Last week’s post examined the office of the promoter of justice as one of the two offices that safeguard justice in canon law. Today’s post examines the other, namely, the defender of the bond.
Pope Benedict XIV introduced the role of the defender of the bond on 3 November 1741 through the apostolic constitution “Dei Miseratione”. He created the role to address abuses in matrimonial processes wherein annulments were easily granted, sometimes due to the apathy or inability of one spouse to defend the marriage. Hence, the document stipulated that every diocesan tribunal must have a defender of the bond for marriage cases to prevent the dissolution of marriages for insufficient reasons and to mitigate scandals arising from such situations. This remains till today.
Just like the promoter of justice, it is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop to appoint the defender for all cases or individual cases. The defender of the bond can be a cleric or a lay person of “good repute, with a doctorate or at least a licentiate in canon law, and of proven prudence and zeal for justice” (Can. 1435). The same person can hold the offices of promoter of justice and defender of the bond as long as they are not in the same case (cf. Can. 1436 §1). The same provisions regarding the removal of a promoter of justice also apply to the defender of the bond. The absence of the defender of the bond makes the judgement invalid (cf. Can. 1433).
In the 1983 Code, the defender of the bond is appointed for cases which deal with the nullity of ordination or the nullity of dissolution of marriage, who “is bound by office to present and expound all that can reasonably be argued against the nullity or dissolution” (Can. 1432).
The criteria for the validity of ordination are the male gender and valid baptism (cf. Can. 1024). All other requirements, prerequisites, impediments and irregularities concern the liceity of the sacrament (cf. Can. 1025). Hence, since the sacrament of holy orders confers “an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily” (CCC, 1582), once one is validly ordained, the ordination never becomes invalid (cf. Can. 290). However, an ordination can be declared invalid through the judgement of a court or an administrative decree. The process to arrive at this decision is why there is a need for the defender of the bond to argue in defence of the validity of the ordination.
Canon 1708 reads: “The right to impugn the validity of sacred ordination is held by the cleric himself, or by the Ordinary to whom the cleric is subject, or by the Ordinary in whose diocese he was ordained.” The validity of an ordination can be challenged for various reasons. Regarding the candidate himself, the grounds for nullity include invalid baptism, the candidate being a transgender male, the cleric not intending to receive the sacrament, the candidate not freely consenting to be ordained because of force (cf. Can. 125 §1) or the presence of a mental defect.
An ordination may be invalid because the ordaining bishop was not validly ordained (cf. Can. 1012) or did not intend to ordain the candidate (simulation of the sacrament). Another category concerns the rite of ordination, which is done through “the imposition of hands and the prayer of consecration” (Can. 1009 §2). The absence of matter or form is a ground to impugn the ordination (Sacramentum Ordinis, 4-5).
The 2024 case of a diaconate ordination in Lokoja diocese presents an example where the defender of the bond will act to defend the validity of the ordination. The diocesan bishop, in the decree dated 29 July 2024, wrote: “I made sure that all the canonical requirements for the ordination were met so as to ensure that I ordain only qualified and worthy candidates for the Church. However, I was deceived. I was given pieces of false information by the so-called ‘Superior General’…He also gave me falsified documents to make some claims which turned out to be false.”
Based on the aforementioned grounds, deceit, error, and falsified documents do not invalidate an ordination. The law provides that an act is invalid when it is done as a result of ignorance or error that concerns the substance of the act. However, a valid act performed in ignorance or error can be rescinded; that is, it can be challenged and potentially invalidated due to certain defects (cf. Can. 126). Here, the error does not concern the male gender, baptism, imposition of hands, or the prayer of consecration. Hence, the valid action cannot be rescinded. However, the clerics are ipso facto suspended (cf. Can. 1388 §1), as declared by the bishop’s decree, which also withdrew their ordination certificates. While not indicated in the decree, those involved can be punished for falsifying ecclesiastical documents (cf. Can. 1391).
An option to resolve the case is to dismiss the deacons from the clerical state (laicization), even while the indelible mark of sacred ordination remains (cf. Can. 290, 3°). The Dicastery for the Clergy is competent (cf. Praedicate Evangelium, art 116 §2). Additionally, they require dispensation from the obligation of celibacy, which can only be granted by the Pope (cf. Can. 291).
Another instance where the defender of the bond functions is in marriage cases, where the defender is to argue in defence of the matrimonial bond. The defender of the bond is needed in all cases concerning the dissolution of the marriage bond, at all tribunal instances (grades). The three categories of things that make a marriage invalid are the presence of impediments (cf. Cann. 1083–1094), the lack or defect of consent (cf. Cann. 1095–1107), and the lack or defect of the canonical form (cf. Cann. 1108–1123).
The role of the defender of the bond is indispensable to the spirituality of canon law because ordination and marriage are sacraments, and sacraments are outward signs of inward grace by which grace is given to our souls. This grace is needed in the journey of holiness.
Hence, safeguarding the validity of ordination and the matrimonial bond is a grave obligation of the Church. Little wonder, marriage enjoys the favour of the law, that is, the validity of the marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven (cf. Can. 1060).
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
