Post by Pacelli on Jan 7, 2024 14:44:30 GMT -5
Background: It came to my attention recently that a Catholic has privately determined a marriage case, specifically deciding on the persons's own personal judgment that an impediment existed, thereby judging the marriage null, and based on that judgment, the person has remarried, and is convinced that this is a moral act. I will also add that in this case, there are numerous children from the marriage, so the damage and scandal goes far beyond the person's self-judgment of nullity.
The problem with this should be obvious. Annulments must be decided by authority, as it is to this authority that one can trust that the case has been unbiasedly judged and one can rely on this judgment, and trust that the judgment is authoritative, as that authority is the Church. Even if one is convinced that one has lawful grounds for an annulment, in the absence of the pope during a time of extended sedevacante, one cannot act on this, and settle the case on their own.
I would like to add one more point to this, that besides an annulment, the teaching of the Church is very clear even on matters of a marital separation. A couple may not even separate from each other, living apart, except for grave reasons, and even in regards to these grave reasons, the only reason for a permanent separation is adultery. The Church must grant permission to separate, and even that was a matter that needed to be judged and given approval for, not just done on one's own. If the couple isn't getting along, they must deal with that and work it out. Separation is not an option, except in grave cases, and with the exception of adultery, the couple has a duty to reunite if the grave conditions that caused the separation are no longer present.
The following is taken from Nullity of Marriage, Sheed, 1959, pp. 102-105, all emphasis added. I have transcribed some of the relevant text, but the entire book is free and available on archive.org linked HERE
Some points to consider from the above:
1. Even Church courts can make mistakes on the matter of nullity, as there may be incorrect information given on the case by the parties or witnesses to the judge. The obvious manner that this may happen is through deception on the part of one or both parties. Since even the judge commissioned by the Church can make a mistake, how much more so can an individual pretending that he can judge his own case, who most likely is biased, even if the bias is not deliberate, seeking a favorable decision from himself.
2. If one or both are party to their own case, and the party is the judge of the case, the matter will be obvious that the judgment will most likely be in favor of what the person wants, not the truth.
3. Even if someone is convinced that there are legitimate grounds that the marriage doesn't exist, they may not act on this until the Church judges the case.
4. Following that, it is explicitly clear, that one may never be the judge of one's own case. Sheed gives three reasons: "This is necessary to avoid scandal, to prevent serious irregularities, and to make quite certain that the new marriage is valid."
5. Out of the three reasons, the greatest for those, in my opinion, is that remarrying without a judgment of nullity from the Church, by self-judging one's own case, is obviously the fact that one cannot have any certainty that the new marriage is valid, and this new union may be an adulterous union, and must be treated as such.
The problem with this should be obvious. Annulments must be decided by authority, as it is to this authority that one can trust that the case has been unbiasedly judged and one can rely on this judgment, and trust that the judgment is authoritative, as that authority is the Church. Even if one is convinced that one has lawful grounds for an annulment, in the absence of the pope during a time of extended sedevacante, one cannot act on this, and settle the case on their own.
I would like to add one more point to this, that besides an annulment, the teaching of the Church is very clear even on matters of a marital separation. A couple may not even separate from each other, living apart, except for grave reasons, and even in regards to these grave reasons, the only reason for a permanent separation is adultery. The Church must grant permission to separate, and even that was a matter that needed to be judged and given approval for, not just done on one's own. If the couple isn't getting along, they must deal with that and work it out. Separation is not an option, except in grave cases, and with the exception of adultery, the couple has a duty to reunite if the grave conditions that caused the separation are no longer present.
The following is taken from Nullity of Marriage, Sheed, 1959, pp. 102-105, all emphasis added. I have transcribed some of the relevant text, but the entire book is free and available on archive.org linked HERE
We now come to a point of quite enormous importance. In Church law a decree of nullity is merely a declaration; it does not altar the facts. The court decides on the facts presented to it, it gives a decree either for nullity or for validity. But if, either by accident or by design of the parties, it has not all the facts, or if has falsehood offered to it as truth, then its decision may be erroneous. The decree does not and cannot possibly alter the fact; two people are married to another or they are not. Nothing any court will say will altar that thus, if an erroneous decree of nullity is given, the marriage is still null.
What then is the point of the decree? Simply this: Whenever there has been the appearance of marriage, if one or both of the parties wish to dispute its reality, they are not allowed simply to decide their own case. No matter how obvious it may seem that the marriage is null, the Church insists that her members shall not be judge in their own case, shall not marry someone else until a decree from the Church has been obtained. This is necessary to avoid scandal, to prevent serious irregularities, and to make quite certain that the new marriage is valid. Even given high doctrinal and legal competence, an interested party may not be the best judge.
The decision once given means that the parties are now free in conscience to marry a third person - provided that they do not know of some fact not placed before the court which would have affected the decision. Given absolute honesty in the parties, a mistake by the court in declaring for nullity is practically impossible. But if it did occur, and the court gave a decree of nullity mistakenly, the original marriage would still exist; the parties might contract another union - and they would not be in sin (since they had acted honestly throughout) - but the second union would not be a marriage; the first marriage still stands, and, while both parties are alive, neither can marry again.
A decree of a matrimonial court is not infallible, and is never final. It is not res judicata-that is, it may always be reopened if fresh evidence comes to hand...
What then is the point of the decree? Simply this: Whenever there has been the appearance of marriage, if one or both of the parties wish to dispute its reality, they are not allowed simply to decide their own case. No matter how obvious it may seem that the marriage is null, the Church insists that her members shall not be judge in their own case, shall not marry someone else until a decree from the Church has been obtained. This is necessary to avoid scandal, to prevent serious irregularities, and to make quite certain that the new marriage is valid. Even given high doctrinal and legal competence, an interested party may not be the best judge.
The decision once given means that the parties are now free in conscience to marry a third person - provided that they do not know of some fact not placed before the court which would have affected the decision. Given absolute honesty in the parties, a mistake by the court in declaring for nullity is practically impossible. But if it did occur, and the court gave a decree of nullity mistakenly, the original marriage would still exist; the parties might contract another union - and they would not be in sin (since they had acted honestly throughout) - but the second union would not be a marriage; the first marriage still stands, and, while both parties are alive, neither can marry again.
A decree of a matrimonial court is not infallible, and is never final. It is not res judicata-that is, it may always be reopened if fresh evidence comes to hand...
Some points to consider from the above:
1. Even Church courts can make mistakes on the matter of nullity, as there may be incorrect information given on the case by the parties or witnesses to the judge. The obvious manner that this may happen is through deception on the part of one or both parties. Since even the judge commissioned by the Church can make a mistake, how much more so can an individual pretending that he can judge his own case, who most likely is biased, even if the bias is not deliberate, seeking a favorable decision from himself.
2. If one or both are party to their own case, and the party is the judge of the case, the matter will be obvious that the judgment will most likely be in favor of what the person wants, not the truth.
3. Even if someone is convinced that there are legitimate grounds that the marriage doesn't exist, they may not act on this until the Church judges the case.
4. Following that, it is explicitly clear, that one may never be the judge of one's own case. Sheed gives three reasons: "This is necessary to avoid scandal, to prevent serious irregularities, and to make quite certain that the new marriage is valid."
5. Out of the three reasons, the greatest for those, in my opinion, is that remarrying without a judgment of nullity from the Church, by self-judging one's own case, is obviously the fact that one cannot have any certainty that the new marriage is valid, and this new union may be an adulterous union, and must be treated as such.