It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 1:07 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
 Novus Ordo Annulments & Supplied Jurisdiction 
Author Message

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Novus Ordo Annulments & Supplied Jurisdiction
If this has been treated before, a simple link to a prior discussion would do. I spent some time combing through the google and was not satisfied.

Under common error, could a Novus Ordo annulment possibly be valid? A very dear family member is currently pursuing one. I've voiced my concerns and can do nothing else but pray. I know that some time down the road, I will likely be facing an invitation to this possible wedding.

I wouldn't trust a NO tribunal as far as I could throw one, but abuses aside, is it at all possible that this person could receive an actual annulment according to canon 209? I know what is required for the validity of a marriage, and I know that the Novus Ordo has added about every defect regarded by the APA to that list. In this case, we may assume that the cause for nullity is a traditional cause for nullity. It may actually be.

Additionally, touching on the moral aspect, does anyone have any good resources for my own responsibilities as regard this situation? If the tribunal declares nullity, must I also reach moral certainty on the nullity (with my own "investigation") to regard it as invalid, and therefore regard the subsequent marriage as valid? Because I don't regard the Novus Ordo as the Catholic Church, I don't see how I could have moral certainty based on their decision alone. It also seems that a mental reservation toward a possible "second marriage" (regarding it as invalid internally, but for practical purposes and interactions, treating it as valid) wouldn't be appropriate because of the scandal involved.

Any prayers for this situation are appreciated as well. Thanks guys.


Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:53 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Novus Ordo Annulments & Supplied Jurisdiction
Nightmare.

I fully appreciate your circumstances - I have had to react to several similar ones myself. It's frequently a no-win situation, without being able to rely 100% on the advice of trad clergy, including or especially sede ones (they usually regard many post-V2 marriages as invalid which I think are at least arguably valid, and marriage enjoys the favour of the law), and with incredibly curly moral questions as you have posed, in relation to scandal etc.

In most cases at least the actual annulment is just bulldust anyway - lack of sufficient maturity to realise that marriage is permanent, or some such complete rubbish - so that much is not generally too difficult to decide. But the scandal aspect is insoluble. Whatever happens it is very difficult to maintain the rights and reputation of religion. This is the true scandal of the Novus Ordo, posing as the Church and ruining her reputation in so many ways, from the moral collapse of its clergy to apologies for the crusades, to fake annulments, and of course the greatest scandal of all, the repeated violation of the First Commandment. What conservative Protestant is not utterly disgusted by those?

_________________
In Christ our King.


Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:02 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:08 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Novus Ordo Annulments & Supplied Jurisdiction
Thanks for your sympathies, Mr. Lane. Nightmare is right. Do you have an opinion on whether or not jurisdiction could be supplied under common error? If so, would the existence of a diriment impediment (e.g., mistaken identity) be enough for the jurisdiction to be supplied, or would the tribunal actually have to declare it null according to that diriment impediment?

In other words, say that I can establish with moral certainty that the first marriage was invalid, due to mistaken identity (e.g.). Then the NO tribunal declares it invalid, but instead of saying it's invalid because the marriage was predicated upon mistaken identity, the tribunal cites the reason for invalidity as "psychological differences." In order for jurisdiction to be supplied for that act, would the NO tribunal actually need to find validity lacking due to some defect enumerated in the 1917 code, or could the jurisdiction be supplied anyways, so long as some defect exists, even if not discovered (or cited) by the NO tribunal?


Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:03 pm
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Novus Ordo Annulments & Supplied Jurisdiction
Dear Mithrandylan

I'll give you my thoughts, but I'm not sure I have any definitive answers for you.

Mithrandylan wrote:
Do you have an opinion on whether or not jurisdiction could be supplied under common error?


Miaskiewicz says that there are no jurisdictional acts for which jurisdiction cannot be supplied, so in principle the answer would seem to be "yes". However...

One needs to think about the nature of the act constituted by of a declaration of nullity. Such an act seems to me to consist of two aspects: one is that it is a judgement of fact, and the second is that it authoritatively binds all to accept, in the external forum, that the judgement is correct. The practical effects of a declaration are several also, and need to be pondered. I'll come back to these effects.

The supply of jurisdiction has nothing to do with the first aspect - it does not touch on questions of truth or error. Further, despite a comment made by Miaskiewicz* to the effect that supplied jurisdiction is, for example, ordinary jurisdiction merely supplied in a different way (or delegated jurisdiction supplied in a different way, etc.), the supply of jurisdiction is not in the nature of an authorisation to bind subjects, but rather it is in the nature of an intervention to ensure an act is valid when it would otherwise not be so. (*Miaskiewicz says, "Supplied jurisdiction, then, is a jurisdiction, be it ordinary or delegated, which is bestowed in an extraordinary manner." p. 27.) This is a crucial point, given the nature of jurisdiction, which is a power over subjects, the power to govern.

As I understand it, supplied jurisdiction doesn't make the putative ruler's rulings binding when they would otherwise not be so, it makes any acts of his which would otherwise be invalid, valid. So, it makes confessions valid which would otherwise be invalid by defect of faculties (i.e. a form of jurisdiction, for the internal forum only). Likewise it makes an appointment he makes of an individual to an office valid which would otherwise be invalid due to his lack of true authority, etc. To provide a crude analogy, one can think of it as a one-way valve. The goods that a putative superior attempts to provide are validated by the supply of jurisdiction; the acts by which he seeks to bind those who are not truly his subjects remain invalid. That's what I think is the case, anyway, from reading the law, and the commentators, including Miaskiewicz. And it means that his comment, "Supplied jurisdiction, then, is a jurisdiction, be it ordinary or delegated, which is bestowed in an extraordinary manner," is potentially misleading.

So, coming back to our second aspect of the public judgement of nullity, how can the community be bound to accept a judgement which emanates from a false authority? I have seen nothing in the literature that so much as hints that the supply of jurisdiction would have such a quality.

The practical effects of a declaration of nullity are several. It has the obvious and principle effect of legally clearing the way for a new marriage. Second, it has the effect that most people will happily conform their own judgement to that of the tribunal, so that the community has peace in unanimity in a matter which is essentially social (i.e. marriage, a social institution, relevant to all and not just to the two who get married).

The second effect simply doesn't actually occur with Novus Ordo declarations of nullity. That is, the effect only occurs amongst a (large) subset of (arguable) Catholics, those who are mired in the Novus Ordo, and even then only most of those, with many "conservative" types expressing dissent about many such declarations. Amongst the more well-informed Catholics, those with the strongest faith, the traditionalists, it has no such effect. The point to be noticed here is that I do not think that scandal can be avoided - it arises inevitably from the bad behaviour of the Novus Ordo tribunals, and our reactions, whatever they are, can hardly do more than slightly mitigate some scandal in some individuals, perhaps. It's a mess.

Now, regarding the first effect, how is this done? By dissolving, legally, an existing marriage (I mean, of course, a marriage existing in the eyes of the law, but which in fact is null). But marriage enjoys the favour of the law, which means that the onus of proof is on the party which wishes to dissolve it. Is a decree of nullity intrinsically a good granted by the ruler? Would a decree legally dissolving an existing marriage be considered an act which would attract the supply of jurisdiction? I simply do not know. I am tempted to argue that it would depend, case by case, upon the truth or otherwise of the judgement, but that seems an impractical doctrine, to say the least. I simply don't know the answer.

Mithrandylan wrote:
If so, would the existence of a diriment impediment (e.g., mistaken identity) be enough for the jurisdiction to be supplied, or would the tribunal actually have to declare it null according to that diriment impediment?


Good question. I don't know, but I think you can tell from what I've written that I doubt it.

Mithrandylan wrote:
In other words, say that I can establish with moral certainty that the first marriage was invalid, due to mistaken identity (e.g.). Then the NO tribunal declares it invalid, but instead of saying it's invalid because the marriage was predicated upon mistaken identity, the tribunal cites the reason for invalidity as "psychological differences." In order for jurisdiction to be supplied for that act, would the NO tribunal actually need to find validity lacking due to some defect enumerated in the 1917 code, or could the jurisdiction be supplied anyways, so long as some defect exists, even if not discovered (or cited) by the NO tribunal?


I don't know, but I'm not sure it matters from your point of view. You're merely trying to undo whatever scandal you can, and not add to the scandal given by the tribunal. I would think you could achieve your end by pointing out to people to whom it might be helpful that the marriage was not valid for the reason that you have noted, even if that's not what the tribunal declared. In cases where the tribunal has based its judgement upon a novel principle, I'd say you'd simply not accept it.

In any case I do not think you are under any obligation at all to investigate the marriage yourself in the hope that your own judgement will coincide with that of the tribunal, in order to avoid scandal. And the odds there will be an obvious impediment that any layman can form a really solid judgement of nullity upon are really, really, long...

_________________
In Christ our King.


Thu Dec 19, 2013 2:21 am
Profile E-mail
Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pm
Posts: 4333
New post Re: Novus Ordo Annulments & Supplied Jurisdiction
On the nature of jurisdiction, as distinct from, for example, dominative power.

Quote:
Suarez, while admitting other points of distinction, considered the following three as the main differences. Dominative power is, first of all, essentially concerned with private persons, or members of an imperfect society. Jurisdictional power, on the other hand, is an essentially necessary attribute of a perfect society. It logically follows, therefore, that jurisdictional power possesses a stronger, more highly sanctioned power of coercion. The third difference is that, as a rule, dominative power is more for the convenience of the party endowed with it than for the party over whom it is exercised. Jurisdictional power, in further contrast, is essentially more social in character. The person in whom lies vested even the slightest participation of that power is obligated always to act for the good of the perfect society of which he is only a member.


This supports the general principle I have been expressing, which is that the Church does not supply jurisdiction for any act which is contrary to the common good of the Church. If she strictly obliges her members with jurisdiction always to act for the good of the Church, then she would hardly supply jurisdiction for acts which are contrary to that same good.

_________________
In Christ our King.


Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:16 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.