Is the marriage invalid or valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rckymtn85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Exactly why I would not withhold this from someone. Don’t think I would ever go that far but part of me wants to date and see if things get “frisky” to rest some concerns I have in my head. Though I don’t think that is the wisest decision, things could go too far. Also wouldn’t I just be using her in a way?
 
I suspect you don’t see it as consequential because it simply doesn’t matter to you. My husband didn’t care either. But for someone else, it might be the deal breaker. Like Cajun said, I have seen about 3 marriages break up because one party decided to come out of the closet and go find a same sex partner. I can see this being a complication that some men and women would prefer to avoid.
 
Last edited:
BoomBoomMancini said:
True, although in theory someone could say that about any piece of information no matter how mundane. “You were cut from the 9th grade basketball team?! You should have told me, I’d never have married you!” I’m getting ridiculous,
…
Click to expand...
Gorgias said:
If your wife were an axe-murderer, and you knew it before the wedding, would you have married her?

Same thing here. Lack of knowledge – where it would determine the consent – means that there wasn’t consent.

Not terribly ridiculous. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Error about a quality of the person (such as the issue in question, or not-an-axe-murderer) does not invalidate an attempt at marriage UNLESS the quality itself is directly and principally intended. Canon 1097.2

One question asked of engaged persons (individually) is “do you intend to have normal marital relations with your intended spouse?” That’s in writing and should be in the marriage file. One could certainly argue a conflict between what the OP described and an affirmative answer to that question.

Likewise, canon 1098
Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

Again, one might argue that what the OP describes (maybe, maybe not, it would depend on the degree) can “greatly disturb the partnership of conjugal life.”

So, right, not-sharing the fact of being kicked off the basketball team would not affect the marriage. While one spouse concealing being an axe-murderer would affect validity.
 
Yes, ridiculous to compare something like that to any man having attractions to other women besides his fiance.

And where do you draw the line? What if I had a DWI 10 yrs before meeting my fiance?

Also, I think a murderer who has never been convicted is different than one who has served a sentence.

If there are serious impediments for a person that would determine whether they would Marry someone or not, they have a responsibility to ask their potential spouse.

If they lie, then that is grounds.

To not disclose any and all information is not grounds. And to follow the advice of a priest and SP to not share bisexual tendencies should remove grounds for annulment.

Though I would think one should share that, just not that it is grounds for an annulment, or even a just separation.
 
I don’t think “need” in order to give proper consent. If the husband was not truly attracted to his fiance, and wanted marriage to try to deny his true attractions to same sex, then I would understand a grounds for annulment.

What matters is that he was genuine about his attraction and love to her and intending to honor her in fidelity.
 
I deleted this response. I shouldn’t say that it’s been on every form if I haven’t read “every form.”
 
Last edited:
rcwitness said:
…
And where do you draw the line? …
Click to expand...
Again, the answer is in canon law. The Church has given this sort of thing quite a bit of thought. We aren’t just making things up as we go along.

The answer is:

A quality of the person that is “directly and principally intended” 1097
or
“some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.” 1098
 
It’s kept at the parish. Specifically, the parish where the marriage occurred.
 
And so you believe bisexual attractions must be disclosed, even after openly discerning with a priest and Spiritual Director who advised not to share?
 
rcwitness said:
And so you believe bisexual attractions must be disclosed, even after openly discerning with a priest and Spiritual Director who advised not to share?
Click to expand...
No. That is not what I’m saying.

Please do not put words into my mouth. I get really annoyed when people do that. If you have a question about what I wrote, ask it. But please don’t make claims that I am saying something unless I actually say it.

What I am saying is that the Church tells us “where to draw the line.”

If it is a quality that can “gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life” and that quality is mis-represented, then it can be legitimate grounds for a petition of nullity. It’s quite obvious that SSA has the potential to be such a quality.
 
I am assuming their was no actually homosexual activity, just bisexual attractions.
 
What matters is that he deceived her and she wouldn’t have married him if she knew of his ssa
 
Doesn’t matter. He deceived her. If he was hiding depression or a diagnosis of bipolar it would be the same thing. What matters is the deception and that it would’ve been an impediment for her to marry him

If she wants to divorce him and get an annulment she’s entitled to, but does not have to
 
Last edited:
FloridaCatholic said:
What matters is that he deceived her and she wouldn’t have married him if she knew of his ssa
Click to expand...
And that’s the point. She would not have married him if she had known (so the scenario has been presented to us).

That, together with the fact that the quality itself is something that could gravely affect conjugal life (as opposed to something trivial) makes this (at least potentially) grounds for the petition of nullity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top