Jurisdiction & Unknowingly Invalid Marriage?

[JMKC]

Would it be accurate to say that there could be many people with invalid marriages because the priest unknowingly didn’t have jurisdiction? Take for example the case of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic in a Latin church. The person thinks they are Latin, but they are in fact Eastern Catholic because their paternal grandfather was (ritual church membership is inherited via baptism, not determined based on what church your baptism takes place at). In such a situation, the priest wouldn’t have jurisdiction to witness the marriage. Would this unavoidable situation render the marriage invalid, or is there wiggle room when uncertainty takes place? I haven’t read about any such exceptions in the Code of Canon Law, but am wondering if anyone knows more on the subject.

 

[Petaro]

You seem to forget that in the sacrament of Marriage, the spouses bestow the sacrament on each other; the priest acting as a witness only.

 

[lmelahn]

Would it be accurate to say that there could be many people with invalid marriages because the priest unknowingly didn’t have jurisdiction? Take for example the case of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic in a Latin church. The person thinks they are Latin, but they are in fact Eastern Catholic because their paternal grandfather was (ritual church membership is inherited via baptism, not determined based on what church your baptism takes place at). In such a situation, the priest wouldn’t have jurisdiction to witness the marriage. Would this unavoidable situation render the marriage invalid, or is there wiggle room when uncertainty takes place? I haven’t read about any such exceptions in the Code of Canon Law, but am wondering if anyone knows more on the subject.

You seem to forget that in the sacrament of Marriage, the spouses bestow the sacrament on each other; the priest acting as a witness only.

That is true, but if the one “assisting” at the marriage (normally, a priest or deacon) does not have the necessary faculty, then the marriage can indeed be invalid. It is a requirement of the so-called canonical form. And among the requirements for jurisdiction is that at least one of the parties is a member of the Latin Church.

Interesting question. It is, of course, the grave responsibility of the priest to make sure he has the necessary faculty: to make sure, among other things, that the person belongs to the Latin Church, and, if not, to obtain the necessary delegation from the church to which the Catholic party belongs.

I am not sure how often this sort of thing would actually go unnoticed. I suppose a priest who is preparing a couple for marriage, who notices that the couple is from an ethnic background that is typically associated with an Eastern Church, should at least inquire as to their membership in the Latin Church.

 

[Petaro]

That is true, but if the one “assisting” at the marriage (normally, a priest or deacon) does not have the necessary faculty, then the marriage can indeed be invalid. It is a requirement of the so-called canonical form. And among the requirements for jurisdiction is that at least one of the parties is a member of the Latin Church.

Interesting question. It is, of course, the grave responsibility of the priest to make sure he has the necessary faculty: to make sure, among other things, that the person belongs to the Latin Church, and, if not, to obtain the necessary delegation from the church to which the Catholic party belongs.

I am not sure how often this sort of thing would actually go unnoticed. I suppose a priest who is preparing a couple for marriage, who notices that the couple is from an ethnic background that is typically associated with an Eastern Church, should at least inquire as to their membership in the Latin Church.

Not hard to get a dispensation from form from your local bishop. People often worry about the letter and forget to pull the [edited] thing out of the ditch…

 

[Vico]

Would it be accurate to say that there could be many people with invalid marriages because the priest unknowingly didn’t have jurisdiction? Take for example the case of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic in a Latin church. The person thinks they are Latin, but they are in fact Eastern Catholic because their paternal grandfather was (ritual church membership is inherited via baptism, not determined based on what church your baptism takes place at). In such a situation, the priest wouldn’t have jurisdiction to witness the marriage. Would this unavoidable situation render the marriage invalid, or is there wiggle room when uncertainty takes place? I haven’t read about any such exceptions in the Code of Canon Law, but am wondering if anyone knows more on the subject.

The case you mention is for an eastern Catholic by infant baptism where no change of ritual church has occurred through approval of the Holy See or at marriage for the parents or the child. The baptismal certificate from the parish of baptism should have the notation of the ritual church of enrollment. It seems that it would likely be the case where the baptismal certificate was not obtainable, or was not obtained, that this would occur. The priest needs to know if those being married are Catholic and not already married, so should have a recent copy of any baptismal certificates with notations, as part of the marriage process. Since you say it it unavoidable, do you mean the situation where there the records are not obtained?

I have heard of invalidity due to eastern Catholic marriage in a Latin church witnessed by a deacon rather than a priest which makes it invalid. The form of marriage is addressed in CCEO 828 and 834. Dispensations are sometimes given by the eastern Hierarch, Holy See, or papal legates.CCEO

Canon 828

1. Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a
   sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor,
   or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according,
   however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due
   regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.
2. That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention a priest assisting and blessing.

Canon 834

1. The form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed if at least one of the parties celebrating the marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or was received into it.
2. If, however, a Catholic party enrolled in some Eastern Church celebrates a marriage with one who belongs to an Eastern non-Catholic Church, the form for the celebration of marriage prescribed by law is to be observed only for liceity; for validity, however, the blessing of a priest is required, while observing the other requirements of law.

 

[Brendan]

You seem to forget that in the sacrament of Marriage, the spouses bestow the sacrament on each other; the priest acting as a witness only.

That is true, but a marriage can be invalid due to lack of form. For a Catholic to be validly married, to validily bestow the Sacrament on each other, the proper Form must be used.

One of the elements of form, to which the OP referes, is the jurisdiction of the witness. The witness must have the proper faculties from the Church. Without those, the marriage is null.

 

[agapewolf]

You seem to forget that in the sacrament of Marriage, the spouses bestow the sacrament on each other; the priest acting as a witness only.

Only in the Latin Church. Not in the Eastern churches.

 

[dans0622]

Would it be accurate to say that there could be many people with invalid marriages because the priest unknowingly didn’t have jurisdiction? Take for example the case of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic in a Latin church. The person thinks they are Latin, but they are in fact Eastern Catholic because their paternal grandfather was (ritual church membership is inherited via baptism, not determined based on what church your baptism takes place at). In such a situation, the priest wouldn’t have jurisdiction to witness the marriage. Would this unavoidable situation render the marriage invalid, or is there wiggle room when uncertainty takes place? I haven’t read about any such exceptions in the Code of Canon Law, but am wondering if anyone knows more on the subject.

Hello,

Given your other thread related to this topic, I recently began to consider this very question. In my understanding, these circumstances would give rise to the operation of canon 144 (Latin Code), which would supply the faculty to the priest. The marriage would then be valid.

I am seeing if other, more experienced and wise canon lawyers disagree with this or not. If they do, I may have to modify my position.

Dan

 

[Gorgias]

Given your other thread related to this topic, I recently began to consider this very question. In my understanding, these circumstances would give rise to the operation of canon 144 (Latin Code), which would supply the faculty to the priest. The marriage would then be valid.

Dan,

IANACL, but… would we even need to make recourse to c.144? Marriage enjoys the favor of the law: in this (hypothetical) case, all did what they thought they had to do in order for a valid marriage. Unless and until it might be proven that there was a lack of jurisdiction, there’s no question of invalidity. Were there to be a situation through which the lack of jurisdiction came to light, then it would be possible to address it appropriately. Otherwise: valid marriage. We cannot say “there are people in invalid marriages, unknowingly.”

 

[Brendan]

Only in the Latin Church. Not in the Eastern churches.

Sorta. The Eastern Catholic Churches would recognize a Roman marriage that was witnessed by a Deacon, or even a bishop approved lay person.

 

[dans0622]

Dan,

IANACL, but… would we even need to make recourse to c.144? Marriage enjoys the favor of the law: in this (hypothetical) case, all did what they thought they had to do in order for a valid marriage. Unless and until it might be proven that there was a lack of jurisdiction, there’s no question of invalidity. Were there to be a situation through which the lack of jurisdiction came to light, then it would be possible to address it appropriately. Otherwise: valid marriage. We cannot say “there are people in invalid marriages, unknowingly.”

Hello,

Why can we not say that?

Not being sure what you mean in the last statement…I respond: The law wants people who reasonably seem to be able to do something to actually be able to do it. It is this principle that c. 144 attempts to address.

Yes, such a marriage would enjoy the favor of law and so would be presumed valid. If, in fact, the priest did not have the faculty through the normal way (i.e., a pastor, in his territory, with at least one party a Latin Catholic, c. 1109), then either c. 144 would supply the faculty and there would be no defect in form or c. 144 would *not *supply the faculty and the marriage would be invalid because of a defect in form. It would be a putative marriage.

Given the facts as presented, I think it would apply and would be the means by which the priest is given the faculty. Do we “need” to have recourse to it? I think so since it’s for exactly these sorts of situations that the canon exists and explicitly applies to the faculty to witness a marriage. Sometimes, we do all we think we need to do but still miss an important element. C. 144 is designed to address situations where people acted in good faith but still did not observe all the requirements of law.

Dan

 

[JMKC]

Hello,

Why can we not say that?

Not being sure what you mean in the last statement…I respond: The law wants people who reasonably seem to be able to do something to actually be able to do it. It is this principle that c. 144 attempts to address.

Yes, such a marriage would enjoy the favor of law and so would be presumed valid. If, in fact, the priest did not have the faculty through the normal way (i.e., a pastor, in his territory, with at least one party a Latin Catholic, c. 1109), then either c. 144 would supply the faculty and there would be no defect in form or c. 144 would *not *supply the faculty and the marriage would be invalid because of a defect in form. It would be a putative marriage.

Given the facts as presented, I think it would apply and would be the means by which the priest is given the faculty. Do we “need” to have recourse to it? I think so since it’s for exactly these sorts of situations that the canon exists and explicitly applies to the faculty to witness a marriage. Sometimes, we do all we think we need to do but still miss an important element. C. 144 is designed to address situations where people acted in good faith but still did not observe all the requirements of law.

Dan

I think this is a very reasoned response. I ask the following not to attempt to explain away canon 144 in this instance (since I think it makes sense here), but rather to grow in understanding of distinctions: what is the difference between this situation and that of a Catholic married outside of the Church, assuming they weren’t aware that they are bound by law to be married with the proper form? I know that in the latter case, they are objectively not married. Would the difference be that in the former case, the marriage was celebrated with a proper form, albeit a form of a different rite?

 

[JMKC]

Another question would be, is there an equivalent of Canon 144 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches?

 

[JMKC]

Another question would be, is there an equivalent of Canon 144 in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches?

I’ll answer my own questions: CCEO Canons 994 & 995.

 

[Gorgias]

Why can we not say that?

Not being sure what you mean in the last statement.

Sorry – let me add a clause to make the meaning more clear: “how can we say that there are people – who attempted to follow the law and do all it prescribed – who are in invalid marriages unknowingly?”

Are there those who did not attempt to follow the form of Catholic marriage or who have defects that prevent valid marriage? Of course. But, these aren’t people who are in invalid marriages unknowingly.

…I respond: The law wants people who reasonably seem to be able to do something to actually be able to do it. It is this principle that c. 144 attempts to address.

And, those in this situation have done it. Their marriages aren’t putative until such time that facts have been established that demonstrate invalidity; they’re valid. So, the answer to the OP’s question is self-evident: no, these people aren’t in invalid marriages.

Now, once a person discovers that a problem exists, it’s a different story. One must ask how to address the situation. Typically, a convalidation might be pursued.

I’ll defer commenting on the merits of c. 144 in this case. However, it would seem that it only applies when the error of fact comes to light. That’s not what the OP asked, it seems.

Given the facts as presented, I think it would apply and would be the means by which the priest is given the faculty. Do we “need” to have recourse to it? I think so since it’s for exactly these sorts of situations that the canon exists and explicitly applies to the faculty to witness a marriage. Sometimes, we do all we think we need to do but still miss an important element. C. 144 is designed to address situations where people acted in good faith but still did not observe all the requirements of law.

This analysis seems problematic on its face. There are annulments that are granted specifically due to ‘errors of fact’. If c. 144 applies generally and to all, would that not imply that annulments based on these sorts of considerations cannot ever be granted – and that the ones already granted are themselves null? That’s quite the pandora’s box…

 

[Gorgias]

what is the difference between this situation and that of a Catholic married outside of the Church, assuming they weren’t aware that they are bound by law to be married with the proper form? I know that in the latter case, they are objectively not married. Would the difference be that in the former case, the marriage was celebrated with a proper form, albeit a form of a different rite?

For those who attempt to follow the law, their marriage enjoys the favor of the law – we presume validity and only abandon that presumption when it is proven inaccurate. On the other hand, in the case of a couple who do not attempt to follow the law – that is, a ‘lack of form’ case – in this situation, their union does not enjoy the favor of the law: validity is not presumed in this case.

 

[JMKC]

For those who attempt to follow the law, their marriage enjoys the favor of the law – we presume validity and only abandon that presumption when it is proven inaccurate. On the other hand, in the case of a couple who do not attempt to follow the law – that is, a ‘lack of form’ case – in this situation, their union does not enjoy the favor of the law: validity is not presumed in this case.

In light of Canon 144, though, it seems to me to say that even after the information came to light that the marriage would still be valid and not putative since " the Church supplies executive power of governance for both the external and the internal forum" (C. 144 §1) and “The same norm applies to the faculties mentioned in cann. 883, 966, and 1111 §1” (C. 144 §2). So, it seems that the faculties would be there, necessarily. In the case of annulments, as you mentioned in a previous post, could it be that the facts provided for in the canon differ from the kind of facts you have in mind? It seems there is a difference between a fact about whether a priest has faculties or whether a person is of one or another ritual church and whether a spouse was aware of the other spouses addiction or past, etc.

Thoughts?

 

[JMKC]

After doing some research, I found the following online from a book “Empowerment for Ministry: A Complete Manual on Diocesan Faculties for Priests, Deacons, and Lay Ministers”

It says concerning Canon 144:

“The Church supplies the faculty only when the common good is at risk, that is, when there is the potential for harm to the common good due to repeated acts being invalid as a result of the lack of the necessary faculty by the same minister or administrator. The Church does not supply the faculty when only a private good is at stake, namely, when the validity of only one or a few acts is at stake.”

If this is accurate, and if I’m not missing anything, would this mean that in one instance of a true Eastern Catholic who is unaware of their membership in an Eastern Church being married to a non-Catholic in a Latin parish, this canon would not apply?

 

[JMKC]

However, in “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law” it says, “Common error is also not restricted to situations which occur regularly; it may also be applied to an isolated event, such as a case in which a priest receives the profession of a religious of a pontifical institute of consecrated life without having been delegated by the legitimate superior to do so”

This case, contrary to my last post, sounds like it would apply equally to a marriage witnessed by a priest without jurisdiction.

 

[JMKC]

One more point to add. I can’t edit this into past posts, so I apologize for the excessive posting here. In the book I mentioned in a previous post “Empowerment for Ministry”, the author writes “Some cases when the Church does not supply the faculty are …] a Latin Catholic pastor who assists at the marriage of a Catholic parishioner and a Protestant, but the Catholic is an Eastern Catholic”.

Now, I’m more generally concerned about a situation where there are two Eastern Catholics, but aside from this, I wonder whether the information expressed in this text are absolutely true or are just opinions. When I compare what I have read in this book to the “New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law”, I see what appears to be disagreement. This latter text says, “The Church supplies the executive power of governance only when there is a common error which is either factual or legal or when there is a positive and probable doubt.” So, I would assume that if someone legitimately didn’t know that they were Eastern, or if there was sufficient doubt as to whether they were Eastern or not, this canon would apply.

I also assume that, since it is the Church supplying this, not only the Latin or Eastern Churches, and since both the CIC and the CCEO have similar “ecclesia supplet” laws, that there shouldn’t be a restriction in the case of an Eastern Catholic and a non-Catholic in the case of doubt as the “Empowerment for Ministry” text states. Perhaps there is a distinction here I haven’t mentioned though.