Chapter VI. On Invalidating Law

An invalidating law is that which establishes that some act is invalid from the beginning, or is to be invalidated by the sentence of a judge; and therefore some laws invalidate by the fact itself, while others do so only after sentence. Besides, some are invalidating absolutely, and others conditionally, namely if the required conditions are lacking. Finally, some immediately invalidate the act itself, and others mediately, by rendering the persons themselves incapable. Cf. however below, n. 928.

I Say 1st. Every legislator can establish invalidating laws. The reason is that this is required for the common good; for otherwise frauds and dangers of human society could not be sufficiently warded off.

I say 2nd. Laws which establish that acts can be rescinded do not invalidate them before the sentence of a judge, as is clear from the terms, and therefore before the sentence of the same judge they do not obtain force. But when the sentence has been rendered, one must altogether stand by it in all those things which intrinsically arise from the invalidation, because the commanding authority must be obeyed.

I say 3rd. In canon law only those laws are to be held as invalidating or inhabilitating by which either that an act is null or that a person is incapable is expressly or equivalently established (Can. 11). But these do not press in a doubt of law; and in a doubt of fact they can be dispensed from by the Ordinary. - Cf. Can. 15.

Question 1. Does an invalidating law oblige in conscience to avoiding the act?

Response. Affirmatively, if it is at the same time invalidating and prohibiting, as are laws establishing impediments of marriage; otherwise, if it is invalidating only, because then the end of the law is sufficiently obtained by the sole invalidation of the act, as in many civil contracts. Cf. Reuter, n. 232.

Question 2. Does invincible ignorance impede the effect of invalidation?

Response. Negatively, because ignorance does not supply the defect of a thing essentially required, nor does it remove the grave inconveniences which would follow if the law did not invalidate in every case. As is clear from the Code:

§ 1. No ignorance of invalidating or inhabilitating laws excuses from the same, unless something else is expressly said (Can. 16). And also: Ignorance of irregularities, whether from delict or from defect, and of impediments does not excuse from the same (Can. 988). Cf. Sanchez, de Matrim., lib. 9, disp. 32, n. 17.

Question 3. Does an invalidating law invalidate, notwithstanding a very grave inconvenience?

Response. Affirmatively, unless it is a question of common harm; the reason is both because an invalidating law affects the act rather than the person, and because if otherwise were said, men would more easily imagine inconveniences for themselves, and the law would lose its whole force.