K
kage_ar
Guest
The Catechism and Scripture are clear, sex outside of a valid marriage is sin.
- Status
P
Peanutty
Guest
OK, thanks I will look it up in the Catechism. Can you point me to some Scipture?
And why would anyone need an annulment if the marriage is not convalidated?
P
Phemie
Guest
If the marriage was never made valid one wouldn’t need an annulment, which is a judicial process, one would simply need to provide proof that the marriage was celebrated ‘with lack of canonical form.’ Usually that would be
- proof of catholic baptism (certificate)
- proof of marriage outside the church (marriage documents, often more than just your marriage certificate)
- proof of divorce (decree)
K
kage_ar
Guest
You can search online for the text here:
usccb.org:8765/query.html?col=bible&col=catechis&qt=fornication&charset=iso-8859-1
usccb.org:8765/query.html?col=bible&col=catechis&qt=fornication&charset=iso-8859-1
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I’m not a canon lawyer, but I don’t think that is exactly right:
**Canon 1161.1 The retroactive validation of an invalid marriage is its validation without the renewal of consent, granted by the competent authority. It involves a dispensation from an impediment if there is one and from the canonical form if it had not been observed, as well as a referral back to the past of the canonical effects.
Canon 1161.2 The validation takes place from the moment the favour is granted; the referral back, however, is understood to have been made to the moment the marriage was celebrated, unless it is otherwise expressly provided.
Canon 1161.3 A retroactive validation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties intend to persevere in conjugal life.
Canon 1162.1 If consent is lacking in either or both of the parties, a marriage cannot be rectified by a retroactive validation, whether consent was absent from the beginning or, though given at the beginning, was subsequently revoked.
Canon 1162.2 If the consent was indeed absent from the beginning but was subsequently given, a retroactive validation can be granted from the moment the consent was given.
Canon 1163.1 A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment or because of defect of the legal form, can be validated retroactively, provided the consent of both parties persists.**
In other words, their process of getting married would be considered by the Church to have begun when they gave valid consent, even if their marriage originally lacked canonical form. It is my understanding that in a case such as the OP’s, once the marriage is convalidated the couple can rightly say, “We have been married since _______” and give their original civil wedding date. It is only if their original consent was defective (which it might have been; this is another issue) that they would be starting from scratch, so to speak.
P
Peanutty
Guest
ok ok ok it sunk in and I get it now. Thanks for your help and patience!
Now to get this concept through to my husband.
Now to get this concept through to my husband.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
There are two processes to fix an invalid marriage - convalidation and retroactive validation. Convalidation is not retroactive, but only retroactive validation is.
Note that sometimes the term “retroactive validation” is not translated into English but kept as the Latin “sanatio in radice”.
C
CMatt25
Guest
This thread shows exactly something I do not like about my Church. I know a couple who approached a priest about marriage. He would only perfrom the ceremony if the couple paid “x” amt of dollars. Not sure of the figure but much more than what a customary donation would be for the priest’s services. So what did they do? They of course approached a Protestant pastor who happily performed the ceremony.
So then what? The Church says they are not married! No of course not in the eyes of the Church because a priest wanted an exorbitant amount of money to bless their marriage and drove them away!
So then what next? Their children are somehow from an illegitimate marriage in the eyes of the Church?
Absolutely baloney!
And then what? Another priest would not baptize their children. Another in the same parish would. However he was called out of town on the day of the Baptisms so the priest who would not baptize ended up having to do so. God works in mysterious ways I like to say.
And finally when the couple died, it was said they were in heaven.
And the ending was the best of all. May they rest in peace.
So then what? The Church says they are not married! No of course not in the eyes of the Church because a priest wanted an exorbitant amount of money to bless their marriage and drove them away!
So then what next? Their children are somehow from an illegitimate marriage in the eyes of the Church?
Absolutely baloney!
And then what? Another priest would not baptize their children. Another in the same parish would. However he was called out of town on the day of the Baptisms so the priest who would not baptize ended up having to do so. God works in mysterious ways I like to say.
And finally when the couple died, it was said they were in heaven.
And the ending was the best of all. May they rest in peace.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Are you certain that the OP’s marriage is ineligible for retroactive validation, though? Doesn’t that require knowing that her or her spouse’s consent is defective?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Yeah by the CHURCH
K
kage_ar
Guest
The English term is “Radical Sanation”
Here is one example of the paperwork, this still goes through your tribunal.
C
CMatt25
Guest
And I might likewise suggest it would be polite and more respectful and less hurtful if one does not always assume ignorance or failures by posters or laity and perhaps open their minds and hearts to wrongs elsewhere.
May our good Lord bless you always. Peace.
May our good Lord bless you always. Peace.
A
agapewolf
Guest
No assumptions necessary, it was obvious by your post that you misunderstand a lot about the church.
P
Phemie
Guest
The Church doesn’t do radical sanation when a simple convalidation is possible.
With a simple convalidation the valid marriage starts when the couple exchange consent in the Church.
In a radical sanation, the marriage is ‘healed at the root’ and doesn’t require the couple to exchange consent in the Church. This is the route taken when one party does not want to speak the vows again. With radical sanation the marriage is deemed to have been valid from the start.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Ok fine. Have it your way when it was the priests who did, said and taught what was in my post. That’s fine. I don’t really care. You of course know everything or assume you do. Peace to you as well.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
Convalidation is effected usually by a proper canonical celebration of marriage once the invalidating impediment or defect of consent has been corrected. The parties must place a new act of consent.
Radical sanation is granted by the diocesan bishop (though some cases are reserved to the Holy See.) It is not granted by a tribunal, but I imagine some bishops have the matter reviewed by tribunal staff before they grant this. Although the parties are not required to place a new act of consent, it must be clear that the naturally sufficient, but canonically invalid, consent given at the prior ceremony endures.
If a couple were free to marry but simply failed to observe the obligation to canonical form or obtain a dispensation when required, the remedy is a canonical celebration of marriage. This is not a convalidation in the proper sense, although it is often called one.
Radical sanation is granted by the diocesan bishop (though some cases are reserved to the Holy See.) It is not granted by a tribunal, but I imagine some bishops have the matter reviewed by tribunal staff before they grant this. Although the parties are not required to place a new act of consent, it must be clear that the naturally sufficient, but canonically invalid, consent given at the prior ceremony endures.
If a couple were free to marry but simply failed to observe the obligation to canonical form or obtain a dispensation when required, the remedy is a canonical celebration of marriage. This is not a convalidation in the proper sense, although it is often called one.
S
smty3
Guest
I just had my marriage Convalidated last week (on our actual wedding anniversary). The marriage class we took was phenomenal. We kept saying to each other “Why did we didn’t we do this years ago”. We (my husband and I) are almost finished with RCIA. I had to have my marriage Convalidate to participate in Easter Vigil because I am the Catholic and I wouldn’t be able to take communion until it was done.
Everyone else on here knows a lot more about the topic, but I am a real life person who just did it. As soon as you complete your pre-cana class and get all your paperwork in order you can get it done. We did ours on Thursday night just our family and it was even more magical that the HUGE expensive civil wedding we originally had. It also feels great to know our marriage is blessed by God, it really does make a difference. I say why wait…go talk to your priest today.
Everyone else on here knows a lot more about the topic, but I am a real life person who just did it. As soon as you complete your pre-cana class and get all your paperwork in order you can get it done. We did ours on Thursday night just our family and it was even more magical that the HUGE expensive civil wedding we originally had. It also feels great to know our marriage is blessed by God, it really does make a difference. I say why wait…go talk to your priest today.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Meaning, I am guessing, that simply doing a convalidation removes all doubt about the quality of consent that was present the first time the consent was given. It is not that the Church has a problem with radical sanations, so much as there are the issues similar to those that might lead to a provisional baptism? I mean that establishing one exact date of the start of the marriage over another isn’t as important as being more certain that the consent is free of defect in the end.
P
Phemie
Guest
Usually it’s not about removing doubt about consent but rather about observing canonical form, especially if we are talking about a Catholic married civilly who has no impediment (previous marriage, etc.).
While there are several Catholics I know who are civilly married but have impediments to a valid marriage due to the previous marriage of one of the parties, I know others who chose to go to the justice of the peace simply because the pastor wouldn’t allow them to introduce abuses to the Liturgy. In fact, I know one couple who opted for that one day before the wedding when bridezilla couldn’t get her way. Should that couple opt to come back to the parish and have their marriage ‘convalidated’, it would not in any way be to remove doubt about their initial consent but to observe canonical form.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
That makes sense.
- Status