Point VIII. On the Impediment of Force or Fear

These few things must be established:

832. • I. Grave fear certainly invalidates matrimony by ecclesiastical law, and more probably also by the natural law ¹, as follows a fortiori from what was said concerning Contracts, volume 1, no. 780.

¹ Whichever law you say invalidates it, this impediment admits no dispensation; rather, it is necessary that the cause of fear be removed. Thus Alexander III, canon Cum locum 1, On Betrothals and Matrimony: Since consent has no place where fear or coercion intervenes, it is necessary that, where the assent of each is required, the material of coercion be removed.

Therefore, while the cause of fear perseveres, the invalid matrimony is revalidated neither through intercourse nor through cohabitation, for these things are otherwise presumed to have been extorted by fear. For while fear endures, just as matrimony cannot be validly contracted, so neither can an invalidly contracted matrimony be revalidated. It must be said otherwise if intercourse is admitted entirely freely and with marital affection, as the Doctors commonly hold after St. Thomas (In IV Sentences, distinction 29, question 1, article 3, minor question 2, reply to objection 2), or even if cohabitation is voluntary, which, according to canon Ad id 21, On Betrothals and Matrimony, is accepted as a ratification of consent. In this case, if the impediment was occult, it certainly will not be necessary to renew consent again before the Pastor, according to the general doctrine which Benedict XIV confirms from decrees of the Sacred Penitentiary issued by the authority of St. Pius V, Declarations of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, and the practice of the Sacred Roman Rota (Instruction 87, no. 62).

Nevertheless, it is not necessary also to admit what he himself adds, as though relying upon the authority of Sanchez (On Matrimony, book 2, disputation 36, no. 4), whom he highly praises, namely, that it is necessary for the other spouse also, who did not know the impediment, to be informed of it when the matrimony must be revalidated by new consent. For although Sanchez teaches this (l.c.) as more probable when the consent of each contracting party is invalid because of an impediment by which each is rendered incapable of contracting by the law itself, he nevertheless teaches the opposite concerning the present case, when there is question of a defect of consent alone, as also happens when either contracting party consents fictitiously. Thus he writes (On Matrimony, book 4, disputation 18, no. 2): Second, it must be supposed that if, after a matrimony extorted by fear, intercourse voluntarily had with conjugal affection follows, the prior matrimony is ratified and begins from that time to be valid, if the other party, who consented without fear, perseveres in the original consent. And the reason is that, since it is not necessary that the consents be simultaneous, and the consent of the one who did not suffer fear was legitimate, only the voluntary consent of the one who had consented through fear was wanting for the matrimony, as I said in book 4, disputation 15, no. 2. But this consent is sufficiently expressed through intercourse, etc., from chapter 15, question 30, On Betrothals. Therefore, when it follows, the prior matrimony is ratified. And in the same manner, a little later (ibid., no. 3), he reasons concerning consent expressed through lengthy mutual and voluntary cohabitation, confirming it from the explicit definition of the law in canon Ad id 21, On Betrothals and Matrimony. Therefore that opinion of Lambertini must be set aside, since it is not only destitute of foundation but also opposed to the dispositions of Canon law cited by Sanchez.

The following conditions, however, are required, namely, that the fear be instilled: 1. by an external and free cause; 2. unjustly; 3. for the end of contracting matrimony.

II. Light fear, even if unjust, does not invalidate matrimony ². The reason is: 1. because light fear is not considered to influence consent gravely and efficaciously; 2. because by positive law grave fear alone renders matrimony invalid; 3. because otherwise innumerable marriages would be invalid to the greatest detriment of society.

² In a doubt whether fear is to be considered grave, the common doctrine is that judgment must be made in favor of the validity of the matrimony, both because the cause of matrimony is favorable and because of reverence for the Sacrament, as Laymann says (book 5, treatise 10, part 2, chapter 5, no. 4). To this pertains the statement of Innocent III, canon Licet 47, On Witnesses and Attestations: It is more tolerable to leave some persons joined contrary to the statutes of men than to separate persons legitimately joined contrary to the statutes of the Lord. See Schmalzgrueber, book 4, title 1, no. 432.

The disagreement of the Doctors concerning the sufficiency of reverential fear is easily reconciled if you consider that this fear also, according to the variety of circumstances, is deservedly regarded sometimes as light and sometimes as grave, as was said in the Treatise On Human Acts. Thus Laymann with others, l.c., no. 3, who judges by a similar reason concerning importunate entreaties, which, according to the differing circumstances of persons, may be contradicted easily or only with great difficulty, as Sanchez, book 4, disputation 7, no. 7, Koninck, Lessius, etc., also note.