Vetitum and monitum - what are they and why?
"I thought my case was over! I'm not crazy, so why do I have to see a shrink?" Declaring a marriage null is sometimes not the final chapter in a case.
The first line of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina is one of the more famous lines in all of literature: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Serving as a tribunal judge, I have found this to be true in ways that I could not have imagined.
Most matrimonial nullity cases involve the incapacity of one of the parties (or both) to contract marriage. This is the famous (or infamous) canon 1095, which has three sections:
Canon 1095. The following are incapable of contracting marriage:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic [psychological/psychiatric] nature.
Canon 1095.2 and/or 1095.3 are used most frequently in matrimonial nullity cases — about or at least 80 percent of cases (c. 1095.2 is used more often than c. 1095.3, for reasons which I can explain in another post, but in my experience — bolstered by a conversation with a Rotal judge some five or six years ago — the Rota more or less treats them as if they were the same).
Canon 1095.1 is rare, as it for situations where marriage was attempted by someone who was, for example, falling down drunk, or perhaps was suffering from Alzheimer’s. It is not — repeat not — for someone who is “unreasonable” (this was the actual recommended ground that came from a case sponsor at a parish!).
The grounds of simulation make up the other ten to twenty percent. An even tinier percentage are cases of fraud, condition, or error, etc.
For simplicity’s sake, let’s call it 80 percent incapacity, 15 percent simulation cases, and 5 percent “other grounds.”
I often lapse into astonishment when reading people’s biographical narratives of their early life, their courtship, and common life. So many people put on a brave face and never let on about the trauma or suffering they have endured. People can seem quite “normal” on the outside, but the truth is that many people hide a world of pain and numerous — often staggering — deficits.
I would not wish to stigmatize anyone, or imply that some people are doomed to failure, but chances are a person who has suffered trauma in early life probably is going to have a more difficult time entering into marriage. Depending on the severity of the trauma or if there are multiple traumas, if no steps toward trying to heal from these injuries have been taken, sometimes the difficulty becomes a true incapacity to contract marriage.
Most people, even those who have suffered a great deal in life, are regarded as capable of marrying. But sometimes the wound is too profound. Sometimes it is only addressed — or only can be addressed — later in life, long after the typical marriageable age in many cultures.
A person who is an alcoholic or drug addict can spin through two or three marriages before finally embarking upon sobriety and recovery. Addiction can profoundly vitiate a person’s elective and volitional capacities, particularly in trying to form a family.
Other people might not have addictions or mental illness, but perhaps grew up in chaotic circumstances, with parents who were “checked out” or with just one parent who tried to cope — or did not try to cope — with bringing up a child or multiple children on his or her own. Not all single-parent homes are unstable, but some are. In such cases, the anomaly is not necessary internal or organic to the person — the person who grows up in chaos might not have mental illness or addiction — but rather the anomaly is “external,” as it were, and consists of never having experienced what marriage and family life should be.
Many people are adult children of alcoholics, and are at risk of repeating the dysfunction that they grew up with.
Some grow up with divorced parents and know that they never want that for themselves; some grow up with divorced parents and come to believe that divorce is at least an option if things don’t go as they expected.
When a person alleges that he suspects or believes his marriage is null, he takes on the burden of proof to back up that allegation. The tribunal cannot prove the marriage is null. The petitioner must prove it. I’ve had to have conversations with petitioners, telling them as kindly but as forthrightly as I can, “no one at the tribunal can prove the nullity or invalidity of your marriage for you — you must prove it.” This is canon 1526 §1.: “The burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation.”
This can seem an incredibly tall order to anyone, especially given the obscure nature of canon law. The tribunal knows this, and will give direction and guidance to the petitioner about what needs to be done. But the three most common elements of such proof are:
1.) An unflinchingly honest written narrative or biographical account of the petitioner’s early life, courtship, and marriage and, usually, an in-person interview or deposition which goes into greater depth regarding some questions;
2.) Witness testimony (ideally testimony which corroborates what is alleged), usually from family members and longtime friends;
3.) And, in cases of incapacity (canon 1095), a report from an expert witness — a psychiatrist, a psychologist, or other mental health professional — who can help the tribunal understand how one or both of the parties might have been suffering from a true incapacity to contract marriage.
Incapacity to contract marriage is not a normal condition. It is also an absolute: a person might be highly capable or only minimally capable, but incapacity does not admit of degrees. If one is incapable, then it does not matter if one is very incapable or only a little incapable. Incapable is incapable.
As such, Dignitas Connubii lays out what the judge in a matrimonial case must ask the expert to do:
Art. 209 – § 1. In causes [cases] of incapacity, according to the understanding of can. 1095, the judge is not to omit asking the expert whether one or both parties suffered from a particular habitual or transitory anomaly at the time of the wedding; what was its seriousness; and when, from what cause and in what circumstances it originated and manifested itself.
§ 2. Specifically:
1 - in causes [cases] of defectus usus rationis [absence of use of reason], he is to ask whether the anomaly seriously disturbed the use of reason at the time of the celebration of the marriage; and with what intensity and by what symptoms it manifested itself;
2 - in causes [cases] of defectus discretionis iudicii [absence of discretion of judgment], he is to ask what was the effect of the anomaly on the critical and elective faculty for making serious decisions, particularly in freely choosing a state in life;
3 - finally, in causes [cases] of incapacity to assume the essential obligations of marriage, he is to ask what was the nature and gravity of the psychic [psychological/psychiatric] cause on account of which the party would labor not only under a serious difficulty but even the impossibility of sustaining the actions inherent in the obligations of marriage.
§ 3. The expert in his opinion is to respond to the individual points defined in the decree of the judge according to the precepts of his own art and science; he is to take care lest he exceed the limits of his task by giving forth judgments which pertain to the judge (cf. cann. 1577, § 1; 1574).
It is important that the expert hold a proper Christian anthropology, but in my experience mental health professionals of all faiths and of no faith usually have been good at clarifying certain things for a matrimonial case once the tribunal explained what it was hoping for.
Once a marriage has been declared null due to the incapacity of one or both parties, the tribunal is tasked with helping the Church — that’s the petitioner and respondent, any prospective spouses with whom they wish to attempt marriage again in the Catholic Church, and the parish staff who are responsible for the celebration of matrimony at the parish — understand the level of risk regarding another attempt at marriage.
If the petitioner has provided proof of his or her own incapacity at age 25, and is now age 35, it is important to ascertain if he or she is still incapable of marriage. If the person claims now to be capable, it is crucial to see what steps have been taken to overcome the prior incapacity, e.g., long-term counseling, years of sobriety, etc.
When it is not clear that the incapacity and its cause has been resolved, the judges are obligated to add a prohibition, in Latin a vetitum, regarding another attempt at contracting marriage.
The law foresees three situations when a prohibition is to be imposed:
- cases of irremediable impotence;
- a permanent incapacity;
- or for someone who deceived someone/perpetrated fraud, or someone who simulated their consent (i.e., said “I do” but really meant “I don’t”).
According to Dignitas Connubii:
Art. 251 – § 1. If a party in the process was found to be absolutely impotent or incapable of marriage by reason of a permanent incapacity, a vetitum is to be added to the sentence, by which the party is prohibited to enter a new marriage unless the same tribunal which issued the sentence has been consulted.
§ 2. But if a party was the cause of the nullity of the marriage by deception or by simulation, the tribunal is bound to see whether, having considered all the circumstances of the case, a vetitum should be added to the sentence, by which the party is prohibited to enter a new marriage unless the Ordinary of the place in which the marriage is to be celebrated has been consulted.
Despite how it reads, the prohibition is not so much imposed directly on the person, but rather the prohibition applies to the prospective celebrant or officiant of the wedding (a Catholic bishop, priest, or deacon, or even a properly appointed lay person in places where Catholic clergy are only rarely present), keeping in mind canon 1066, that for those who prepare people for a wedding in the Catholic Church, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of a valid and lawful celebration of marriage.
Yet the way a vetitum is imposed can certainly feel like a “punishment” to the person who finds that the end of a case is not the end of the case — that there’s more needing to be done. Indeed, I have had petitioners react anywhere from surprised to outraged that their marriage was declared null, as they wished, but that now they cannot contact a new marriage, at least not without further steps, such as counseling. Information about this possibility — the possibility that another attempt might not be allowed even if the marriage is declared null — is typically presented at the beginning of a case, usually on the application or paperwork that petitioners must sign, but like so much legalese, the meaning of it sometimes is not clear until they find themselves prohibited from attempting marriage in the Catholic Church. I would hope that in cases where the grounds are set as incapacity or simulation (or fraud), the petitioner and/or respondent is fully informed of this possibility — namely, that “granting an annulment” is sometimes not the end of a case, but that more will be required of one or both parties.
In cases of canon 1084, the vetitum is an absolute.
In cases in incapacity (canon 1095), it must be discerned that the incapacity has been resolved and the risk of another invalid attempt at marriage is not present. In situations where a person has been twice declared incapable of marriage — the petitioner has provided proof of his or her own incapacity for two previous attempts at marriage — the tribunal will often view this as evidence of a permanent incapacity. I try to go over this very, very carefully with people who are challenging the validity of more than one marriage.
I had a case some years back where a woman had an early and disastrous first attempt at marriage, after a childhood of abuse and trauma. The union ended after a torturous decade, and she applied for an received a declaration of nullity for this marriage. She then rebounded into an even worse marriage, that saw her wind up in jail, and when she got out she divorced her husband. She applied to have her second marriage declared null, but there was nothing indicating that she had taken any steps to try to heal from all she went through in her early life, much less in her two abusive marriages. She wanted to marry again — she had found another man who was, regrettably, somewhat like her first two husbands — but was at high risk for another invalid attempt. As such, she was informed that another attempt at marriage in the Catholic Church — a third attempt — might not be possible if she provided proof she was incapable once again via a second matrimonial nullity process. She was completely unable to understand what I and her Advocate were telling her, that having provided proof of her own incapacity to contract marriage at age 20, she was now asking the tribunal to allow her to provide proof of her own incapacity again, to declare her incapable of marriage again, this time at age 30. She was now around age 40 — and there was no indication she was anything other than still locked into the patterns that caused havoc in her life. There was no getting through to her on this — she just wanted to marry again, and in the Church. Her faith and her attendance at her parish were just about the only stable things she clung to. But the concept of at some point being prohibited from repeated attempts to receive the sacrament of matrimony was lost on her. She also came from a culture where going for counseling or therapy was considered deeply shameful and something that one could never talk about with one’s friends or family.
One of the difficulties, of course, is that if counseling or therapy is added as part of the prohibition on another attempt at marriage — that is, that a new attempt could only be possible upon successful completion of counseling or therapy — the person who must go for counseling or therapy must do so voluntarily.
Counseling and therapy usually will only have an effect if the person himself sees the need for it. To go to see a mental health professional just to “get this thing out of the way” or to “check this stupid box for the church” is already an indication that something is wrong. As such, a person who receives a declaration of nullity for a prior attempt at marriage but with a vetitum on a new attempt is sometimes looking at a rather lengthy amount of time before being able to start marriage preparation or set a wedding date. And this can be an immense disappointment for many.
In cases of simulation, however, the vetitum really does appear as a true punishment. That is, a bride or groom who stands before their intended, the witnesses, their families — and before God as well — and says “yes” to marriage but inwardly wills something else (a temporary arrangement just until the green card comes through, or a so-called “open marriage,” or the “child-free” lifestyle, etc.) is to be prohibited from attempting marriage again until such time as it is clear that the person will not merely simulate his consent again. Having committed a form of perjury, it is only fitting that a person be prohibited — keeping in mind again the necessity for those who are responsible for weddings in the Catholic Church to ascertain that a celebration of marriage will be valid and licit.
In proven cases of fraud, the prohibition is also to be imposed.
The word monitum — Latin for caution or warning — does not appear in the matrimonial law of the Catholic Church, much like the word “annulment.” But the monitum has evolved as a useful instrument for tribunals to indicate to the people who are approached about officiating at wedding that they are “cautioned” or “warned” regarding a person’s prospective next attempt at marriage in the Catholic Church. Nearly all of the same principles apply, but not quite as stringently as a prohibition/vetitum. Still, a monitum is nothing to sneeze at.
No cleric should ever ignore a vetitum or a monitum attached to someone’s declaration of matrimonial nullity. The person who wishes to get married again might seem more or less all right to his or her pastor or to the priest who is helping a couple prepare for marriage, but the tribunal knows far more about the parties that most clergy ever will (indeed, people often tell the tribunal what they never mention in the sacrament of penance — !).