In your opinion, is this marriage valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church?
#21
(12-01-2020, 03:56 PM)SeekerofChrist Wrote: I wonder if this discussion of "legalese" is helpful to the OP?  Their question wasn't "does this couple have grounds for annulment" but is directed at easing concerns over the validity of a marriage both are happy in and want to remain in.  MagisterMusicae has provided a very easy solution for them: a simple renewal of their vows before a priest and two witnesses.  This is pretty simple.  I can recall a number of NO Masses where couples would do this (usually as part of an anniversary celebration).  There's really no need to concern the OP by acting like a moot court.

In several posts in this thread, yablabo has taken what appears to be quite a firm position that the man has clearly and unequivocally acted with malice, and that the marriage is therefore invalid.  However, without the showing of malice, I believe this entire episode is a tempest in a teapot.  It's one thing if the man had said, "Yes, I lied to you so that you would marry me because I wanted to get your father's money when he died." It's an entire different thing to say, "Yes, I lied because I was ashamed of my past, which I've reconciled, and I want to live the rest of my life with you because I love you."  The former scenario clearly contains malice, while the latter not so much, if at all. And while yes, they can simply renew the marital vows as was prescribed, under the circumstances that seems to imply that one, if not both, believed the marriage to have been invalid up to that point. In the long run, I'm not sure if this is what is necessary to keep the stability of the marriage.
Reply
#22
(12-01-2020, 03:31 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(12-01-2020, 02:18 PM)yablabo Wrote: Malice is legally determined by the use of unjust force, unjust coercion or false pretense.  

If you're going to rely upon a legal definition, as opposed to the ordinary definition and/or some other canonical definition, "false pretense" is not a condition per se to show malice.  To wit, and relying upon Black's Law Dictionary, 'malice' is defined by (1) the intent, without justification or excuse, to commit a wrongful act, (2) reckless disregard of the law or of a person's legal rights, or (3) ill will; wickedness of heart--maliciousness. Nowhere is 'false pretense' mentioned.

Further, and regarding the first point, it would appear that justification or excuse may apply in this situation.  Could one argue that being ashamed of one's past, coupled with the fear of undoing potential plans for a marriage, is justification or excuse?  Maybe.  If so, I don't think there is actual malice here, in either a general sense or a legal sense.  Canonically, maybe the term 'malice' has a different meaning than the definitions already provided.  However, short of that, I think it would be difficult to conclude that he acted with malice.

My intention is not to be unkind to you, sir, but I did not post a "legal definition" of the word malice.  I posted attributes which "legally determine" malice.

Additionally, a lie is never just or excused as every lie is an INTRINSIC evil (obviously either light or grave dependent upon the subject).  It is evil by the nature, not by the extrinsic components of the human act (i.e., intention and circumstance).  Therefore, there is never vitiation of the malice of a lie.

Your pursuit seems to be to make the cowardice which precedes the lie the factor which determines whether the lie was malicious or not.  All lies are malicious and come from Satan, the father of lies.  In fact, your conjecture pushes one to consider that if the man was presenting himself before the altar, having deceived his fiancée by malice, in grave fear of undoing potential plans for a marriage, could not validly consent himself as he would be in that case not approaching the sacrament freely and without coercion.
Reply
#23
(12-01-2020, 04:12 PM)yablabo Wrote: My intention is not to be unkind to you, sir, but I did not post a "legal definition" of the word malice.  I posted attributes which "legally determine" malice.

Additionally, a lie is never just or excused as every lie is an INTRINSIC evil (obviously either light or grave dependent upon the subject).  It is evil by the nature, not by the extrinsic components of the human act (i.e., intention and circumstance).  Therefore, there is never vitiation of the malice of a lie.

Your pursuit seems to be to make the cowardice which precedes the lie the factor which determines whether the lie was malicious or not.  All lies are malicious and come from Satan, the father of lies.  In fact, your conjecture pushes one to consider that if the man was presenting himself before the altar, having deceived his fiancée by malice, in grave fear of undoing potential plans for a marriage, could not validly consent himself as he would be in that case not approaching the sacrament freely and without coercion.

In post #2 of this thread, you included the text of Can. 1098, which states in part that "[a] person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice...," and unequivocally concluded that the woman had been "deceived by malice" and thus the marriage was clearly invalid. 

However, that Canon makes a distinction between simply being "deceived" (which is a lie) and "deceived by malice..." (which would be by a malicious lie).  If there is no distinction between the two, then there would be no need to include the term "by malice" in the Canon.  But it is there.  In that regard, and contrary to what you assert above, a simple lie (while I will agree is evil) is not enough to invalidate the marriage under the Canon you yourself cited and relied upon.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bonaventure's post:
  • Pandora
Reply
#24
(12-01-2020, 04:29 PM)Bonaventure Wrote:
(12-01-2020, 04:12 PM)yablabo Wrote: My intention is not to be unkind to you, sir, but I did not post a "legal definition" of the word malice.  I posted attributes which "legally determine" malice.

Additionally, a lie is never just or excused as every lie is an INTRINSIC evil (obviously either light or grave dependent upon the subject).  It is evil by the nature, not by the extrinsic components of the human act (i.e., intention and circumstance).  Therefore, there is never vitiation of the malice of a lie.

Your pursuit seems to be to make the cowardice which precedes the lie the factor which determines whether the lie was malicious or not.  All lies are malicious and come from Satan, the father of lies.  In fact, your conjecture pushes one to consider that if the man was presenting himself before the altar, having deceived his fiancée by malice, in grave fear of undoing potential plans for a marriage, could not validly consent himself as he would be in that case not approaching the sacrament freely and without coercion.

In post #2 of this thread, you included the text of Can. 1098, which states in part that "[a] person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice...," and unequivocally concluded that the woman had been "deceived by malice" and thus the marriage was clearly invalid. 

However, that Canon makes a distinction between simply being "deceived" (which is a lie) and "deceived by malice..." (which would be by a malicious lie).  If there is no distinction between the two, then there would be no need to include the term "by malice" in the Canon.  But it is there.  In that regard, and contrary to what you assert above, a simple lie (while I will agree is evil) is not enough to invalidate the marriage under the Canon you yourself cited and relied upon.

“To deceive” is not an equivocation of “to lie”.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)