The True Meaning of "Ipso Facto" (by the fact itself)

What does “Ipso Facto” actually mean? Does it mean “automatic’? Well, yes and no. Here’s the explanation.

From dictionary.thelaw.com

IPSO FACTO (My comments in Red)

Latin meaning “by the fact itself”, something so obvious on its face that it doesn’t need an explanation, for example, that a certifiably insane individual does not have the capacity to enter into a binding legal contract by himself. This phrase is frequently employed to convey the idea that something which has been done contrary to law is void. For example, if a married man, during the life of his wife, of which he had knowledge, should marry another woman, the latter marriage would be void ipso facto; that is, on the fact being proved, the second marriage would be declared void ab initio (Latin for “from the beginning).

So, here’s the first two steps of the process:

1 - Man marries first wife

2 - Man marries second wife

Now, as long as this is kept a secret, unknown by everyone (or in canon law speak, belongs to the “internal forum”), Nothing happens. This situation could remain like this, unresolved, until the person dies. Actions have to be known to the outside world (or, in canon law speak, belonging to the “external forum”) for laws to take effect. To put it another way, the knowledge that he appears to be married twice has to be “externally manifested” for this to be resolved. This makes complete sense, as something can’t be dealt with if it is secret. Or, from the point of “Ipso Facto”, something can’t be “by the fact itself” if no facts have been established.

The above definition also mentions “by the law itself”, which in Latin, is the phrase “Ipso iure”

From Merriam-Webster :

Ipso Iure - By the law itself; by the operation of law.

“Ipso Facto” (by the fact itself), and “Ipso iure” (by the law itself), normally go hand in hand, like they do in canon 188. We will see how this works shortly.

My Commentary (in black)

So, let’s add to the process:

1 - Man marries first wife

2 - Man marries second wife

3 - It becomes known (exteriorly manifested, made public, etc) that he is married to two women at the same time.

So now the question becomes, “Well is the first marriage valid, or not’? It appears that the man already has a wife, but did he really, validly, marry her? We have two competing things here. We have a first marriage up against a second marriage. As far as which one is valid, we don’t know yet. The first marriage must be investigated. Let’s add a step:

1 - Man marries first wife (appears to)

2 - Man marries second wife

3 - The first marriage is investigated and declared “valid”

Item #1 (the first marriage) must be declared valid. It is only then, that the “ipso Facto” automatically goes into effect on item #2, without a declaration:

1 - Man marries first wife (proven)

2 - Man marries second wife

3 - The first marriage is investigated and legally declared “valid”

4 - The second marriage is void “Ipso Facto” (by the fact that the first marriage have been determined to be valid) and also “Ipso Iure” (by the law itself, because by law, you can’t be married twice). 

The second item doesn’t have to be declared (ipso facto), due to the first item (by examining the facts) being proven and declared. “By the fact itself” means the fact established by investigating the first item. Nothing happens automatically until after an investigation has determined the facts concerning item #1.

So, let’s see how this applies to Canon 188:

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

Or, in Latin:

Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus: (Both terms are present, as usual)

1 - Makes religious profession with due regard for the prescription of Canon 584 concerning benefices

Within the useful time established by law or, legal provision lacking, as determined by the Ordinary, fails to take possession of the office.

3 - Accepts another ecclesiastical office incompatible with the prior, and has obtained peaceful possession of [the other office]

4 - Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.

5 - Contracts marriage even, as they say, merely civilly;

6 - Against the prescription of Canon 141.1, freely gives his name to a secular army.

7 - Disposes of ecclesiastical habit on his own authority and without just cause, unless, having been warned by the Ordinary, he resumes [wearing it] within a month of having received the warning;

8 - Deserts illegitimately the residence to which he is bound and, having received a warning from the Ordinary and not being detained by a legitimate impediment, neither appears not answers within an appropriate. Time as determined by the Ordinary. 

If you read all of the cross references for all of the 8 items in canon 188, they all go into great detail about what is necessary to prove each item has occurred. They all have a very specific meaning, and a very strict interpretation. These 8 items are all item #1’s, and the loss of office is item #2 for all 8 of them.

If we substitute the two terms in our marriage example, with the two terms necessary for canon 188.4, it begins to make sense:

1 - A cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith 

2 - A cleric loses all his offices.

Just like in the marriage example, we have two competing items. If these two things are kept a secret (internal forum), they can go on forever, until the cleric dies. It may appear that a cleric has publicly defected from the Catholic faith, but is it a fact? Did he really, truly defect? The defection from the catholic faith must be externally manifested, made public, for the law to get involved (canon law even states that it only deals with the external forum) and prove it. So, let’s add the steps:

1 - A cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith (appears to)

2 - A cleric loses all his offices

3 - The public defection is investigated, and declared to have occurred.

Once the first item is externally manifested and proven (any one of the 8 items in canon 188), then the second items (the loss of offices) happens “ipso facto”, by the fact itself (the fact that the first item has been proven), and “ipso iure”, by the law itself (the fact that the law says you can’t have offices and any of those other 8 items exist at the same time). We end like this:

1 - A cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith (PROVEN)

2 - A cleric loses all his offices

3 - The public defection is investigated, and declared to have occurred.

4 - All offices are lost “ipso facto”, with no declaration necessary.

CONCLUSION

“Ipso Facto” is like an “if, then” statement. If item #1 is true, then item #2 happens automatically. Item #2 does not need to be declared, but Item #1 needs to be externally manifested, investigated, and establish as a fact. Then, item #2 is declared to have occurred “ipso facto”, by the fact itself (the “fact” of item #1 being proven and declared to be true). If you read the commentary for canon 2314 (the canon that canon 188.4 is cross referenced with) this becomes more obvious.

     Or, to state it another way, if you have two competing items (two things that can’t, by law, be allowed to happen at the same time), one has the proven, and facts established, before the other can automatically be deemed lost (or void) “Ipso facto”

This topic branches out to more in-depth discussions concerning the terms “external forum” and “internal forum”, and the terms “latae sententiae” and “ferendae sententiae”. Those topics will be covered in a future post.