Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:59:28.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Catholic View of Marriage in the New Code of Canon Law of 1983 and the Nullity of Marriage in Canon 1095

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2015

Peter J. Riga
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In our western judicial system, inherited from Roman Law, it is consent, and consent alone, which creates marriage. It is only a small step from the idea that it is the exchange of consent which creates marriage to the idea of marriage as a contract. In the canonical doctrine of the Code of 1917, the contractual nature of marriage was simply taken for granted. Yet, this contract was sui generis because there can be no mutual recision once the parties contractually agree by their consent. In addition, the marriage contract has special characteristics: it is necessary for the human race, it is of itself sacred, it deeply concerns the public order, it is restricted to members of the opposite sex and to the number (two) of contractants, and it is bilateral and reciprocal. These conditions specify the contract.

In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, it was consent which gave rise to the marriage contract. This consent had to be manifested by persons who are capable of consent: jure habiles. This code did not speak of a specific capability relative to marriage. The reality of capability, however, was known because it arose from natural law. For Cardinal Gasparri, author of the 1917 Code, someone born blind, deaf, and dumb is an idiot who is assimilated to a child and therefore is incapable of contracting marriage.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Law and Religion , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , 1992 , pp. 515 - 544
Copyright
Copyright © Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bouscaren, T.L. & Ellis, A.C., Canon Law 50–54 (2d ed. 1951)Google Scholar.

2. Woywod, S. & Smith, C., A Practical Commentary on the Code of Cannon Law 14–25 (1943)Google Scholar.

3. Gasparri, P., De Matrimonio 15 n.786 (1932)Google Scholar.

4. Coriden, J.A., Green, T.J. & Heintschel, D., The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary (1985)Google Scholar. This text contains the new Code and all references will be to this English translation.

5. Id. at 775.

6. P. Gasparri, supra note 3, at 12 n.763.

7. See T.L. Bouscaren & A.C. Elus, supra note 1, at 184-85.

8. Sententia Mexicana # 20.04, 104 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 386 (1979)(Judge Pinto)Google Scholar. The Monitor Ecclesiasticus, Sacrae Romanae Rotae Sententia, Ephemerides Juris Canonici are all official, reporting journals of canonical decisions.

9. Sententia 22.01, #24, 36 Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones 46 (1944)(Wynen, Judge)Google Scholar.

10. See T.L. Bouscaren & A.C. Ellis, supra note 1, at 14, 86, 140.

11. Gaudium et Spes, # 47, H 1, # 48, ¶ 1, 58 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1028–1115 (1966)Google Scholar.

12. Id.

13. Matt. 19:6.

14. Sacramentum 18.11, # 6, 34 Ephamerides Juris Canonici 347 (1978)(Serrano, Judge)Google Scholar.

15. Novae Aureliae 05. 04, # 6 (1973), 101 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 111–12 (1976)(Serrano, Judge)Google Scholar.

16. Sententia of 28.11, # 5 (1978), 104 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 169 (1979)(Ferraro, Judge)Google Scholar.

17. See T.L. Bouscaren & A.C. Ellis, supra note 1, at 104-05.

18. See J.A. Coriden et al., supra note 4, at Canon 1801, § 2.

19. See T.L. Bouscaren & A.C. Ellis, supra note 1, at 104-05.

20. See J.A. Coriden et al., supra note 4, at Canon 97, ¶ 2.

21. For an interesting analysis, see Romana, 07.11, # 9, 106 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 157 (1981)(Serrano, Judge)Google Scholar.

22. See J.A. Coriden et al., supra note 4, at Canon 1095, ¶ 2.

23. 2 0. Giacchi, , Consenso nel Matrimonio Canonico 23 (1973)Google Scholar.

24. Sententia tarvisina seu Venetiarium, 08.07, # 2, 66 Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones 497–98 (1974)(Pinto, Judge)Google Scholar.

25. Id.

26. Graeca-Segovien, 13.11, # 4, 105 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 31 (1979)(Raad, Judge)Google Scholar.

27. Sententia of 25.02, 33 Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones 145–48 (1941)Google Scholar.

28. See J.A. Coriden et al., supra note 4, at Canon 1095, § 2.

29. Vivarian, 01.12, # 9-10, 59 Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones 802–04 (1967)(Lefebre, Judge)Google Scholar.

30. Ottavian, 23.07, 107 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 176–83 (1981)(Stankiewicz, Judge)Google Scholar.

31. Mazaraian, 16.12, 58 Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones 938 (1966)(Filipiak, Judge)Google Scholar.

32. Mediolanen, 12.12 (1970), 96 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 41 (1971)(Difelice, Judge)Google Scholar.

33. Tarvisina seu Venetiarium, 07.08, 66 Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones 500 (1974)(Pinto, Judge)Google Scholar.

34. Januen, 24.02, 53 Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones 118 (1961)(Sabatanni, Judge)Google Scholar.

35. See J.A. Coriden et al., supra note 4, at 740, Canon 1055, ¶ 1.

36. Sententia 17.01 (1970), 98 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 99 (1973)(Lefebre, Judge)Google Scholar.

37. 25.02 (1969), 96 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 22–23 (1971)(Anne, Judge)Google Scholar; 61 Sacrae Romanae Rotae Decisiones 174-92.

38. Id. at 11.

39. See Navarrette, , Incapacitias Assumendi Onera Uti Caput Autonomum Nullitatis Matrimonii, 61 Periodica 47–60 (1972)Google Scholar.

40. Sententia 15.06 (1978), 104 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 48–50 (1979)(Stankiewicz, Judge)Google Scholar.

41. See J.A. Coriden et al., supra note 4, at 775, Canon 1095, ¶¶ 1-3.

42. Albien, 21.04, 97 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 52–53 (1971)(Masala, Judge)Google Scholar; 63 Sacrae Romanae Rotae Sententia 302.

43. See J.A. Coriden et al., supra note 4, at Canon 1095, § 3.

44. Graeca-Segovien, 13.11 (1979), 105 Monitor Ecclesiasticus 39 (1980)(Raad, Judge)Google Scholar.