Anniversary when not in a valid marriage question

[BlueEyedLady]

Pardon my apparent arrogance. I don’t think any of the apologists know more about the topic than I do…thanks to my canon law professors.

Dan

Actually, the part that you quoted seems to contradict you. It appears that they can be granted retroactively. See below:

Can. 1161 ß1 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.

ß2 The validation takes place from the moment the favor 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.

ß3 A retroactive validation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties intend to persevere in conjugal life.

Can. 1162 ß1 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.

ß2 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.

Can. 1163 ß1 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.

ß2 A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment of the natural law or of the divine positive law, can be validated retroactively only after the impediment has ceased.

Can. 1164 A retroactive validation may validly be granted even if one or both of the parties is unaware of it; it is not, however, to be granted except for a grave reason.

Can. 1165 ß1 Retroactive validation can be granted by the Apostolic See.

ß2 It can be granted by the diocesan Bishop in individual cases, even if a number of reasons for nullity occur together in the same marriage, assuming that for a retroactive validation of a mixed marriage the conditions of Can. 1125 will have been fulfilled. It cannot, however, be granted by him if there is an impediment whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with Can. 1078 ß2, or if there is question of an impediment of the natural law or of the divine positive law which has now ceased.

ourladyswarriors.org/canon/c0840-1165.htm

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Hello,

The priest, not uncommonly when it comes to the topic of a sanation, was mistaken. That’s not what a sanation does or means. If a marriage is sanated, it becomes valid the moment the sanation is granted (canon 1161.2).

As to the topic of the thread, you are not married as far as the Church is concerned.

Dan

From someone who has been through the Radical Sanation process, I can tell you that you are incorrect.

Radical Sanation (healing at the root), validates the marriage retroactively. In the paper work received the priest handling my case received from the Bishops’ office there was a special notation that when the marriage is entered in our Sacramental records to be sure to use the original (in my case civil) marriage date.

When a marriage is convalidated, the date of convalidation takes place is recorded in the Sacramental records.

 

[dans0622]

Actually, the part that you quoted seems to contradict you. It appears that they can be granted retroactively. See below:

Hello,

“The validation takes place from the moment the favor is granted” is what I am talking about. The “referral back” is for canonical effects. The validity of the marriage is not a canonical effect. See the Exegetical Commentary’s entry on canon 1161.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

From someone who has been through the Radical Sanation process, I can tell you that you are incorrect.

Radical Sanation (healing at the root), validates the marriage retroactively. In the paper work received the priest handling my case received from the Bishops’ office there was a special notation that when the marriage is entered in our Sacramental records to be sure to use the original (in my case civil) marriage date.

When a marriage is convalidated, the date of convalidation takes place is recorded in the Sacramental records.

Hello,

Yes, that’s a common mistake.

Dan

 

[nodito]

Hello,

“The validation takes place from the moment the favor is granted” is what I am talking about. The “referral back” is for canonical effects. The validity of the marriage is not a canonical effect. See the Exegetical Commentary’s entry on canon 1161.

Dan

Dan, what is a “canonical effect”?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Hello,

Yes, that’s a common mistake.

Dan

I am confused? Are you saying that my Bishop was incorrect?

Also, what you are quoting is not “official” Canon Law. At least it is not worded the same as the English translation from the Vatican website.

Can. 1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.

§2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor. Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.

It is quite clear that Radical Sanation is retroactive, unless it is specifically addressed otherwise.

 

[Memaw]

I am confused? Are you saying that my Bishop was incorrect?

Also, what you are quoting is not “official” Canon Law. At least it is not worded the same as the English translation from the Vatican website.

It is quite clear that Radical Sanation is retroactive, unless it is specifically addressed otherwise.

Maybe Dan should make an appointment to talk to his Bishop. I didn’t know my statement was going to cause such a stir but Thanks to those of you who clearly explained it to us. God Bless. Memaw

 

[dans0622]

I am confused? Are you saying that my Bishop was incorrect?

Also, what you are quoting is not “official” Canon Law. At least it is not worded the same as the English translation from the Vatican website.

It is quite clear that Radical Sanation is retroactive, unless it is specifically addressed otherwise.

Hello,

I don’t know what, exactly, the bishop did in your case or what his view is on this topic.

As far as my translation–I was using the Canadian/British version. Actually, the person I was responding to used that version.

The way it was explained to you is not uncommon–even the canon lawyer who wrote that part of the American (CLSA) commentary has that viewpoint. Many other canon lawyers (in American and elsewhere) disagree and I agree with them, finding their reasoning to be more sound.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

Dan, what is a “canonical effect”?

Hello,

In this conversation, it seems the only relevant effect is the full legitimation of children.

Dan

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Hello,

I don’t know what, exactly, the bishop did in your case or what his view is on this topic.

As far as my translation–I was using the Canadian/British version. Actually, the person I was responding to used that version.

The way it was explained to you is not uncommon–even the canon lawyer who wrote that part of the American (CLSA) commentary has that viewpoint. Many other canon lawyers (in American and elsewhere) disagree and I agree with them, finding their reasoning to be more sound.

Dan

If you wouldn’t mind, I would like to see those sources.
I also study Canon Law and have access to more than one professor of Canon Law. I have ***never ***heard of anyone saying that Radical Sanation is not “retroactive”. I researched this option for nearly a year, and quite honestly, I believe you are wrong, so sources of these others who also interpret the canon the same way would be most enlightening.

 

[EasterJoy]

December 9 has come and gone…

If the couple decided to stand up, it would not make any difference in terms of presenting themselves “correctly”. They’ve already been presented to the congregation as a married couple and are presumably living as a married couple. Standing up to mark an anniversary would hardly make much difference one way or the other, when added to that.

If the couple elected not to stand up, as many couples whose marriages have been as valid as the day is long probably elect to do every week for various and sundry reasons, I’m thinking that when their situation has been regularized they will mark their anniversary with far more exultation. May that day come very soon! They ought not beat themselves up about it either way, though, that is the main thing. This is simply not such a monumental gesture as all of that; it is not worth losing sleep over.

 

[MJJean]

Thank you all. Easter Joy, you bring up a valid point I never thought if while decidingvif we would stand up or not. Our priest and the Sister who we’ve been working with and who knew of the marital situation immediately…before I even went to my first Mass… are the ones who introduced us to fellow parishioners as married. So, yeah, I suppose we could have stood up.

Unfortunately, we weren’t able to attend Mass or RCIA as we had a funeral to attend a bit of a drive away. My husband’s close friends mother passed away unexpectedly Thursday, we got the call Friday, the mother meant a lot to my husband since his childhood so attendance was important to him.

If anyone wants to pray for the soul of Carol L your prayers would be appreciated.

 

[dans0622]

If you wouldn’t mind, I would like to see those sources.
I also study Canon Law and have access to more than one professor of Canon Law. I have ***never ***heard of anyone saying that Radical Sanation is not “retroactive”. I researched this option for nearly a year, and quite honestly, I believe you are wrong, so sources of these others who also interpret the canon the same way would be most enlightening.

Hello,

If you have access to the canon law journal Periodica, there is an article there in volume 99 (2010), pp. 461-501, by J. A. Renken, titled “Extraordinary Convalidation: the radical sanation of an invalid marriage.”

The Exegetical Commentary’s entry on canon 1161. There you will find reference to a Sentence from the Roman Rota where it is stated that if a marriage that is “radically sanated” is not subsequently consummated, it can be dissolved in virtue of it’s non-consummation. If the marriage is actually valid from the moment of the exchange of consent, this would be impossible since post-sanatio consummation would be irrelevant. While this Sentence is from the 1960’s, the notion of radical sanation has not changed from the 1917 Code to the 1983.

The 2008 edition of Woestman/Kowal’s book “Special Marriage Cases…” also has some commentary, especially at p. 171.

L. Orsy, “Marriage in Canon Law,” p. 252.

Dan