Is Canon 1099 an Easy Annulment?

[rcwitness]

So now sinlessness is a condition to give consent?

 

[rcwitness]

I agree she gave consent. This means that we need to be open to the fact that its possible for a 15 yr old to give consent.

But if a 15 yr old is given legal approval to marry, it would make it alot harder to prove they did not give consent, i would think.

 

[casslean]

Lets say an alcoholic is drunk at the wedding. Does that mean he is unable to intend to marry, or that he was impaired as to give true consent?

He may still want to marry, or he got married without actually intending to marry.

On that fact situation alone, I would not be able to conclude that he was unable to consent. As one Canadian judge so recently and infamously stated, “A drunk can consent.” Further, if it were a “typical” Catholic wedding, which had included planning, etc., I would conclude that merely being intoxicated at the wedding would not vitiate all prior indications of intent to consent to the marriage.

However, if the alcoholic was agreeing to the marriage because they believed it would enable them to continue to participate in and/or conceal their addiction, and had not disclosed their addiction to their intended spouse (who had taken reasonable steps to discover such details), then it might amount to both a lack of capacity to consent on the part of the alcoholic person and a substantial error on the part of the other party.

Again, these have to be fact specific analyses. It’s one of the reasons the questionnaires are so detailed.

 

[casslean]

But if a 15 yr old is given legal approval to marry, it would make it alot harder to prove they did not give consent, i would think.

Nope. All it does is shift the burden. If the party does not have legal capacity due to age, you have to prove they are of sufficient maturity that the presumption against capacity should be overcome. If that legal barrier is taken away, the test is exactly the same as in any other case.

 

[rcwitness]

rcwitness:

But if a 15 yr old is given legal approval to marry, it would make it alot harder to prove they did not give consent, i would think.

Nope. All it does is shift the burden. If the party does not have legal capacity due to age, you have to prove they are of sufficient maturity that the presumption against capacity should be overcome. If that legal barrier is taken away, the test is exactly the same as in any other case.

Thats why it should b more difficult to prove contrary later. They already specifically argued their ability to give their consent!

I feel like alot of Catholics on CAF have oppositional disorders.

 

[DarkLight]

It dosn’t really matter. He couldn’t give consent. If you can’t give consent intentions have absolutely no bearing on the matter. We see this with minors. A child under 16 cannot consent to sex with an adult no matter how much they intend to.

If he gives his consent privately, even after the fact, and the bride’s consent persists, the marriage is still valid.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

 

[rcwitness]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

It dosn’t really matter. He couldn’t give consent. If you can’t give consent intentions have absolutely no bearing on the matter. We see this with minors. A child under 16 cannot consent to sex with an adult no matter how much they intend to.

If he gives his consent privately, even after the fact, and the bride’s consent persists, the marriage is still valid.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

So the private consent would be the entire consent, or just an affirmation of the consent offered at the wedding?

 

[casslean]

I feel like you are struggling with either basic comprehension of this issue or with clearly articulating what you are saying.

You don’t have to prove the 15-year-old did not give consent if the law says that anyone under 16 is unable to consent. The law proves it for you. It does not matter what the 15 year old said or did. They did not consent.

If the law says the 15-year-old is capable of consenting (thus, they have “legal approval”), then proving or disproving consent is exactly the same as it is for any other capable, competent adult.

If the 15-year-old is ordinarily considered not capable of consent under the law, but is deemed capable by a court of competent jurisdiction based on extraordinary circumstances, then there is no question of disproving capacity to consent, because a court has already examined the situation and said there are no barriers to capacity.

Hence, the fact that the individual in question is 15 years old makes no difference to the burden in this fact scenario.

 

[rcwitness]

So you are saying that a judge is not going to look into the matter of coersion, or drug history, or even some things about the fiance???

Examining those things without seeing ANYTHING wrong should eliminate alot of chances for consent IN GENERAL to be impeded

 

[casslean]

So you are saying that a judge is not going to look into the matter of coersion, or drug history, or even some things about the fiance???

Examining those things without seeing ANYTHING wrong should eliminate alot of chances for consent IN GENERAL to be impeded

Where did you determine that I said that?

All of those things are relevant to determining if someone is capable of consenting. Therefore, if a judge determines that a fifteen-year-old is capable of consenting to the marriage then they have to have considered all of those things.

 

[rcwitness]

Exactly, so the chances of there being a lack of consent would be LESS, therefore less likely to prove.

 

[casslean]

Exactly, so the chances of there being a lack of consent would be LESS, therefore less likely to prove.

If a 15-year-old is seeking judicial permission to marry, contrary to the laws of the country, capacity to consent would have to be proven BEFORE judicial permission was granted.

The key to an annulment is rarely showing lack of consent, it’s showing that there were circumstances at the time of the marriage which made the parties UNABLE to consent. If a judge says “I’ve looked at all the circumstances and concluded that this person is able to consent”, then capacity is not going to be an issue.

And this is a very, very, specific circumstance, where you have a minor who has petitioned the court for permission to consent to marry. In most cases of minors marrying, their parents consent on their behalf, which is problematic from a canonical perspective.

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

The whole idea of teaching Catholic sexual morality to kids by someone other than a parents seems to be taboo around here.

So much of the teaching comes from a lens of “don’t do this, or don’t do that”. Imagine, instead, if the focus were on how wonderful sexual intimacy is and how much more powerful it becomes through diacernment and waiting for one’s spouse!

 

[JanetF]

Except that “YourNameHere” asked us to explain, so in order to be able to explain anyone would need more facts about the particular case. I think that’s all rcwitness was trying to do.

 

[rcwitness]

Except that “YourNameHere” asked us to explain, so in order to be able to explain anyone would need more facts about the particular case. I think that’s all rcwitness was trying to do.

Thank you. Its really common sense to ask him, when he is calling the annulment a farse.

But i also understand how it can be a hard thing to accept. And for all we know the info given to the tibunal was false!

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Except that “YourNameHere” asked us to explain, so in order to be able to explain anyone would need more facts about the particular case. I think that’s all rcwitness was trying to do.

He can’t though. Anymore then we could judge the validity of a trial without hearing of evidence. He can’t know the hearts of his parents before he was even born.

 

[rcwitness]

JanetF:

Except that “YourNameHere” asked us to explain, so in order to be able to explain anyone would need more facts about the particular case. I think that’s all rcwitness was trying to do.

He can’t though. Anymore then we could judge the validity of a trial without hearing of evidence. He can’t know the hearts of his parents before he was even born.

I wasnt going to judge the tribunal

 

[JanetF]

While I agree we can’t judge the tribunal, with additional information we may have been able to provide some insight into how the decision was made.

 

[rcwitness]

While I agree we can’t judge the tribunal, with additional information we may have been able to provide some insight into how the decision was made.

Exactly. To accuse someone of being “rude” for this is inappropriate and judgmental.

I dont care if im told its not my business. But im interested in helping someone understand a difficult situation in their life!

The Church made a judgement, and im not going to just tell someone, “you need to just suck it up and trust the Church!”

Catholics are free to question and want to know why things are the way they are. And this child is hurt that his parents marriage failed! And why does it seem that the Church approved of their separation??

Im all for searching with a genuine believer! To jump in and tell me im rude is foolish. I asked in a respectful manner, with good intentions.

 

[rcwitness]

While I agree we can’t judge the tribunal, with additional information we may have been able to provide some insight into how the decision was made.

If someone either criticizes the tribunal, or accuses them of just taking a bunch of money for an annulment, then im going to ask what the reason for declaring the marriage invalid was.