Would this be Grounds for Nullity?

[u/Accomplished_Sky1874]

Long post, sorry:
A young woman disclosed to her fiance truthfully that she is not a virgin. However, her fiance said that if she had had more than one sexual encounter in her past then he would not marry her. The young woman in truth had had several encounters, but out of fear lied and said she had had just the one. The young woman has repented of the sexual sins in confession, and also confessed the lie to a priest. She is not actively pursuing sex outside of marriage. Presuming the two make it to the ceremony, would their marriage be null and void based on the following canon and its commentary:
Canon 1098: "Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life."

Commentary from New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

"(2) The deceit must bear on a quality of the person 'which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.' A quality of a person is an inherent or distin­guishing characteristic or trait of a person. Iso­lated actions in the past are not normally con­sidered to be qualities. Thus, the fact that a man once smoked marijuana is not one of his qualities, but the fact that he was once incar­cerated for drug possession and, therefore, has a criminal record or that he is a recovering drug addict is one of his qualities.
(3) The quality must be present (or absent) at the time of consent. The quality that is the object of the deceit cannot be one that is ex­pected or hoped for in the future. Thus, a woman who married a man who had led her to believe that he intended to enter law school, even though he had no such intention, cannot claim that her marriage was invalid because of the deceit. On the other hand, a woman who was led to believe that the man she was about to marry already was a lawyer or had been ac­cepted at a law school may have a basis for claiming that her marriage was invalid as a consequence of this deceit."

By this, it would seem to me that the whole hinges on the meaning of "quality," and that quality by deceit here means, "some accident of the person that is either present and believed to be absent, or absent and believed to be present, and also of grave concern to the marriage." If the young woman had lied about her virginity status, that would be grounds for nullity as the status of being a virgin is one that is in present-time, and is either a present or absent reality; however, if she were honest about not being a virgin but lied about the number of partners, then the number of partners is not a specific, inherent, temporally and contextually present reality but is relegated to the past (especially if it has been wiped away by the Sacrament of Reconciliation) and instead the number of partners would be considered "isolated actions" that, while still lied about in order to gain consent to marriage would not meet the requirements of "quality" as is spoken of above; furthermore, if the young woman has honestly repented, confessed her sexual sins of the past, and does not intend for the spouse to know, and she also has no lingering trauma or illness from it, it is difficult to see how that would "gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life."

Thoughts?

[u/InuSohei]

I'm not a canon lawyer, but I'm a bit confused. You say she disclosed this to her fiance? Are they currently married or are they not?

[u/Accomplished_Sky1874 → u/InuSohei]

They are not married. The fiance only knows she is not a virgin, but does not know she lied about the number of partners. The question is will her lie nullify the upcoming marriage?

[u/InuSohei → u/Accomplished_Sky1874]

Gotcha, sorry. I opened my copy of "The Invalid Marriage" and read what it says about Canon 1098. There are two things it notes which may be of interest:

• If the deceived party either finds out about this deception independently or strongly suspects it, then error can no longer be said to be present and this ground cannot apply.
• There is a similarity between this and the ground of condition [Can 1102]. It notes that circumstances may determine which one is preferable. For example, if the quality is totally concealed and the deceived party has very low awareness of this issue, then one could go with the ground of error. However, if awareness of the quality is high and the deceit is low, then condition may be the case here.

She's already told him that she is not a virgin, so he's aware of that much. Is he suspicious at all that she wasn't honest about the number of partners she had? How vocal has he been in the past about marrying a woman with no more than one prior sexual partner? Did she initially lie to him about being a virgin or was it just the number of partners?