From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
Do personality disorders prevent a marriage from being valid?
For example, if a couple married in the Church, and one and/or both of them are later diagnosed with a personality disorder (such as Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder, or Narcissistic Personality Disorder), would their marriage be considered valid?
I ask because my spouse was recently diagnosed with OCPD, and I am concerned about validity.
“Later diagnosed…”.
A first principle: Marriages enjoy the presumption of validity. That is, they are presumed to be valid unless sufficient proof to the contrary is offered.
To prove invalidity, the person raising the doubt or making the allegation about the possible invalidity of his or her own marriage bears the burden of proof. He or she must supply either 1) evidence either of incapacity to contract marriage on the part of one or both of the parties, or 2) proof that one or both of the parties simulated matrimonial consent, either totally or partially.
There are a few other grounds for nullity, but the main grounds are incapacity or simulation.
A diagnosis of a mental illness at some point after the wedding does not automatically render a marriage null on the spot.
Remember: it is the condition of the people at the time of the marriage that matters. Something that is diagnosed after doesn’t necessarily mean that one or both of them were in that condition at the time of the marriage.
Moreover, the process to investigate a matrimonial bond (as to its possible invalidity or nullity) can take place only when the Tribunal has arrived at certainty that there is no longer 1) hope of reconciliation between the parties, 2) nor is there hope of 2) reestablishing common life as spouses.
Typically, at least in these United States, the proof that there is no longer any hope of reconciliation between the parties is when one of the parties produces a divorce decree from a civil/secular court.
No longer any hope.
Note that there is a difference between “there is no hope” and “it would be really difficult”.
This quote from Pope Benedict XVI’s 2009 Allocution to the Roman Rota is helpful (my emphases and comments:
In our meeting today, I wish to draw the attention of those engaged in the practice of law to the need to handle cases with the depth and seriousness required by the ministry of truth and charity proper to the Roman Rota. Indeed, responding to the need for procedural precision, the aforementioned Addresses provide, on the basis of the principles of Christian anthropology, fundamental criteria not only for the weighing of expert psychiatric and psychological reports, but also for the judicial settlement of causes. In this regard it is helpful to recall several clear-cut distinctions. First of all, the distinction between “the psychic [psychological] maturity which is seen as the goal of human development” and, on the other hand, “the canonical maturity which is the basic minimum required for establishing the validity of marriage” (Address to the Roman Rota, 5 February 1987, n. 6). Second, the distinction between incapacity and difficulty, inasmuch as “incapacity alone, and not difficulty in giving consent and in realizing a true community of life and love, invalidates a marriage” (ibid., n. 7). Third, the distinction between the canonical approach to normality, which, based on an integral vision of the human person, “also includes moderate forms of psychological difficulty”, and the clinical approach, which excludes from the concept of normality every limitation of maturity and “every form of psychic illness” (Address to the Roman Rota, 25 January 1988, n. 5). And finally, the distinction between the “minimum capacity sufficient for valid consent” and the ideal capacity “of full maturity in relation to happy married life” (ibid.).
Loading ...
My husband was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia several years ago after we got married. He was admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
Due to excellent psychiatric care, proper medications, and us attending joint outpatient sessions and NAMI meetings (National Alliance on Mental Illness) he is now able to function in life and work and people enjoy being around him. He’s a big time Classical Music nerd!
I never thought to get the marriage annulled or get divorced because of our marriage vows to stay married “through sickness and in health and ’til death do us part.”
Fr. Z points out that
Moreover, the process to investigate a matrimonial bond (as to its possible invalidity or nullity) can take place only when the Tribunal has arrived at certainty that there is no longer 1) hope of reconciliation between the parties, 2) nor is there hope of 2) reestablishing common life as spouses.
Typically, at least in these United States, the proof that there is no longer any hope of reconciliation between the parties is when one of the parties produces a divorce decree from a civil/secular court.
I don’t doubt that Fr. Z rightly stated the practice. That’s how they work.
But it always struck me as slightly odd to make this the criteria of whether they will even hear a case. Just off the top of my head for an example: if a wife discovers that her husband is (AND WAS, at the time of the wedding) mentally ill to the point that – so it appears – consent was impossible, why does it matter whether the couple can live manage to together or not? That is to say, how did they decide that “hope of reconciliation” works as the sole proxy measure for “whether to consider the question of consent”? Surely there are cases where whether the couple can stand each other enough to live together doesn’t really get at whether consent existed at the time of the wedding. (Like my example).
I get that maybe as a practical matter, tribunals have to cut down the possible case load to something that can be managed, and I suppose “they have gotten a divorce” is one way to do that. But maybe they should just admit that they can only take the clearest-cut cases, and already-divorced is a starting point for that?
[Marriages are presumed to be valid unless proofs to the contrary are offered. There has to be a starting point.]
Pope Leo XIII teaches in Arcanum that there is always hope of reconciliation. Always. It’s only in the past 50 years that priests, bishops, and canon lawyers began promoting divorce for couples who become unhappy with the suggestion that they petition for nullity.
I suggest we look at the effect this Protestantized approach to marriage has had on children. Who are the primary purpose of marriage in spite of what the tribunals promote today.
It’s the being diagnosed before that concerns me. What would make someone incapable of giving consent?
@MaterDeicolumbae may God bless you for your faithfulness! That is such a heartening story
This reminds me of a particular case. I sometimes wonder if I was in the wrong. There was a Catholic couple in a sacramental marriage, whom I actually advised to get a divorced because they have reached a point where they were trying to kill one another. And try for an annulment afterwards.
I sometimes wonder if I am in the wrong for making such suggestions….
APX asked: It’s the being diagnosed before that concerns me. What would make someone incapable of giving consent?”
I’m not a clinical psychologist or other mental health professional, but I’d think there are several that have the *potential* of disrupting rational judgment to a serious degree, providing impediment. The things that come immediately to mind would include any delusional issues (schizophrenia?), bipolar disorder (manic phase) — I once knew a man from the Midwest who’d invented a completely false identity for himself, including making himself twenty years older than he actually was; and the thing is, from all appearances to friends and family, he believed his invention. I’d think he’d be unable to enter into a sacramentally valid marriage, poor dear! (but he died of a heart attack a few years ago, so it’s not a real risk)
As I understand, many of these disorders actually get worse as you age, so if a couple married young, the disorders might not be pronounced enough to raise recognizable “red flags” yet, but the seeds are definitely there and developing.
“Capacity” for what exactly?
A partnership of life and love? No.
Capacity for acts suitable for the generation of children. To say one must have capacity for love is to redefine marriage.
Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit