Folia Canonica 12. (2009)
STUDIES - Piotr Kroczek: Does obligatory canonical from of marriage contribute to salus animarum?
26 PIOTR KROCZEK tion with God and with the Church. It can be said, that the Church authorities due to some kind of the good protected by law are forced to use this means. By the same token, the obligatory form of marriage can be understood as an imposition of power". The conclusion is that the present norm of mandatory form of marriage in an unjustified way causes troubles and difficulties in reaching for God’s grace. Its obligatory character appears to be in discord with the principle of canon law. It can be said that the norm causes an increase of invalid marriages without any benefits for souls* 12. 2. Wrong Usage of Obligatory Canonical Form Another set of situations that needs to be disused is the one in which the necessity of canonical form leads to an abuse of both marriage itself and of its canonical consequences, and contributes to a wrong understanding of the indissolubility of marriage. We refer here, for example, to a situation in which a catholic, in a cynical way, treats the necessity of form as carte blanche from the Church for contracting a marriage outside the Church, knowing that this marriage for the Church is not a valid bond13. It is not very conducive to people’s pastoral good when those obedient to the law have to suffer a trial of annulment, or live without possibility of marriage due to the impediment of bond, while those who disobey the law derive notable benefit from it. If the obligation of canonical form were removed the problem would disappear14. Another situation can be called matrimonium ad experimentum. The couple can willfully violate the law in question and purposely contract their marriage in a non-canonical form. If the marriage turns out well, it would be validated. If it does not, the parties are free to marry again. In consequence, the requirements of canonical form can be used as a device for such a trial marriage. The problem seems to be quite large today and gives scandal to community. In both of these situations, the mandatory character of canonical form can be understood as a kind of acceptance, on the part of the legislator, of cohabitation without canonical formalization. It could also cause a false impression that the legislator is in favor of the mentality of divorce15. This, in turn, if spread " Cf. D. Espen, The Canonical Form of Marriage: Re-Evaluation, Washington 1968, 40—41. 12 J. C. Barry, The Tridentine Form of Marriage: is the Law Unreasonable?, in The Jurist 20 (1960) 174. 13 P. L. GALLO, Do Multiple Marriages Abolish the Documentary Process of Bigamy?, in Studia Canonica 30 (1996) 506-507. 14 Cf. P. Huizing, Some Proposals for the Formation of Matrimonial Law: Impediments, Consent, Form, II, in The Heythrop Journal 7 (1966) 280. 15 Cf. E. Dunderdale, The Canonical Form of Marriage: Anachronism or Pastoral Necessity?, in Studia Canonica 12 (1978) 51.
