God bless you whichever way it goes. I’m a law student with some large interest in catholic canon law, especially in the marital area. There are things I don’t like and the last time I tried enumerating my doubts and coming up with potential contradictions, I reached thirty positions. I don’t like the way it’s handled by some courts and I’ve seen verdicts that have made me drop my jaw and yell “what?!”
I’m telling you… when you don’t understand it, it’s already a problem. But the more you get to understand, the more frightening is what goes on. People entering into marriage in bad faith, witnesses lying, ecclesiastic judges differing between one another. I’ve actually heard “Father X would rule the opposite.” The whole thing is excruciating and so are the lengths to which the Church has to go to protect people from themselves. And no, disciplinary rules and canon law aren’t infallible and are not a part of the Magisterium.
The worst thing is courts ruling differently. Take ten random church judges and poll them on what they think is enough to rule the marriage invalid from Canon 1095. What level of coercion is enough. What gravity of lie is sufficient. In what cases previously known consanguinity makes it invalid. What kind of resolve not to have children is sufficient. What degree of lack of intent to contract an indissoluble marriage is enough to warrant invalidity.
When you’re done polling, ask yourself how much God cares about the whole poll. How much God cares about all the lawyering.
You can have two identical cases in two courts in two different parts of the world. In Nowhereton, they will rule pro vinculo. In Nothingville, they will rule pro nullitate.
Then there’s the level of education in this matters which makes people think diocesan courts can “award” annulments like divorces on a number of “grounds”. They will pull the VII on the court in defence of something which isn’t a valid marriage. Or they will “tweak” the testimony, using a witty lawyer’s advice, to get a favourable result.
Let’s take two cases I’ve come across:
- Deep in Russia, there was a general dispensation for Catholics from canonical form. The lesser canonical form was still binding, that is, you needed two witnesses. With this condition met, civil marriages were sacramental. You could contract a sacramental marriage without knowing. One couple got a nullity decree because they contracted the civil marriage in the presence of one civil officer and no witnesses. The civil officer counted as one witness. Had there been any other person present, the marriage would have been valid.
- In Italy, there was a couple whose parents were cousins. The blood relation was common knowledge. The couple didn’t know if the priest had obtained a dispensation from the bishop. Later, he left her, divorced civilly and married another woman. He got his nullity decree on the grounds of consanguinity. Back in the old times, even marriages of siblings were upheld for converts, even though there was no aprioric dispensation for such a marriage possible.
Legally, everything looks all right. But… Canon law is discipline, fallible etc. But the Magisterium on marriage is infallible. The result is a blasting headache to put it lightly.
What I believe should be done is spelling out the requirements for a valid marriage instead of enumarating nullity grounds. If they said, “this and that amount of consent/knowledge/openness/dedication is enough,” it would be much easier and it would work on the same principle as creating formal requirements (e.g. that Catholics can’t normally marry in civil ceremonies). There is an authority to do that. But when different judges start to differ on what’s enough to declare a marriage invalid…
