Abstract

The author presents and comments on the (negative) sentence of the Roman Rota, c. Verginelli of March 25, 2011, in the Plocen. case for nullity of a marriage due to incapacitas assumendi (can. 1095, n. 3 CIC/83), heard in the third instance (negative in the first instance, positive in the second); it was about the man's inability.

While in the first instance, where the evidence instruction turned out to be quite extensive (testimonies of the parties, testimonies of seven witnesses, expert opinion), in the second instance it was only supplemented by an expert opinion prepared on the basis of the case files; in the rotational instance, it was confined to the material gathered so far.

The legal grounds clearly show the marriage consent (actus humanus), as well as the ability to obtain it. Ponens rightly emphasized that, bearing in mind many aspects of this ability, it is above all important to relate it to serious psychological reasons that make it impossible for the subject to form a marriage consensus.

In the factual grounds of the judgment, the Roman Rota assessed the evidence gathered in the first two instances. A certain drawback here was the lack of the defendant's testimony in the second instance and the failure to appear for the expert examination.

Something significant was the judgment's rejection of the expert opinion (in the second instance) as inconsistent with other evidence by the rotating camp.