Cause for "conditional convalidation"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ltravis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

ltravis

Guest
Hi friends,

I have a question I have not seen placed before regarding sacramentally valid marriages. I am catholic, happily married for 14 years in the church, and intending to stay so. However, thinking back to my catholic wedding I realize how naive I was and even though I went to pre-cana and all, it seems I didn’t understand all that I should have about what a true sacramental marriage is all about. My worry is this: is it possible my marriage isn’t sacramentally valid and all this time I have only had a naturally valid marriage without the sacramental grace? I know the church presumes validity, but what if the presumption is wrong? Maybe I am just being scrupulous and have no reason for concern, but what about folks who are happily married but were really too naive to have given proper consent?

LT
 
ltravis said:
Hi friends,

I have a question I have not seen placed before regarding sacramentally valid marriages. I am catholic, happily married for 14 years in the church, and intending to stay so. However, thinking back to my catholic wedding I realize how naive I was and even though I went to pre-cana and all, it seems I didn’t understand all that I should have about what a true sacramental marriage is all about. My worry is this: is it possible my marriage isn’t sacramentally valid and all this time I have only had a naturally valid marriage without the sacramental grace? I know the church presumes validity, but what if the presumption is wrong? Maybe I am just being scrupulous and have no reason for concern, but what about folks who are happily married but were really too naive to have given proper consent?

LT
Click to expand...
The grace of the sacrament has over time brought you to the understanding you need. There’s no need to get scrupulous about it.
 
ltravis said:
Hi friends,

I have a question I have not seen placed before regarding sacramentally valid marriages. I am catholic, happily married for 14 years in the church, and intending to stay so. However, thinking back to my catholic wedding I realize how naive I was and even though I went to pre-cana and all, it seems I didn’t understand all that I should have about what a true sacramental marriage is all about. My worry is this: is it possible my marriage isn’t sacramentally valid and all this time I have only had a naturally valid marriage without the sacramental grace? I know the church presumes validity, but what if the presumption is wrong? Maybe I am just being scrupulous and have no reason for concern, but what about folks who are happily married but were really too naive to have given proper consent?

LT
Click to expand...
Hey, I have actually wondered the same thing about my own situation.
 
ltravis said:
My worry is this: is it possible my marriage isn’t sacramentally valid and all this time I have only had a naturally valid marriage without the sacramental grace?
Click to expand...
No. A valid marriage between the baptized is a sacrament by its nature. A natural marriage is a valid marriage involving one or more unbaptized people. Natural does not mean invalid.
ltravis said:
I know the church presumes validity, but what if the presumption is wrong? Maybe I am just being scrupulous and have no reason for concern, but what about folks who are happily married but were really too naive to have given proper consent?

LT
Click to expand...
STOP IT.

You are validly married and are being scrupulous.
 
Thanks anp1215; it is good to know I am not the only one who has thought about such things.

Yes, SonCatcher, I agree I am probably being scrupulous, and you make a good point. I am probably something of a spiritual hypochondriac. However, myself aside, I think it is an interesting question in general which I don’t know the answer to. For instance, taken more extreme, what about a marriage between two catholics where one of them was scared into it, did it merely for appearances after an unplanned pregnancy, or had one of those arrangements just to get the partner citizenship? Granted, those are far fetched examples, but the church would have married them presuming validity and clearly its presumption would have been wrong, but what if the couple truly grew to sacrificially love eachother and were committed to eachother? Should they get a convalidation or something? I would think that although the church saw it as sacramentally valid, that it really wasn’t, and couldn’t have just grown into it over time. Or could it have?

LT
 
Can.* 1158 §1. If the impediment is public, both parties must renew the consent in canonical form, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

§2. If the impediment cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party conscious of the impediment renews the consent privately and in secret, provided that the other perseveres in the consent offered; if the impediment is known to both parties, both are to renew the consent.

Can.* 1159 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of a defect of consent is convalidated if the party who did not consent now consents, provided that the consent given by the other party perseveres.

§2. If the defect of consent cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party who did not consent gives consent privately and in secret.

§3. If the defect of consent can be proven, the consent must be given in canonical form.
 
1ke said:
No. A valid marriage between the baptized is a sacrament by its nature. A natural marriage is a valid marriage involving one or more unbaptized people. Natural does not mean invalid.

STOP IT.

You are validly married and are being scrupulous.
Click to expand...
Thanks, 1ke - I needed that 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top