Abstract

The commented judgment, given in the Roman Rota as the third instance, concer- ned two titles: gravis defectus discretionis iudicii and incapacitas assumendi obligationes matrimoniales essentials (can. 1095, n. 2-3 CIC/83). Both titles were considered on the plaintiff’s side. In the first instance, mainly due to the lack of a sufficient expert opinion ex officio, the judgment was negative. At the appeal stage, more experts were appointed who unanimously diagnosed the man with narcissistic disorder. The evidence from the

expert opinions was supported by testimonies of the parties and witnesses, which resul- ted in a positive verdict for both titles. The conclusions of a psychiatrist appointed at the secondary stage strengthened the thesis about the existence of a psychopathology in the defendant, which made him incapable, both in the area of assessing the assessment of the relevant marriage rights and obligations, and in implementing them in the community with another person, as the husband and father of the offspring. Particularly valuable knowledge that can be obtained from reading the judgment is the method of assessing evidence obtained from the opinions of several experts, their mutual comparison, as well as their location in the entire evidence material.