Jurisdiction & Unknowingly Invalid Marriage?

[dans0622]

Hello,

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.

It can happen that such people are unknowingly in invalid marriages. A couple can need a dispensation for disparity of cult, for example, and they know it. While the priest originally intended to fill out the request and said he would do it, he forgot. It was never dispensed. The wedding proceeds, nevertheless. The marriage is putative.

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.

It seems as though you are suggesting that a marriage is valid until somebody realizes something was wrong and then it becomes invalid and in need of rectification.

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.

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…

Canon 144 has to operate, and apply, at the time of the wedding. The OP is aware of the future possibility of the priest lacking the faculty (he hasn’t married yet). The error of fact as it relates to c. 144 doesn’t “apply generally and to all.” It has to do with the priest’s possession of the faculty (in this case, you could say that it relates first to the fact of ecclesial ascription of the groom, which then necessarily relates to the priest’s possession of the faculty). The remedy provided by c. 144 relates to the priest’s faculty, nothing more. It has nothing to do with the couple’s marital consent.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

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?

Hello,

I can’t speak for the author of that book but I would think that the situation you originally described has “the potential for harm to the common good.” There may well be many similar cases which arise, at least in some places. That author, either in that book or in another, used the example of a priest in a particular airport (a one-time event) where, for whatever reason, he lacks the faculty to absolve. The author stated that c. 144 would not apply if a single person came up to him and asked to confess.

Dan

P.S. I think you should proceed to the wedding with a clear conscience and simply do what your pastors require of you.

 

[Gorgias]

It can happen that such people are unknowingly in invalid marriages. A couple can need a dispensation for disparity of cult, for example, and they know it. While the priest originally intended to fill out the request and said he would do it, he forgot. It was never dispensed. The wedding proceeds, nevertheless. The marriage is putative.

I’m pretty sure your example isn’t that the priest knew that it was invalid at the time he witnessed it, right? That’s a whole 'nother story.

So, if – at the time of the wedding – no one ‘knew’ it was invalid, then it enjoys the favor of the law until proven otherwise. Once the priest realizes what happened – and goes back and ‘proves’ it (to the couple?), it is putative. However, given the OP’s question, it is not putative until the doubt is proven, correct? Therefore, there are no couples “unknowingly in invalid marriages”.

It seems as though you are suggesting that a marriage is valid until somebody realizes something was wrong and then it becomes invalid and in need of rectification.

It is presumed valid. Once it is proven invalid, then there’s the need to resolve the issue.

The error of fact as it relates to c. 144 doesn’t “apply generally and to all.”

What I’m trying to suggest is that, the way you’re framing it up, it seems you’re saying that, for all couples who are married by a priest who lacks jurisdiction – unbeknownst to them and to the priest at the time of the wedding – c. 144 applies. Generally (not on a case-by-case basis); and to all in this situation.

The case I’m trying to make is this: you seem to be claiming that c. 144 kicks in automatically, when – unknowingly – there’s a defect of form due to lack of jurisdiction. (Am I misunderstanding you? Are you, possibly, saying that it doesn’t apply unless and until there’s both proven lack of jurisdiction and the subsequent (continued) desire to have contracted a valid marriage?) If, however, this canon automatically applies, then it would seem impossible to have a defect of form due to lack of jurisdiction. In other words, if this were the case, then any attempts for a decree of nullity due to lack of jurisdiction must immediately be rejected – after all c. 144 took care of them, right?

The remedy provided by c. 144 relates to the priest’s faculty, nothing more. It has nothing to do with the couple’s marital consent.

Right; I’m not saying that this has anything to do with consent. After all, defective consent isn’t the only reason that a marriage might be found to be null.

 

[JMKC]

I’m pretty sure your example isn’t that the priest knew that it was invalid at the time he witnessed it, right? That’s a whole 'nother story.

So, if – at the time of the wedding – no one ‘knew’ it was invalid, then it enjoys the favor of the law until proven otherwise. Once the priest realizes what happened – and goes back and ‘proves’ it (to the couple?), it is putative. However, given the OP’s question, it is not putative until the doubt is proven, correct? Therefore, there are no couples “unknowingly in invalid marriages”.

It is presumed valid. Once it is proven invalid, then there’s the need to resolve the issue.

What I’m trying to suggest is that, the way you’re framing it up, it seems you’re saying that, for all couples who are married by a priest who lacks jurisdiction – unbeknownst to them and to the priest at the time of the wedding – c. 144 applies. Generally (not on a case-by-case basis); and to all in this situation.

The case I’m trying to make is this: you seem to be claiming that c. 144 kicks in automatically, when – unknowingly – there’s a defect of form due to lack of jurisdiction. (Am I misunderstanding you? Are you, possibly, saying that it doesn’t apply unless and until there’s both proven lack of jurisdiction and the subsequent (continued) desire to have contracted a valid marriage?) If, however, this canon automatically applies, then it would seem impossible to have a defect of form due to lack of jurisdiction. In other words, if this were the case, then any attempts for a decree of nullity due to lack of jurisdiction must immediately be rejected – after all c. 144 took care of them, right?

Right; I’m not saying that this has anything to do with consent. After all, defective consent isn’t the only reason that a marriage might be found to be null.

Based on the example I gave from the “New Commentary…” of a priest not delegated to hear the profession of vows of a religious, it seems that c. 144 would also apply to a priest without jurisdiction. Now, I imagine that this might more so apply in the case of unknown or uncertain lack of jurisdiction, provided there is an appropriate intention to be married from the couple. There was also another example of a priest without jurisdiction who has a lineup of penitents. He could invoke the canon assuming the penitents believed him to have jurisdiction. If I’m correct, this would apply if there were only on penitent. In the case of a marriage where the priest and all present or reasonable people would assume him to have jurisdiction, the canon would kick in since it would hurt the common good for it not to.

 

[dans0622]

I’m pretty sure your example isn’t that the priest knew that it was invalid at the time he witnessed it, right? That’s a whole 'nother story.

So, if – at the time of the wedding – no one ‘knew’ it was invalid, then it enjoys the favor of the law until proven otherwise. Once the priest realizes what happened – and goes back and ‘proves’ it (to the couple?), it is putative. However, given the OP’s question, it is not putative until the doubt is proven, correct? Therefore, there are no couples “unknowingly in invalid marriages”.

Are we defining “putative” in the same way? An invalid marriage entered in good faith by at least one party is a putative marriage. Once both parties become certain of the invalidity, it is no longer putative (c. 1062.3). In my example, the priest doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone. If he reviews the file and sees the dispensation was never granted, he should rectify the situation. The marriage will certainly remain putative until he does so.

… What I’m trying to suggest is that, the way you’re framing it up, it seems you’re saying that, for all couples who are married by a priest who lacks jurisdiction – unbeknownst to them and to the priest at the time of the wedding – c. 144 applies. Generally (not on a case-by-case basis); and to all in this situation.

The case I’m trying to make is this: you seem to be claiming that c. 144 kicks in automatically, when – unknowingly – there’s a defect of form due to lack of jurisdiction. (Am I misunderstanding you? Are you, possibly, saying that it doesn’t apply unless and until there’s both proven lack of jurisdiction and the subsequent (continued) desire to have contracted a valid marriage?) If, however, this canon automatically applies, then it would seem impossible to have a defect of form due to lack of jurisdiction. In other words, if this were the case, then any attempts for a decree of nullity due to lack of jurisdiction must immediately be rejected – after all c. 144 took care of them, right? …

I’m not trying to frame anything in a way that makes c. 144 apply to any and all lack of faculty situations. I’m examining one particular scenario and concluding that c. 144 would apply and give the priest the missing faculty. I was assigned to a case which recently concluded. It was decided that the priest lacked the faculty since he was outside of his territory, did not receive any delegated faculty, and c. 144 did not supply it. I found the decision to be well-reasoned.

That being said, other times, c. 144 does apply and it certainly has to “kick in automatically” at the moment of the wedding. The tribunal may conclude that even though a priest did not possess the faculty through the usual channels, he was supplied the faculty by c. 144. The marriage is not invalid due to a defect of form. It’s not as though c. 144 does not operate until a tribunal comes along and says “c. 144 applies” and the marriage is somehow sanated.

Any time a person said “my marriage is invalid because the priest lacked the faculty,” the Tribunal is bound to consider c. 144. It may or may not have supplied the faculty. Sometimes, it’s easy to say “no, it did not apply in this case.” Other times, it is not so clear. Still other times (not usually, though), it is rather clear that c. 144 did supply the faculty.

Dan

 

[JMKC]

I’m examining one particular scenario and concluding that c. 144 would apply and give the priest the missing faculty.

Just to be clear, the case I believe Dan is speaking of (along with the situation I presented in the first post in this thread) is that of someone who may or may not be Eastern Catholic marrying another Eastern Catholic in a Latin church. In this instance, if the true ritual church was unknown or if there were some amount of doubt involved (how much is enough, I wonder), presumably c. 144 would kick in rather than the priest having to request faculties from a bishop of an Eastern church “just in case”. I don’t claim to speak for you though, Dan, so please correct me if I am in error as to your meaning.