What happens if a priest attempts to solemnize a marriage without an annulment?

[Vico]

… accustomed to sharing conjugal life with for years …
I am sure many widowed people go through the same thing. …

So there is not misunderstanding of terms, take, for example, radical sanation, which to be granted requires intention to preserve conjugal life: conjugal life does not mean sexual relations.

I am also sure there is suffering by those that separate as necessary. Giving scandal is a significant evil.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

… accustomed to sharing conjugal life with for years …

I am sure many widowed people go through the same thing. …

So there is not misunderstanding of terms, take, for example, radical sanation , which to be granted requires intention to preserve conjugal life: conjugal life does not mean sexual relations.

I was trying to be delicate in using the term “conjugal life” — I was indeed referring to sexual relations. You might never know it from my endless consciousness-raising and nagging over Humanae vitae and licit versus illicit use of NFP, but I am very much “old school” and I dislike discussing Sixth and Ninth Commandment issues in the presence of the female gender. So I try to use more oblique terms. In fact, if it weren’t for the gravity of such considerations — deliberately sought sexual pleasure outside of a marital relationship intrinsically ordered to the transmission of life (even if nature disallows that) being a mortal sin in the objective order — I probably wouldn’t express myself about it at all. Yet I must. Souls are at stake.

But I’m a bit puzzled — you say that radical sanation requires intention to “preserve conjugal life”, and then you go on to draw a distinction between conjugal life and sexual relations. Could you elaborate a bit? I’m not clear on where the distinction lies, unless by “conjugal” you simply mean “married life in general”.

 

[Vico]

…
But I’m a bit puzzled — you say that radical sanation requires intention to “preserve conjugal life”, and then you go on to draw a distinction between conjugal life and sexual relations. Could you elaborate a bit? I’m not clear on where the distinction lies, unless by “conjugal” you simply mean “married life in general”.

In radical sanation this consent must exist at the time of retroactivity and at the time of the grant. Consent includes the intent without condition or reservation, to give the normal rights of marriage necessary to have children. A marriage can be valid without consummation.

Three things make conjugal life:

• bond
• rights and obligations that flow from the bond
• common life in which these rights and obligations are exercised

In nullity and dissolution there is no bond. In separation the bond remains but there is suspension of rights and obligations except in some aspects. It is clear that a bond may exist even though there is no exercise of all rights or obligations.

 

[acanonlawyer]

As much of a “hardnose” as I am, I have even wondered if the Church could streamline the annulment process down to a personal interview with the person seeking the annulment, have them to write up an affidavit of what happened and when, swear it out under pain of mortal sin of perjury, and simply let that be the “evidence” of nullity. I could get behind that.

While the process itself could never be quite that brief, the evidence in some cases is nothing more than the testimony of one of the Parties. Sometimes, Judges conclude that the evidence is sufficient to declare the marriage invalid. One of the modifications made by Pope Francis back in 2015 was to change the wording of one of the canons so that it is understood that there are times when the testimony of one Party can be seen as “full proof” (see the new c. 1678).

Personally, I don’t think he changed anything in this regard: even before his modifications, there were times when the testimony of one Party was seen (by some Judges, anyway) as sufficient proof of invalidity: the old canons allowed for that possibility.

Dan

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

As much of a “hardnose” as I am, I have even wondered if the Church could streamline the annulment process down to a personal interview with the person seeking the annulment, have them to write up an affidavit of what happened and when, swear it out under pain of mortal sin of perjury, and simply let that be the “evidence” of nullity. I could get behind that.

While the process itself could never be quite that brief, the evidence in some cases is nothing more than the testimony of one of the Parties. Sometimes, Judges conclude that the evidence is sufficient to declare the marriage invalid. One of the modifications made by Pope Francis back in 2015 was to change the wording of one of the canons so that it is understood that there are times when the testimony of one Party can be seen as “full proof” (see the new c. 1678).

Personally, I don’t think he changed anything in this regard: even before his modifications, there were times when the testimony of one Party was seen (by some Judges, anyway) as sufficient proof of invalidity: the old canons allowed for that possibility.

I am very happy to know this. My impression has always been that you have to have a stack of evidence a foot high, and that it takes the tribunal eons to get through it. If I should ever apply for an annulment, in all honesty, I would pretty much only have my say-so and nothing else. Any factors existing at the time of the wedding, from my standpoint, would be so nebulous as to be meaningless. My wife’s testimony might be another thing entirely. She has never applied for an annulment, she has been with her illicit consort for nine years, and she knows what she needs to do, she just doesn’t do it. After they attempted marriage, I checked my mailbox daily for the letter from the tribunal I just assumed would be there in short order, and it never came. (And, yes, I did check with the diocese, and they told me nothing had ever been filed.)