Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Teka Commission of Legal Sciences Polish Academy of Sciences Branch in Lublin

Vol. 13 No. 2 (2020)

Articles

The Status of a Civil Marriage Entered into by Catholics Without the Canonical Form with Regard to the Impediment of Public Propriety

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32084/tekapr.2020.13.2-13  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2020-12-31

Abstract

In the presented study, a very narrow issue was considered, which is the issue of the status of a civil marriage concluded by Catholics without the canonical form in relation to the impediment of public propriety. Analyzing from a historical perspective the approach of the Church legislator and the doctrine to this issue, the author showed that the relevance of the civil marriage of Catholics was not yet recognised in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (can. 1093), despite the votes against. In his view, this finding was due to the fact that this relationship was seen in terms of matrimonium inexistens. He also noted that the legislator’s thought in this matter changed, mainly under the influence of doctrine, it evolved, an emphatic example of which is the granting of legal effectiveness to a civil marriage in can. 810 § 1, 3º of the Code of Canons of Oriental Churches. The author sees a change of approach to this issue in the fact that the Church’s thought on this issue have evolved. In his opinion, the fierce nineteenth-century dispute over marriage jurisdiction is no longer as fierce. Therefore, a new arrangement was introduced in the said regulation

References

  1. Abbas, Jobe. 1995. „Marriage in the Codes Canon Law.” Apollinaris 68, nr 3–4:522–65. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbas, Jobe. 1998. „The interrelationship of the Latin and the Eastern Codes.” The Iurist 58:1–40. [Google Scholar]
  3. Abbas, Jobe. 2011. „The missing link in the Legislative of the CCEO Canons.” The Iurist 71:173–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/jur.2011.0038 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahlers, Reinhild. 2004. „Überlegungen zum Ehehindrnis der Öffentlichen Ehrbarkeit.” De processibus matrimonialibus 11:3–22. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alonso Pérez, José I. 2012. Studio giridico-canonico della convivenza non matrimoniale. Roma: Aracne Editrice. [Google Scholar]
  6. Aymans, Winfried, i Klaus Mörsdorf. 2007. Kanonisches Recht. T. 3. Padeborn–München–Wien–Zürich: Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  7. Aznar Gil, Frederico. 2001. Derecho matrimonial canónico. T. 1. Salamanca: Univerisdad Pontificia de Salamanca. Tecnos. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernárdez Cantón, Alberto. 2006. Compendio de derecho matrimonial canónico. Wyd. 9. Madrid: Tecnos. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bersini, Francesco. 1994. Il diritto canonico matrimoniale. Commento giuridico-teologico pastorale. Wyd. 4. Torino: Editrce Elle Di CI. [Google Scholar]
  10. Boccafola, Kenneth E. 2002. „Gli impedimenti relativi ai vicoli etico-giuridici tra le persone: affinitas, consanguineitas, publica honestas e cognatio legalis can. 1091–1094.” W Diritto matrimoniale canonico, red. Piere A. Bonnet, i Carlo Gullo, t. 1, 555–68. Città del Varicano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cappello, Felix M. 1939. Tractatus canonico-moralis de sacramentis. T. 3. Romae: Officina Libraria Marietti. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chiappetta, Luigi. 1990. Il matrimonio nella nuova legislazione canonica e concordatoria. Roma: Edizioni Dehoniane. [Google Scholar]
  13. D’Auria, Andrea. 2007. Gli impedimenti matrimoniali. Città del Vaticano: Lateran University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dzierżon, Ginter. 2002. Niezdolność do zawarcia małżeństwa jako kategoria kanoniczna. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UKSW. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dzierżon, Ginter. 2019. „Specyficzny status w kanonicznym porządku prawnym związków cywilnych zawieranych przez katolików z pominięciem formy kanonicznej.” Kościół i Prawo 8 (21), nr 1:57–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18290/kip.2019.8.1-10 [Google Scholar]
  16. Fabritz, Peter. 2010. Sanatio in radice. Historie eines Rechtsinstituts und seine Beziehung zum sakramentales Eheverständnis der katholischen Kirche. Frankfurt am Mein: Peter Lang Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fornés, Juan. 2008. Derecho matrimonial canónico. Wyd. 5. Madrid: Tecnos. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gasparri, Petrus. 1932. Tractatus canonicus de matrimonio. T. 1. Wyd. 2. Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gefaell, Pablo. 2019. „Commentary to the can. 810 CCEO.” W A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, red. John D. Paris, i Jobe Abbass, t. 1, 1460–463. Chambly: Libbrairie Wilson & Lafleurinc. [Google Scholar]
  20. Giuliano, Cristina. 2015. Il consenso naturalmente sufficiente espresso in assenza della forma canonica e la sua convalidadabilità. Roma: Il miolibro self publishing. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jemolo, Arturo C. 1993. Il matrimonio nel diritto canonico. Dal Concilio di Trento al Codice del 1917. Bologna: Mulino. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lalaguna, Ernesto. 1962. „El matrimonio civil ante el derecho canonico.” Ius Canonicum 2:273–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15581/016.2.22393 [Google Scholar]
  23. Majer, Piotr. 2009. Zawarcie małżeństwa kanonicznego bez skutków cywilnych. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Papieskiej Akademii Teologicznej w Krakowie. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nowicka, Urszula. 2016. „Przeszkoda przyzwoitości publicznej.” W Przeszkody w prawie kanonicznym, red. Wojciech Góralski, 437–62. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo UKSW. [Google Scholar]
  25. Pellegrino, Piero. 2002. Impedimenti relativi ai vicoli etico-giuridici tra le persone nel matrimonio canonico. Torino: Giappichelli. [Google Scholar]
  26. Prader, Joseph. 1993. „Diferenze fra il diritto matrimoniale del Codice Latino e quello del Codice Orientale che influiscono sulla validità del matrimonio.” Ius Ecclesiae 5:469–94. [Google Scholar]
  27. Prader, Joseph. 2003. Il matrimonio in oriente e in occidente. Romae. Pontificio Instituto Orientale. [Google Scholar]
  28. Punzi Nicolò, Angela M. 2012. „Matrimono civile e matrimonium legitimum. Una prospettiva per il XXI secolo.” W Veriras non auctoritas facit legem. Studio di diritto matrimoniale in onore [Google Scholar]
  29. di Piero Antonio Bonnet, red. Giuseppe Dalla Torre, Carlo Gullo, i Geraldina Boni, 389–94. Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar]
  30. Renken, John A. 2010. „The subsequent celebration of civil unions. Reflections on the Guidance of the Apostolic Signatura.” W «Iustitia et iudicium». Studi di diritto matrimoniale et processuale canonico in onore di Antoni Stankiewicz, red. Janusz Kowal, i Joaquin Llobell, t. 2, 1217–235. Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sabbarese, Luigi. 2016. Il matrimonio nell’ordine delle natura e della grazia. Commento al. Codice di diritto canonico Libro IV. Parte I. Titolo VII. Roma: Urbaniana University Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Schöch, Nicolas. 1998. „La sanazione in radice dei matrimoni celebrati in forma civile o senza forma pubblica.” W La giurisdizione della Chiesa sul matrimonio e sulla famiglia, red. Joan Carreras, 289–333. Milano: Giappichelli. [Google Scholar]
  33. Sebott, Reinhold. 2005. Das neue kirchliche Eherecht. Wyd. 3. Freiburg: Knecht. [Google Scholar]
  34. Wernz, Franciscus, i Petrus Vidal. 1925. Ius canonicum. Vol. 5. Romae: Apud Aedes Universitatis Gregorianae. [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.