Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

Bonum coniugum i bonum prolis jako przedmiot symulacji zgody małżeńskiej (kan. 1101 § 2 KPK)

100%

Wierzchanowski R.

Teologiczne Studia Siedleckie

2013

issue X/10

67-80

Naczelną zasadę kanonicznego prawa małżeńskiego wyraża kan. 1057 § 2, według którego małżeństwo stwarza zgoda stron między osobami prawnie do tego zdolnymi. Co więcej, ewentualny brak konsensusu nie może być uzupełniony przez żadną władzę ludzką. Rezonansem tej fundamentalnej normy prawnej jest treść kan. 1161, odnosząca się do uważnienia małżeństwa w zawiązku (tu warunkiem sine qua non jest ciągłe trwanie zgody małżeńskiej) oraz kan. 1105 § 4 dotyczącego zawarcia małżeństwa przez pełnomocnika. Chociaż wyrażenie na zewnątrz wewnętrznej woli zawarcia małżeństwa jest czymś naturalnym, to jednak dość często dochodzi do sytuacji, w której nupturienci (lub przynajmniej jeden z nich) pozytywnym aktem woli wykluczają samo małżeństwo (symulacja całkowita) lub jakiś jego istotny przymiot lub element. Dla zobrazowania natury tego wykluczenia posłużono się przykładem „bonum coniugum” i „bonum prolis”. W artykule określono treść wspomnianych dóbr małżeńskich oraz sposób ich wykluczenia. W analizie wykorzystano szeroką bibliografię kanoniczną oraz wybrane wyroki Trybunału Roty Rzymskiej.

The chief principle of the Canon Law regarding marriage is expressed in Can. 1057 § 2, according to which, a marriage is made by the consent of persons who are legally capable of it. Furthermore, eventual lack of consent cannot be supplied by any human power. This fundamental legal norm is resonated in the content of Can. 1161, which concerns the retroactive validation of an invalid marriage (the persisting consent of both parties is a condition sine qua non for this procedure) as well as in Can. 1105 § 4 with regard to the marriage by proxy. Although the external expression of the internal will to enter the marriage comes out of nature, it happens, however quite often a situation, in which both parties (or at least one of them) with a positive act of their will exclude marriage as such (total simulation) or one of its essential property or element (partial simulation). In order to illustrate the nature of this exclusion, as an example there have been used here “bonum coniugum” and “bonum prolis”. In the article we have specified the content of the mentioned above matrimonial benefits as well as the way of their exclusion. In the analysis we have been referring widely to the canonical bibliography and also to the selected verdicts of the Apostolic Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

Podstępne wprowadzenie w błąd jako przyczyna nieważności małżeństwa. Doktryna i orzecznictwo

100%

Wierzchanowski R.

Teologiczne Studia Siedleckie

2014

issue XI/11

113-130

In the 1983 Code of Canon Law, the legislator included several legal norms meant to guarantee the freedom of choice of the spouse. One of such regulations (norms) can be found in c. 1098, which states that a marriage is invalid in the following situation: A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life. The aforementioned canon is somewhat of a novelty in relation to the 1917 Code of Canon Law; therefore, the Tribunal of the Roman Rota played an important role in determin-ing its legal content. The decisions made by the Tribunal have not only become an example for lower level tribunals, but they have also pointed to certain threats associated with the understanding and application of c. 1098. Nowadays, the content of this canon encompasses the following elements, the importance of which was clearly emphasized and indicated by the legislator: deceptive action and its goal, error caused by deception, and the quality of a person which by its very nature could severely disrupt the partnership of conjugal life. Furthermore, the error described by the canon must be not only concomitant (error incidens), but also antecedent (error antecedens, causam dans), as the former one does not oblige the other party to enter marriage. It is also important not to confuse an error with ignorance or a condition. Regarding the quality of the other person which by its very nature can gravely dis-turb the partnership of conjugal life (consortium vitae coniugalis), the legislation points to several elements, such as: sterility (c. 1984 § 3 of 1983 CIC), advanced proclivity towards alcohol, drug abuse, pregnancy with another person, severe moral or financial burden arising from a spouse’s current lifestyle, venereal disease, prostitution, heavy sentence of imprison-ment, impotence (different from impotence defined in c. 1084 § of 1983 CIC), religious and moral qualities, disposition towards work and sloth, validity of baptism, performed abortion, bad character, epilepsy, mental disorders, willingness to adapt to a culture different from the culture of a person’s homeland, medical diploma, virginity, false pregnancy, drug addiction, acceptance of the Christian faith, infidelity, paternity towards a nasciturus, and various other diseases.

Refine search results

2 Teologiczne Studia Siedleckie

2 Wierzchanowski R.

1 2014

1 2013

Search results

Bonum coniugum i bonum prolis jako przedmiot symulacji zgody małżeńskiej (kan. 1101 § 2 KPK)

Podstępne wprowadzenie w błąd jako przyczyna nieważności małżeństwa. Doktryna i orzecznictwo