BAptism and Convalidation

[chrsimpson]

I am Catholic and my husband is not. We were married many years ago by a protestant minister. Recently my husband decided he wanted to become Catholic. He enrolled in RCIA classes and has gone faithfully to every class. He was to be baptized on Holy Saturday. Our further plan was, after his baptism, to be remarried in the church.
Surprisingly, yesterday, we were told that my husband could not be baptized until after our marriage was convalidated.
I don’t understand why this was not mentioned before or if it is absolutely true? Friends of mine followed the same route we were taking as in baptism first then remarriage. Is this an absolute rule or are there different approaches to meeting the same goals?

 

[PhilotheaZ]

Here’s the story. If a Catholic was “married” in a way not following the marriage laws of the Church, the marriage is not valid (i.e., you are not really married). To have marital relations with someone to whom you are not married is objectively a grave sin (mortal sin if you do it with knowledge and consent). A Catholic in these circumstances is not allowed to receive any of the sacraments.

When your husband is baptized, he is agreeing to embrace all the teachings and laws of the Church, to reject Satan and all his works — to reject everything that is sinful. If he plans to continue living in an objectively sinful relationship, he is not submitting himself fully to the Church and Christ’s teachings.

Therefore he must wait until his marriage situation is resolved, either by a valid marriage (convalidation) or by separation.

Normally it is required to have marriage irregularities taken care of before being received into the Church. This should have been explained to you and your husband a long time ago, when he first inquired about the RCIA process. I am sorry that you were taken by surprise at the last minute. It should be part of the pastor’s standard procedure to personally interview all catechumens and candidates early in the process to avoid such misunderstandings.

Is there anything (such as a prior marriage in need of annulment) preventing you from having your marriage convalidated now?

I have seen instances where a convalidation took place quietly immediately (a few minutes) after the Easter Vigil Mass. Clearly there was no opportunity for anything “sinful” to happen in those few minutes! But I can’t think of any other situation in which it would be appropriate to be received into the Church before the convalidation.

God bless you as you continue to work with your pastor to resolve this in the way God wants you to do so.

 

[chrsimpson]

This was a first marriage for both of us. No prior marriages and we have been married for 11 years, no children.
Our pastor is requiring us to go to convalidation classes (3) before he will convalidate the marriage. Is he being ultra-conservative?

 

[msugeotech]

Your pastor is incorrect. Neither of you were Catholic at the time you were married, therefore, you were not bound by Canon Law to observe the Catholic form of marriage. Your marriage is already valid, and cannot be convalidated.

I had the same problem with my pastor. I had a previous marriage declared invalid by our Tribunal. The presumption of validity then falls to the next marriage (which is my current one). Since we were not Catholic when we married (and neither was my ex-wife), our marriage was valid and could not be convalidated. I had to get the Judicial Vicar involved, and it got tense for a while. Anyway, making a long story short, we’re in, no convalidation required or performed.

“If a priest convalidates a valid marriage, he does so invalidly.” Straight from our JV’s mouth.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

This was a first marriage for both of us. No prior marriages and we have been married for 11 years, no children.
Our pastor is requiring us to go to convalidation classes (3) before he will convalidate the marriage. Is he being ultra-conservative?

No, I don’t necessarily think he is being ultra-conservative. He is doing his job as a pastor. He is required by Church law to see that those under his care are adequately prepared before entering into marriage. The following is from the Code of Canon Law (bold emphasis added):

Can. 1063 Pastors of souls are obliged to take care that their ecclesiastical community offers the Christian faithful the assistance by which the matrimonial state is preserved in a Christian spirit and advances in perfection. This assistance must be offered especially by:

1/ preaching, catechesis adapted to minors, youth, and adults, and even the use of instruments of social communication, by which the Christian faithful are instructed about the meaning of Christian marriage and about the function of Christian spouses and parents;

2/ personal preparation to enter marriage, which disposes the spouses to the holiness and duties of their new state;

3/ a fruitful liturgical celebration of marriage which is to show that the spouses signify and share in the mystery of the unity and fruitful love between Christ and the Church;

4/ help offered to those who are married, so that faithfully preserving and protecting the conjugal covenant, they daily come to lead holier and fuller lives in their family.

It is up to the pastor to determine exactly how that will be carried out, but it would be wrong for him to witness a marriage without proper preparation.

You can certainly make an appointment with him to address your concerns. Perhaps there is a way to accelerate the preparation process. Or perhaps he would be willing to baptize your husband immediately after the marriage preparation and convalidation have taken place. (You do NOT have to wait until next Easter; when circumstances warrant, baptisms of adults can take place at other times of the year.)

 

[sheila0405]

Perhaps it is because you are Catholic and your husband was not at the time of your marriage. You did not have a Nuptial Mass. Therefore the marriage is not sacramental. When I came through RCIA in 2004, it was handled a bit differently for such a couple in my class. The marriage was validated and then the husband came into the Church. My recollection of this is that he had been baptized as a Protestant, which, of course, the Church recognizes. This might seem petty to you, but this insistence on proper and valid marriages is part of what makes the Church great (imho). It is the Church alone which so often stands alone these days, in proclaiming God’s standard of marriage. This is a minor detour for your husband. I hope he sees it as such, and that in the end, whenever God deems, he is received into the Church. Welcome home to him!

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Perhaps it is because you are Catholic and your husband was not at the time of your marriage. You did not have a Nuptial Mass. Therefore the marriage is not sacramental.

Thanks for the opportunity to do a little education here. Your conclusion is incorrect. The marriage is not sacramental because the husband is not baptized. The fact that a nuptual Mass did not take place has nothing to do with the sacramentality of the marriage. It happens that the marriage is invalid because of “lack of form” – a Catholic is obligated to be married before a bishop, priest or deacon in a Catholic church or oratory unless a dispensation has been granted.

A marriage between two baptized persons (even if not Catholic) is presumed to be sacramental. A marriage involving at least one unbaptized person is called a “natural bond” and is not sacramental.

Deacon Ed