Theoretical situation involving possible annulment

[dans0622]

… The effect is that no one can claim that a ‘formal defection’ that took place from 10/26/2009 or later has any effect, since on that date, the notion of ‘formal defection’ was removed from the CIC. However, anyone who claims ‘formal defection’ from the point that the 1983 CIC was promulgated, up through 10/25/2009, still makes a reasonable claim under canon law (and that claim would have to be taken into account). … If a Catholic claims that they left the Church through a formal act, and that act is claimed to have been made between 1983 and 2009, then the information in the article holds. …

Hello,

Are you suggesting that if, for example, a person was baptized Catholic but formally defected on June 28, 2008, will get married on October 1, 2013, at the courthouse without a dispensation from canonical form, then the marriage will be presumed valid by the Catholic Church? If so, I would not agree.

The changes made by Pope Benedict in *Omnium in mentem *do not so much make “formal defection” impossible (a person could still defect in a formal manner) as much as make it impossible for a Catholic to be exempt from the requirements of canonical form, the disparity of cult impediment, and mixed marriage permission because of a formal defection. Once *Omnium in mentem *came into force, no one can claim a marriage contracted after that date is valid because of formal defection.

Dan

 

[Gorgias]

Hello,

Are you suggesting that if, for example, a person was baptized Catholic but formally defected on June 28, 2008, will get married on October 1, 2013, at the courthouse without a dispensation from canonical form, then the marriage will be presumed valid by the Catholic Church?

No – the marriage, also, would have to have taken place prior to Omnium in mentem.

The changes made by Pope Benedict in *Omnium in mentem *do not so much make “formal defection” impossible (a person could still defect in a formal manner) as much as make it impossible for a Catholic to be exempt from the requirements of canonical form, the disparity of cult impediment, and mixed marriage permission because of a formal defection.

It certainly closed the door on that possibility: from that date, no one can claim ‘formal defection’ in any way that has canonical effect.

Once *Omnium in mentem *came into force, no one can claim a marriage contracted after that date is valid because of formal defection.

Correct: both the marriage and the ‘formal defection’ would had to have taken place prior to 10/25/2009. However, if a formal case for annulment came before a tribunal today, and the formal defection was between the promulgation of the 1983 CIC and of Omnium in mentem, and the marriage was prior to the promulgation of Omnium, then the tribunal would have to take into consideration the possible effects of the ‘formal defection’, if it were presented to them as such.

Edited to add: I went back and re-read Bergon’s post: “following which formal defection from the Church no longer excuses one from observing canonical form.” If by that, he means that ‘formal defection’ is no longer able to be claimed in the context of a nullity proceeding, then he’s not quite correct. If, on the other hand, he only meant what you asserted, Dan – that it cannot be used for marriages contracted from 2009 onward – then yes, he’s correct. I had the feeling he was asserting that there was retroactive effect, however…

 

[dans0622]

…
Edited to add: I went back and re-read Bergon’s post: “following which formal defection from the Church no longer excuses one from observing canonical form.” If by that, he means that ‘formal defection’ is no longer able to be claimed in the context of a nullity proceeding, then he’s not quite correct. If, on the other hand, he only meant what you asserted, Dan – that it cannot be used for marriages contracted from 2009 onward – then yes, he’s correct. I had the feeling he was asserting that there was retroactive effect, however…

Hello,

Good. We are in agreement, then. As far as what “Bergon” meant, I don’t know.

I’d also point out that if we want to be very precise and accurate, the provisions of Omnium in mentem came into force on April 8, 2010, since it was officially promulgated in the January 8, 2010, edition of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis and the typical three-month waiting period should have applied (canon 8.1).

Dan

 

[Bergon]

To be clear on two points. I kmow Omnium in mentem came into effect three months after its promulgation in Acta Apostolicae Sedis and not the date on the bottom of the motu proprio. I also know laws have no retroactive effects unless the law specifically states it has such effects. I will, pedantically, correct my previous posts. If someone formally defected from the Catholic Church on or after Sunday 27th November 1983 but prior to Thursday 8th April 2010 and they married in the exact same period they were not bound by the Catholic Church’s canonical form of marriage. I honestly can’t be bothered to work out the other possible permutations of when one formally defected from the Catholic Church and was married.

 

[Gorgias]

I will, pedantically, correct my previous posts.

Why, thank you ever so much for stooping to be pedantic!
After all, in matters of the law, dealing with subtle distinctions and minutiae aren’t so much being pedantic as they are being precise, don’t you think?

In any case, you might have known that there aren’t retroactive effects wrt formal defections, but given the way you phrased your response, how were we to recognize that you had this understanding?

I honestly can’t be bothered to work out the other possible permutations of when one formally defected from the Catholic Church and was married.

Hmm. Sorry to have ‘bothered’ you…

(A person who searches for this topic, a year or two down the line, and comes across our discussion here, though… I can assure you that he’ll be grateful that we ‘bothered’… )