Case XVII: The Marriage Impediment of Error

George married Emma, because he thought she had considerable money, and that she was a good woman and of real refinement. George was a Catholic and Emma was a Methodist. They were married by the Methodist minister. This happened before the Ne temere decree went into force at Easter, 1908. After the marriage, George discovered that Emma had no means of any kind, and that she was an adventuress and a woman of very loose life. As soon as he discovered this he left her, and she went off with another man. George sued for, and obtained, a divorce in the civil court. He now wishes to have the Church annul this marriage. His grounds are that he was completely deceived by this woman, that he thought he was marrying a wholly different person and that he never would have married her had he not been thoroughly deceived as to who and what she was. Moreover, there is no evidence that she was ever baptized. She was more a nominal Methodist than anything else. Is there any hope that the Church might annul this marriage?

Answer:—Before discussing this case, we must explain briefly in what the impediment of error consists, in as far as it acts as a destructive bar to a valid marriage. In the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian says, in his decree:

"Not every error excludes consent, but one error concerns the person, another fortune, another condition, and another quality. Error concerning the person occurs when this man is thought to be Virgil but is Plato. Error concerning fortune occurs when this man is thought rich but is poor. Error concerning condition occurs when one is thought to be free but is a slave. Error concerning quality occurs when one is thought to be good but is wicked. Error concerning fortune and quality does not exclude marital consent. Error concerning the person and condition, however, does not admit marital consent" (c. 29, q. 1).

In Canon Law, by the condition of a person is meant, not a person's social, financial or moral condition, but whether a person is a freeman or a slave. Again the Canon Law distinguishes two kinds of error, as affecting marriage: Error juris, i. e., when one is in error or mistaken concerning the essential qualities of marriage, its indissolubility, fidelity, unity, etc; and error facti, when one is mistaken concerning a person's social, moral or financial position. In the case here submitted, it is evident that we have to do with an error of fact. George was mistaken concerning Emma's moral and financial condition, that is, about her qualities. Now an error of fact, concerning a person's qualities, diriments marriage in three cases:

1. If one marry a slave, thinking she is a free woman;

2. If the condition is made a part of the contract, and that expressly; v. g., if George says expressly: "I marry Emma only on the condition that she is a good woman or a rich woman";

3. When the error concerning another's qualities affects that individual's person, redundat in personam; v. g., a man wants to marry the oldest daughter of a family, but not knowing her personally, he marries this woman here present, believing her to be the oldest daughter.

In these three cases, the error is said to be a substantial error of fact, and diriments the marriage. All other mistakes or errors concerning a person's qualities or condition do not diriment a subsequent marriage, because they do not affect the substance of the marriage contract, but are considered a side-issue. They render the consent given in the marriage more easy, more prompt, but they are not the cause of the consent, or rather the consent is not primarily concerned with them, but with the substance of the marriage contract, and only secondarily with them. In our case, if George had known, when he married Emma, that she was a bad woman, he never would have married her. Granted. But that intention is only an interpretative intention, that is, if George had known, he would not have married. An interpretative intention is no intention. The only intention George had, as a matter of fact, when he married Emma, was to marry Emma. The Church could, if she wished, make such deception as practised by Emma a diriment impediment. The civil law voids many contracts, when procured by fraud. But the Church expressly abstains from doing so, in order not to open the door wide to much litigation and to endless doubts and dissensions.

The case. George's error concerning Emma's qualities when he married her in no wise affects the validity of his marriage. Many similar cases have been referred to the Holy See, and the invariable answer has been: valet matrimonium. What was George's chief and principal purpose when he accompanied Emma to the Methodist church? To contract a valid marriage with her. That he thought she was rich and good was quite a secondary consideration, a minor issue, in no way affecting or interfering with his main purpose, to wed Emma. If he had known the truth, he would have done otherwise. Certainly he would. But as a matter of fact he did not know the truth, and de facto, he had no intention of doing otherwise. There was no error personae vel conditionis; there was only an error fortunae et qualitatis. And that kind of an error does not diriment marriage.

As far as any error was concerned, therefore, there is practically no hope that the Church will declare George's marriage to Emma null and void.

As regards an annulment on the grounds that Emma was unbaptized at the time of her marriage, and therefore was barred from a valid marriage with George, propter disparitatem cultus, they having obtained no dispensation, there is little prospect that an annulment would be granted on that score. If it could be proven beyond doubt, that Emma had never been baptized, then, of course, the marriage is null and void from the beginning. But after a marriage, that is never presumed or taken for granted. On the contrary, every such marriage will be held to be valid, until, de facto, it is proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that it was invalid. And in this connection, it must be observed, that what would be considered "beyond reasonable doubt" by our civil courts, would not be considered so, always, by the Church. In these matters, the Church has her own standards, which, particularly in this matter, differ considerably from the standards followed by our civil law courts. If Emma belonged to a sect that did not believe in baptism nor practise it, she would naturally have to be considered unbaptized. But she was a member, and evidently born and brought up in a sect that believes in and practises baptism, and therefore post factum, that is after her marriage, and in order precisely, to make the marriage valid, Emma will be looked upon by the Church authorities as having been validly baptized in the Methodist Church and therefore validly, although illicitly, married to George, and there is no hope of an annulment on this ground either, unless more evidence be produced, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Emma was never validly baptized. As far as a new marriage is concerned, in the Catholic Church, George will have to wait until Emma dies, or else produce evidence, sufficient in the eyes of the Church, to prove that Emma, at the time of her marriage to him, was unbaptized.