Section 1. Error.

636. On the Defect Itself. 1. Error concerning the very nature or object of the contract renders matrimony invalid, because when the object is lacking, no matrimonial contract exists. Thus if either party should think that matrimony is a society entered for managing domestic affairs. At least this much must be known by the contracting parties: that matrimony is a society entered for procreating children, and that for obtaining this end the concurrence of one's own body is necessary, and therefore that there is conceded to the other party the right over one's own body insofar as it is necessary for procreating children.¹

Error concerning the essential properties (unity, indissolubility) or sacramental dignity of matrimony does not render the consent null, provided the contracting party wills to enter true matrimony, or to contract according to the manner of others.² For in this case he has two intentions, one general, of entering true matrimony, the other erroneous, of entering, e.g., a soluble matrimony. Now that general intention prevails, even if he would not have contracted had he known it was indissoluble. Nevertheless, one who is so disposed in mind that he expressly does not will indissoluble matrimony does not contract validly.

2. Error concerning the person itself with whom one contracts renders matrimony invalid: for in the matrimonial contract, otherwise than in other contracts, the person constitutes the substantial object of the contract.³

Therefore one who from error contracts with another person, not with the one whom he himself intends, as if someone contracts with Lia thinking her to be Rachel, does not contract, even if, once the truth was known, he would nevertheless have contracted.

3. Error concerning the quality of the person which redounds into the person itself.⁴ Now in a twofold case error concerning quality is judged to redound into the person itself: a. if the quality is a condition of consent, that is, if consent is given only dependently on the existence of some quality, as if someone is unwilling to marry Bertha unless she is noble; b. if the quality is determinative of the person, that is, if the quality in the mind of the contracting party determines a person otherwise unknown and known from this quality alone.

If therefore someone wishes to contract with the firstborn daughter, but the second-born daughter, who pretends that she is the firstborn, is offered to him, there will be no matrimony.

Error concerning a quality of the person, which does not redound into error of the person, does not render matrimony invalid: for what does not remove substantial consent to a determinate person does not invalidate matrimony. Therefore if someone marries Anna thinking that she is noble, a virgin, rich, healthy, when she is not, the matrimony has force, even if he believed Anna falsely asserting this. Although in other contracts antecedent error caused by fraud renders the contract invalid, or rather rescindable, nevertheless it does not render matrimony invalid, provided the error does not redound into the person, because of the common good and because of the indissoluble nature of the matrimonial contract. For few marriages are contracted in which there does not lie beneath, on either side, some accidental error, which is not rarely also caused by fraud.

Note. These errors dirimently impede matrimony by natural law: for true, free, and deliberate consent to the object of the contract is required from the very nature of the contract. Therefore they dirimently impede the matrimony of all persons, faithful and infidels.⁵

4. Error of a free person concerning the servile condition, by slavery properly so called, of the person with whom he or she contracts matrimony, makes the matrimony invalid.⁶

a. In order that ignorance concerning the servile condition dirimently impede matrimony, three things are required: a. slavery, and perfect slavery, of one party; b. liberty of the other party; c. on the part of the free person, ignorance of the slavery of the other party.

From these things it follows that matrimony entered between two parties subject to slavery is valid, and likewise that matrimony entered between a free party and a slave is valid if the free party knows the servile condition of the other party.

b. Although error concerning a quality of the person which does not redound into the person itself does not dirimently impede matrimony, nevertheless by ecclesiastical law error concerning the quality of the servile condition must be excepted. There are indeed errors concerning other qualities also which are of greater moment in matrimony, such as concerning the lack of virginity, concerning epileptic or syphilitic disease; but the Church has not constituted error concerning these qualities a diriment impediment of matrimony, even if it was caused by fraud. Nevertheless civil codes establish that error concerning certain qualities dirimently impedes matrimony.

This error invalidates matrimony by ecclesiastical law, from which it follows that matrimony entered between a free infidel and an infidel slave is valid, even if the free party was ignorant of the servile condition of the other party.

Error of servile condition does not dirimently impede matrimony by natural law, because the servile condition does not absolutely exclude the essential goods of matrimony. But because it is opposed in some measure to these goods, by the best right the Church established this impediment. "It is opposed," says Busenbaum, "a. to the good of the sacrament, since a slave cannot cohabit with the spouse against the will of the master; b. to the good of conjugal fidelity, since he cannot render the debt at the will of the other; c. to the good of offspring, since a slave acquires all things for the master, nor does offspring remain in the power of the parents, so that it can be educated religiously."

¹ Cn. 1082, 1.

² Cn. 1084.

³ Cn. 1083.

⁴ Cn. 1083.

⁵ Cf. Gen. 29, 24.

⁶ Cn. 1083, 2, 2.