Invalid marriages and mental illnesses

[LotusCarsLtd]

Someone I know suffers from bipolar disorder but is receiving treatment and has their condition under control.

I was looking at another post on this forum about the conditions necessary for a marriage to be valid or not and I was wondering: if someone had a mental illness but was receiving treatment for it, could they still validly enter into marriage? What about depression? Keep in mind that I am focusing here on those mental illnesses that, unlike something like schizophrenia, do not diminish one’s ability to make sound judgments…I would think a person with bipolar disorder receiving treatment could easily make clear consent to some act like entering into marriage.

Oh and please keep on topic! Don’t start deviating!

 

[bpbasilphx]

I’m not on a marital tribunal, so I don’t know what and when a mental illness affects the validity of a marriage.

I DO know that at least some forms of bi-polar disorder and clinical depression can be managed with the proper medicines, as they are chemical imbalances.

Remember that there are three causes of depression: reactive depression, caused by something bad in one’s life, such as bereavement or other loss; depression caused temporarily by some medical conditions, such as diabetes or post-partum depression; and clinical depression proper.

 

[flyingfish]

Someone I know suffers from bipolar disorder but is receiving treatment and has their condition under control.

I was looking at another post on this forum about the conditions necessary for a marriage to be valid or not and I was wondering: if someone had a mental illness but was receiving treatment for it, could they still validly enter into marriage? What about depression? Keep in mind that I am focusing here on those mental illnesses that, unlike something like schizophrenia, do not diminish one’s ability to make sound judgments…I would think a person with bipolar disorder receiving treatment could easily make clear consent to some act like entering into marriage.

Oh and please keep on topic! Don’t start deviating!

This is being discussed in the “why you are single” thread.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Z.HTM

Can. 1095 The following are incapable of contracting marriage:

1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;

2/ those who suVer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;

3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.

There is more to it, and you can read all of it if you must.

But it would seem that if the person’s bipolar is being managed there should be no issue with consent or fulfilling the obligations of marriage.

My understanding is that this would apply to someone like an untreated schizophrenic. But these things seem to be very open to interpretation.

 

[JRKH]

Someone I know suffers from bipolar disorder but is receiving treatment and has their condition under control.

I was looking at another post on this forum about the conditions necessary for a marriage to be valid or not and I was wondering: if someone had a mental illness but was receiving treatment for it, could they still validly enter into marriage? What about depression? Keep in mind that I am focusing here on those mental illnesses that, unlike something like schizophrenia, do not diminish one’s ability to make sound judgments…I would think a person with bipolar disorder receiving treatment could easily make clear consent to some act like entering into marriage.

Oh and please keep on topic! Don’t start deviating!

I would just say that this is not a matter that can be productively discussed on an open forum in some sort of Hypothetical way.
This is a matter better left to those involved, the couple and families, their priest and possibly even their doctor. It can only be reasonably handled on a case by case basis.

Peace
James

 

[Texas_Roofer]

What is a deviant to do? The answer is man does not know. The bible says “a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body” and “[speaking to Eve] Yet your urge shall be for your husband, and he shall be your master”. So it has occurred whether those do achieve this plan or not is strictly up to their joint effort. No Mother, father, Mother-in-law, Father-in-law, priest, etc…… can change that the relationship of a man and woman. Annulments are decrees that a sacrament was not conferred so the parties are declared free to marry.

 

[tabsie3210]

I would just say that this is not a matter that can be productively discussed on an open forum in some sort of Hypothetical way.
This is a matter better left to those involved, the couple and families, their priest and possibly even their doctor. It can only be reasonably handled on a case by case basis.

Peace
James

Very true, and I’d agree with this assessment. Just to give you an example of why an answer isn’t really forthcoming:

Suffering from Major Depression (or clinical depression, depending on how you prefer to call it), 90% of the time it’s under control on its own, but the use of medication keeps me from totally wigging out. However, when it comes to me being single, I tend to spiral downward in a depressive whirlpool. Now, were I to marry while in a depressive funk, it would probably be less because of a loving situation where my prospective spouse and I were trying to get each other into heaven, and more because of percieved desperation (which, thinking about it, is probably why God’s kept me single for so long). In that case, it’s unhealthy, but this kind of depressive funk can happen when I’m on medication as well as when I’m not.

So there you are. This is too complicated a scenario to figure out on a forum like this, without a knowledgable priest to sit and shuffle through. This one would be strictly case-by-case.

Now, I have a question for you - were you thinking more like, “Gee, my friend Tabitha is clinically depressed. In a depressive state, she got married, but now that she’s back to normal, she’s unhappy with the relationship because it didn’t help her, so now she wants an annulment?”

Or did you mean, “Gee, Tabitha got married to James while she was in a depressive funk, and now John’s not sure he can deal with her emotional problems, so he wants an annulment, citing her mental health as the reason why theirs shouldn’t be a valid marraige?”

Because both of those statements are very different, but either one could be applied to your original question.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Problem with marriage validity… it’s only called into question AFTER a marriage fails.

You can’t predict beforehand whether someone’s mental disorders are sufficient to interfere with their ability to give full consent to marriage and have the capacity to carry it out.

 

[chevalier]

Flyingfish gave you can. 1095. You have three “tiers” there. Tier 1 is the use of reason and that’s basically the intellectual ability to make choices and decisions. In order for marriage to be invalid, this would have to be something equivalent to mentally still being a child or to being drunk.

Tier 2 is grave lack of discretion (not to be confused with ignorance) - incapacity (not just difficulty) to form judgement in matters of essential obligations of marriage (exclusive, indissoluble community of whole life geared towards procreation and education of offspring). A *grossly *immature person isn’t guaranteed to be there.

Tier 3 concerns people who may have the sufficient use of reason and sufficient discretion of judgement but are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage for reasons of psychic nature. Severe cases of personality disorders may fall under here. This concerns being unable to *fulfill *the essential obligations due to causes of a psychic nature.

In case of a personality disorder in an adult person, I suppose we’re probably looking at #3 rather than #1-2. It comes down to whether the person is at all able to live in a communion of whole life, indissoluble, exclusive and ordered to the procreation and education of offspring (definitions are in canon 1055 and, indirectly, canon 1096). It merely being difficult will not invalidate the marriage. It being impossible will.

More reading: ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm

Problem with marriage validity… it’s only called into question AFTER a marriage fails.

Under can. 1066, it should be done beforehand, although not at the same level of scrutiny.

 

[chevalier]

Some more reading:

Pope John Paul II’s address to the Rota from 1984 (excerpt):

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1984/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19840126_roman-rota_en.html

There still remain canons of great importance in matrimonial law, however, which have been necessarily formulated in a generic way and which await further determination, to which especially the expert jurisprudence of the Rota could make a valuable contribution. I am thinking, for example, of the determination of the “grave lack of discretionary judgment” of the “essential matrimonial rights and obligations” mentioned in c. 1095, as well as the further clarification of c. 1098 on error resulting from deceit, to mention only two canons. These important determinations, which should serve as direction and guidance to all the tribunals of the particular churches, must be the fruit of mature and profound study, of serene and impartial discernment in the light of the perennial principles of Catholic theology, but also of the new canonical legislation inspired by the Second Vatican Council.

cormacburke.or.ke/taxonomy/term/16,41 (I’m currently reading through the articles)

 

[chevalier]

Again 20 minutes have passed. One excerpt from the first article at the last source could be of particular interest in your friend’s case, as the author goes through several personality disorders and considers their significance to marital consent:

A psychosis is normally considered grave in itself. But it must be proved not only that the psychotic condition was present at the time of the wedding, but also that it produced an incapacity in relation to some essential matrimonial obligation. If one is dealing with satyriasis or nymphomania (however classified), and the alleged condition is shown to have been truly present, then the incapacity can be considered established. In the case of a paranoid personality, however, the same would not necessarily seem to follow. A man might have a deep paranoid sense of being harmed or exploited by persons totally unconnected with married or family life (e.g. professional associates or business rivals). No doubt this can be upsetting for his wife, insofar as he manifests his fears to her. But it is not evident how his particular condition relates to, and less still how it incapacitates for, any essential obligation of marriage (Obviously a different judgment might emerge, if his condition were displayed precisely in pathological and groundless questioning of his wife’s fidelity). Much the same would seem to apply to other frequent personality disorders: histrionic, narcissistic, dependent conditions, etc.

This is all the more true if one is dealing with milder psychic conditions, such as neuroses frequently are. Symptoms of moderate neurosis, as often found in persons suffering from a certain degree of hysteria, obsessive ideas, compulsive behavior, etc., cannot reasonably be taken as a basis for a sentence of nullity. They fail both on the count of lack of gravity, as well as on that of irrelevance to some essential obligation of marriage (cf. coram Burke, Sentence of June 18, 1990, n. 9, in Forum, 3 (1992), pp. 103-104).

Bipolar may be tricky here because of having great potential for being different from patient to patient and in any case, this matter can’t be generalised but must be considered in the light of a concrete person’s circumstance vis-a-vis the minimum of consent required to make a valid (not ideal) marriage.

The author is a Rotal judge and the articles are very in-depth and, I guess, extremely reliable, although I have issues with his considering the case of a man under a death sentence being unable to educate his possible future children while that’s not an inability for a psychic cause at all.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Liberanosamalo
Problem with marriage validity… it’s only called into question AFTER a marriage fails.

Under can. 1066, it should be done beforehand, although not at the same level of scrutiny.

In a perfect world…

However, in the world we all live in, we grow up thinking “love conquers all” and we are deceived by good intentions (our own and others’) and we can often lack the ability to scrutinize someone else’s psyche to see whether they are sufficiently capable of maintaining a marriage (an act most of them have not proven themselves capable of yet, due to the fact most people are marrying for the first time).

We have a phrase for it in this country. “Buying a pig in a poke.”

There are the obvious people who should be rejected. Based on horrible behavior, criminal record, voiced intentions, etc.

Then there are the people who should be rejected, but they’re borderline or someone is “in love” and won’t listen to the voice of reason of “meddling relatives” or friends. Or they don’t share key factors of their own history with their intended and as details and a disturbing picture emerge over the years it becomes very clear if one knew the totality of facts in the beginning one would have headed for the hills.

Then there are the people who see flaws and give the fatal “benefit of the doubt” and get burned in years to come.

Problem is, sometimes people in any category can and do stay married for a lifetime. Unless one is in a divorce situation, it’s hard to tell which category they should have been in to begin with.