid, are they engaging in adultery?

Thanks.

 

[1ke]

I searched and searched but found nothing regards to this.

If a marriage can be annulled, even though the people wouldn’t want it to be so/aren’t aware it is able to be annulled, is that marriage de facto invalid? I’m not talking about obvious canon violations (getting married outside a Church sans dispensation for a Catholic), but about the non-obvious things that create grounds for annulment.

No.

So if two Catholics got married, the one being pregnant, that issue would be grounds for an annulment (one might argue the father felt pressure to marry).

Something like that could be grounds for nullity, it cannot be assumed that it is in any given case. You mention above that the couple “wouldn’t want it to be” therefore I would suggest that they have made a positive act of the will and are in fact in a valid marriage.

Supposing though that they recognize their marriage as a good one and have no intentions for divorcing, is it invalid just because it could be annulled?

I don’t think you understand nullity, such a marriage cannont be “annulled”.

Do they need to get it convalidated, or go through radical sanation? If they fail to do this, and their marriage is invalid, are they engaging in adultery?

Thanks.

No. No. and No.

This is a VALID marriage.

 

[SighGuy]

Thanks-- summing it up in my own words to see if I comprehend, potential grounds for nullity do not equate to invalidity. Invalidity only follows if those potential grounds for nullity result in “rotten fruit”. If the marriage is healthy, the marriage is valid (not including gross violations of canon law)

I’ll take no reply as an affirmative.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Thanks-- summing it up in my own words to see if I comprehend, potential grounds for nullity do not equate to invalidity. Invalidity only follows if those potential grounds for nullity result in “rotten fruit”. If the marriage is healthy, the marriage is valid (not including gross violations of canon law)

I’ll take no reply as an affirmative.

Other than gross violations of Canon law, as you put it, I believe all marriages are considered valid until proven otherwise. If the validity is not questioned, such as when a decree of nullity is sought, it is considered valid. It is not dealing with the “health” of the marriage, as many people remain in “unhealthy” marriages and those are still considered valid. It is bringing it before a tribunal and having the marriage investigated and declared invalid that counts. If that is not done, the marriage is considered valid. Potential grounds, as you say, for nullity do not equate to invalidity.

 

[1ke]

Thanks-- summing it up in my own words to see if I comprehend, potential grounds for nullity do not equate to invalidity. Invalidity only follows if those potential grounds for nullity result in “rotten fruit”. If the marriage is healthy, the marriage is valid (not including gross violations of canon law)

I’ll take no reply as an affirmative.

No.

A “bad” marriage can also be a valid marriage.

 

[Bergon]

I searched and searched but found nothing regards to this.

If a marriage can be annulled, even though the people wouldn’t want it to be so/aren’t aware it is able to be annulled, is that marriage de facto invalid? I’m not talking about obvious canon violations (getting married outside a Church sans dispensation for a Catholic), but about the non-obvious things that create grounds for annulment.

So if two Catholics got married, the one being pregnant, that issue would be grounds for an annulment (one might argue the father felt pressure to marry). Supposing though that they recognize their marriage as a good one and have no intentions for divorcing, is it invalid just because it could be annulled? Do they need to get it convalidated, or go through radical sanation? If they fail to do this, and their marriage is invalid, are they engaging in adultery?

Thanks.

I believe the situation that you describe is rather too vague to give a definitive answer. We are required by the Church to presume that a marriage is valid until, and if, two ecclesiastical tribunals have confirmed with moral certainty that it’s invalid - requiring therefore the involvement of at least 4 judges.

Just because a lady is pregnant doesn’t automatically mean that the gentleman who is the father of the child should necessarily feel forced into marriage.

 

[janeway529]

I believe the situation that you describe is rather too vague to give a definitive answer. We are required by the Church to presume that a marriage is valid until, and if, two ecclesiastical tribunals have confirmed with moral certainty that it’s invalid - requiring therefore the involvement of at least 4 judges.

Just to clarify, depending on the diocesan tribunal, it’s usually either 1 judge or a turnus of 3 judges. The others involved (Advocate, Defender of the Bond, etc.) aren’t considered judges.

 

[Bergon]

Just to clarify, depending on the diocesan tribunal, it’s usually either 1 judge or a turnus of 3 judges. The others involved (Advocate, Defender of the Bond, etc.) aren’t considered judges.

I said, and stand by, 4 judges. To misinterpret is to take what I said out of context. I also said two courts. The court of first instant hears the case with 1 or 3 judges. The appeal court must review and confirm the court of original jurisdiction’s judgement. The appeal court will comprise 3 judges. If 1 judge hears the case at first instant the case will in total have been heard by two courts and 4 judges. If the first instant tribunal heard the case with a collegiate panel of 3 judges then a total of 6 judges will have been involved with the case.

 

[janeway529]

I said, and stand by, 4 judges. To misinterpret is to take what I said out of context. I also said two courts. The court of first instant hears the case with 1 or 3 judges. The appeal court must review and confirm the court of original jurisdiction’s judgement. The appeal court will comprise 3 judges. If 1 judge hears the case at first instant the case will in total have been heard by two courts and 4 judges. If the first instant tribunal heard the case with a collegiate panel of 3 judges then a total of 6 judges will have been involved with the case.

I was talking about the court of first instance. So glad it was clarified.