More Interesting Marriage/Annulment Questions From Readers
Joe emailed me the following interesting scenarios, which he had been discussing among friends. I thought might be fun to answer on the blog:
1. At the time of marriage, a couple seemingly has all the requirements of a valid marriage, including both persons’ intentions to have a permanent, monogamous marriage. 2. At the time of the annulment process, one of the spouses is blatantly and manifestly adulterous. Does such “behavior”, ipso facto, prove that the spouse’s intention at the time of marriage was not to be permanent and monogamous? Or is such behavior merely evidence to be considered in determining the intention at the time of marriage? Or is our premise completely incorrect about current conduct or state of mind being of any relevance to the state of mind at the time of marriage?
It would depend. Basically, one would have to take various circumstances into account. For example, if the couple were faithful to one another during the courtship, and their common life lasted for years before one of the parties entered into an adulterous relationship, then all other things being equal, such behavior would not be indicative of an intention against fidelity at the time of the wedding. Rather, it would be indicative to me of a marriage that was validly entered into, and subsequently broke down. So unless there was additional grounds to consider, I would be morally compelled to rule in the negative, that is to say, that the marriage has not been proven with moral certitude to be invalid.
On the other hand, supposing the adulterous party was unfaithful throughout the courtship, but kept promising the other party (as well as him or herself) that he or she would be faithful once the vows were exchanged. However, he or she reneges early on within the common life, and it becomes apparent that he or she will find fidelity difficult throughout the common life, and will periodically engage in adulterous affairs. In this scenario, the Rota has agreed that the adultery would be a strong indication of an intention (albeit likely implicit) of an intention against fidelity on the part of the adulterous party, since it fits in with an overall pattern that preceded the wedding and actions speak louder than words.
Second scenario:
1. At the time of marriage, a couple intends on practicing artificial contraception. In fact, they intended on remaining childless. 2. Later, they become faithful Catholics and practice NFP — and have children. Did they have a sacramental marriage initially? If not, did it “become” a sacramental marriage at the later date? If so, how?
If their intention to remain childless can be proven, and one of the parties wishes to challenge the validity of the marriage, then all other things being equal, the marriage is invalid. This is regardless of whether sacramental (between two baptized) or natural (where only one or neither party is baptized.) This is because marriage is entered into at the time the marital consent is exchanged. Nevertheless, all marriages are presumed valid until the contrary is proven. Therefore, unless one of the parties wishes to challenge the validity of the marriage, which would seem unlikely in this case, the presumption that the marriage is valid stands. Pastorally, couples who rediscover their faith and become more devout in their faith, but still have concerns that their marriage may be invalid despite the presumption of validity, can always approach the priest and request a renewal of consent. This isn’t the most common reason why couples will renew their marriage vows, but it is not an uncommon reason either.