CathInfo.com

I think it could be any deception that changes the quality of the person and speaks to their intent to be married.  So, for example, a case I ran into is a guy who got married who had been a sodomite ... and then returned to sodomy shortly after his "marriage".

Did you read the quote from above? Also, a few pages back I posted several long quotes from a pre-Vatican 2 theologian addressing these objections, and the third quote I give answers what you are saying here, that no, this does not render the marriage invalid.

Do you know if he intended to return to sodomy, or did he intend, when he made his vows, to be faithful to his spouse? Intention is the crux of it.

Okay, looks like I'll have to post this again:

The internal consent of the mind is always presumed to be in conformity with the words or signs used in the contracting of marriage. Simulated or feigned consent is present in marriage when, although exteriorly, the words expressing matrimonial consent are duly and seriously pronounced, one or both parties withhold internal consent .The intention of the pretender may be not to contract marriage, or to contract it but not to assume its obligation, or not to fulfill its obligation. An intention not to contract marriage excludes consent and nullifies the contract. Likewise, the intention not to assume the obligation of marriage, since without it there cannot be true matrimonial consent. The intention not to fulfill the matrimonial obligation does not invalidate consent, as this does not pertain to the essence of the contract. The intention to violate an obligation can exist with the intention to assume the obligation itself.

Does this answer your question? This is from a pre-Vatican 2 treatise on theology.

Did you read the quote from above? Also, a few pages back I posted several long quotes from a pre-Vatican 2 theologian addressing these objections, and the third quote I give answers what you are saying here, that no, this does not render the marriage invalid.

Of course, but the question is whether something like being a sodomite (not just having committed the act) is not necessarily accidental, but more substantial or essential.  I've seen it argued that it's an essential issue because it relates directly to the marital debt.  I find the argument that a chronic sodomite (thus inclined) is a deception that's essential vs. accidental to be rather convincing.  For someone to have been a chronic fornicator with the opposite sex is in an entirely different category.  In either case, except in the case of obvious legal issues (like established fact of prior marriage) or something obvious, the Conciliar hierarchy simply cannot be trusted to render a Catholic verdict.

I also disagree with the quotes that some kind of internal withholding of consent can invalidate the marriage.  By pronouncing the vows you intend to do what the Church is expecting and the marriage is contracted.  More nonsense about "internal consent" misinterpreted there (a common problem with pre-V2 theology).