Convalidation Issue

[BettyBoop416]

A couple of years ago I was approached by a work colleague who, upon noticing my crucifix necklace, asked it I was Catholic. I replied in the affirmative and asked if she was also Catholic. After chatting a bit I learned that she had been raised Catholic but had stopped practicing as an adult. As time passed we discovered that we had much in common and we became good friends. Coincidently, it turned out that her husband and mine already knew each other from their weightlifting club, so we began doing “couple things” with them.

Long story short, she began feeling drawn back to the Church. I explained that I had some struggles with a few Church teachings and encouraged her to seek spiritual direction from some other source, but I also made it clear that, as her friend, I was willing to discuss her journey home with her. One of her issues was the fact that her (protestant-raised but now agnostic) husband was previously married and divorced. Fortunately, her husband is one of the most decent guys you could ever meet, and he’d walk over hot coals to make his wife happy. Although he had to grit his teeth and hold his nose through the whole process, with the patient assistance and encouragement of our parish priest, he was granted an annulment of his previous marriage. All that was left was to get their marriage convalidated. They made an appointment with our (new - the other priest had been transferred) parish priest to begin the marriage preparation process. Although my friend’s husband wasn’t thrilled with the marriage prep requirements for “marrying someone I’ve already been married to for 10 years,” he was again willing to grit his teeth and hold his nose to get through it in order to make his wife happy…until the priest dropped this bomb: Part of his requirement to convalidate thier marriage was that they would have to separate for six months. He explained that he imposed this requirement on all “co-habitatiing couples” who approached him for marriage. At that point, things took an ugly turn and went downhill real fast. Let’s just say the convalidation is now off the table.

Anyway…my question is…is this SOP for the Church? I can kind of understand it for young adults who are just living together, but this couple has been legally married for 10 years. It seems like an unreasonable and unnecessary roadblock to put up in front of someone who is trying to return to the Church. In this case, the husband has absolutely no interest in anything more to do with the Church, and even my friend has been left with a very bad taste in her mouth, and is having serious second thoughts about reverting.

Your thoughts and comments are welcome.

 

[dans0622]

Anyway…my question is…is this SOP for the Church? …

Hello,

No, it’s not. The couple should get a second opinion or go up to a higher authority. Of course, one can understand the basic rationale behind this priest’s requirement but, as can be seen here, what he was trying to prevent (conjugal relations between unmarried people, which is what your friends are, as far as the Church is concerned) has only been made more likely to continue for a long time.

If they are unwilling to even discuss the matter with anyone in the Church (this pastor or someone else) perhaps you could assist them.

Dan

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

…he was again willing to grit his teeth and hold his nose to get through it in order to make his wife happy…until the priest dropped this bomb: Part of his requirement to convalidate thier marriage was that they would have to separate for six months. He explained that he imposed this requirement on all “co-habitatiing couples” who approached him for marriage. At that point, things took an ugly turn and went downhill real fast.

Anyway…my question is…is this SOP for the Church?

No, it’s not, and I completely agree with you. Officially, the Church wants to help people get in a right state; this priest’s heavy-handed “requirement” has served only to make this objective far more difficult.

Please, please, please, BettyBoop, do all in your power to convey to your friends that this is not acceptable nor genuine Catholic policy. I know people who have needed to have their marriage convalidated, and no such requirement was placed upon them. This is not the proper time to be a hardass.

Your friends should seek out another priest/parish, or better yet, contact the diocese. This priest’s actions are, in my educated opinion, indefensible.

But hey, don’t take my word for it: by imposing this canonically unnecessary requirement, this priest has directly contributed to your friends’ entrenchment in their current situation. Here’s what the Lord has to say about that:
**
“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."** - Matt. 18:6

 

[SonCatcher]

They should approach someone in their diocese to determine whether the requirement is imposed by the bishop.

It is “standard” to require the couple to refrain from sex (they can still live in the same house) during the preparation process but it doesn’t have to be 6 months. If the requirement isn’t from the bishop, just try another priest.

Here are some thoughts in case the requirement is from the bishop:

They could consider it dating for a while. BTW - if one of them had surgery and the doctor told them “no sex for 6 months while your body heals” would they willingly accept that?

The Church, in this case, is doctor for your friend’s soul. The priest and bishop want her to get better. Sometimes that requires sacrifice.

Finally, if the 6 month requirement totally alienates the husband from the process, she could petition the bishop for Radical Sanation. This is an investigation of an apparently invalid marriage (since she was not married within the Church) with the intent of determining whether the marriage is indeed valid (kind of a reverse annulment).

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Do they have children? I mean, that priest shouldn’t have set up such a condition in the first place, but if they have children, then it was a truly cruel hurdle for him to set up. She probably doesn’t want to call the diocese but needs to … But it is going to take some heavy convincing from someone else in the Church for her husband to come back to where he was…oh, this makes my heart ache! So close, and then… These kinds of things don’t help the Church’s reputation…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The Church, in this case, is doctor for your friend’s soul. The priest and bishop want her to get better. Sometimes that requires sacrifice.

A true and important principle, but in this case it’s pretty clear that this priest’s actions are indefensible. Consider that they are being treated the same way he would treat a cohabiting, unmarried couple, when in their case…

(a) They are legally married, which - Sacramental status aside - simply puts them in a different social category than a couple whom no one claims/believes is married.

(b) The husband is not Catholic or even Christian and thus cannot by any just standard be expected to believe in Catholic teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. Yet, this “six months” requirement does precisely that: ask of him a large sacrifice whose very legitimacy depends absolutely on belief in Catholic teaching on fornication, marriage, and divorce.

(c) The husband is known to be skeptical and a bit irritated by the whole process already, though for the love and support of his wife he was willing to go along with it all.

All of these givens are known facts, presented to us by the OP, BettyBoop. In such a case, this priest is living in fantasyland. What effect does he think this “requirement” will have on someone who is not even Catholic? To be told that they are essentially living in sin and must separate would be humiliating. If the person is Catholic and knowingly, willingly got themselves in that situation, then maybe that’s one thing. Maybe. But he isn’t even Catholic. This may be his first exposure to the Catholic Church! What a first impression, huh?

I am highly disturbed by this situation. I admit, I *do *know people who are enough of a hardass to think that such requirements should be imposed, but in my experience they’re all gung-ho laymen with pretty much no pastoral sensitivity. A fully trained, true priest of the Catholic Church who would choose to impose a canonically unnecessary requirement, known to feel humiliating for the non-Catholic spouse who doesn’t even believe in this stuff, and with the full awareness that they might choose to forego convalidation entirely, is literally herding this couple into the very sinful lifestyle he has a sacred duty to help them get out of.

I said it above, and I’ll say it again: per Matthew 18:6, it would be better for this priest if he had had a great millstone hung around his neck and drowned in the depths of the sea. For the sake of his own immortal soul, I hope his bishop lays the smackdown on him soon.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I just want to clarify why I have such strong feelings on this matter.

I have a cousin - not Catholic - who, without telling our family, married her boyfriend before a justice of the peace. She did it because they’re both in the military and wanted to ensure they could be together before they were assigned, and there was no time to plan a big wedding. While I felt sad for my grandmother - who was really unhappy at not being able to be at her granddaughter’s wedding - and worried about the imprudence and haste of their decision, I nonetheless prayed and wished in my heart that they enjoy every happiness together.

Then I found out that her boyfriend was Catholic - which, in our beliefs, means that the marriage was invalid. Fortunately, they were able to immediately procure a convalidation. So they are validly married now.

I was already a bit sad for my other family members and a little worried about the future of their marriage. If the Catholic Church I know and love so dearly had given them such an additional hurdle, I can’t imagine how angry I would have been. I would have seen it as Pharisaically and unnecessarily toying with the soul of my cousin’s husband.

I mean, good heavens, there are Gospel verses about this kind of thing! Where our Lord denounces the Pharisees for laying heavy burdens on people, then not lifting a finger to help them bear them.

So this reminded me of my own family, and made me think how I would have felt if some priest had essentially forced my own cousin into persevering in a sinful lifestyle…

 

[SonCatcher]

A true and important principle, but in this case it’s pretty clear that this priest’s actions are indefensible…

That note was presented in the context presuming the bishop made the requirement. Defensible or not, if the bishop happened to make this difficult requirement (unlikely but still possible), we must yield.

 

[chaunceygardner]

A couple very close to me had their first marriages annulled, were married in a civil ceremony in the interim, and then later had the Sacrament of Marriage performed by the parish priest in church. They consulted with him, went through the proper steps, but were not required to live apart prior to the wedding.

I hope this couple can find a more reasonable priest who will help them a make a full and joyous return to the Church as a married couple.

 

[HonoraDominum]

I was in a similar position when I entered the church, but had much happier results. I was baptized and confirmed at our diocean Cathedral and went through RCIA there as well.

When I was converting, I was required to be convalidated to my husband before I got baptized. While he had never been a practicing Catholic, and had never had first confession or communion or been confirmed, because he was baptized he was considered “Catholic” in the eyes of the church. And canonically speaking he was living in sin because of it. So we got convalidated. We were not given the requirement of celibacy beforehand, and there was no “living apart” requirement either.

That is such an odd situation. To keep a person from sanctifying grace by imposing what is obviously an impossible requirement seems counterproductive to the goal of saving as many souls for the glory of God as possible.

 

[1ke]

No this is not typical, and the woman should definitely seek guidance from another priest. Perhaps the original priest who began the process with them. He can still assist them, regardless of his transfer. She may also want to look into radical sanation rather than simple convalidation.

I am sorry that this priest took that position in this particular instance. I really hope your friend will seek out the original priest who was helping them.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

That note was presented in the context presuming the bishop made the requirement. Defensible or not, if the bishop happened to make this difficult requirement (unlikely but still possible), we must yield.

Yes, I admit it’s a different matter if it’s a diocesan requirement.

Still, I’d be very surprised if everyone in a diocese, including both the bishop and those working under him and advising him, were all so dense and Pharisaical (in the negative sense) that they don’t understand that standards different from those applied to cohabiting/fornicating couples should be applied to a legally married couple, one of whom is non-Catholic, and whose original impediment is now removed by an annulment…

And even if that is the case, an appeal to the bishop for an exception, in light of these circumstances, would still not be out of line. I acknowledge, however, that should he persist for some reason, the OP’s friends would be out of options. I also admit, though, that I truly can’t see that happening (maybe I’m naive).

Do they have children? I mean, that priest shouldn’t have set up such a condition in the first place, but if they have children, then it was a truly cruel hurdle for him to set up.

Excellent point.

To keep a person from sanctifying grace by imposing what is obviously an impossible requirement seems counterproductive to the goal of saving as many souls for the glory of God as possible.

Indeed.

 

[BettyBoop416]

Do they have children? I mean, that priest shouldn’t have set up such a condition in the first place, but if they have children, then it was a truly cruel hurdle for him to set up.

No, they do not have children. Still, while it wouldn’t be a financial hardship for this particular couple, it would certainly be an inconvenience for the husband to relocate for six months. Not to mention the fact that he regards it as totally unreasonable and unnecessary.

I hope this couple can find a more reasonable priest who will help them a make a full and joyous return to the Church as a married couple.

Our former priest is still in the area. In fact, he and my husband still play tennis about once a week. Would it be out of line to ask him to have a word with the new priest? BTW, the new priest is very young and proudly regards himself as being a “hardcore Catholic.” Now, I realize that it’s part of his job description to enforce the rules, but I’ve heard that he has painted himself into a corner on a few previous occasions by refusing to be even a little flexible. Hopefully this will be a learning experience for everyone.

No this is not typical, and the woman should definitely seek guidance from another priest.

Thank you for your response. I know that you are interested in and very knowledgable about Church rules regarding marriage issues. After our recent dust-up I was afraid you would have no interest in commenting on my post. Please know that I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Thanks to all who responded. I’ll provide updates as they develop.

 

[SonCatcher]

Our former priest is still in the area. In fact, he and my husband still play tennis about once a week.

Wonderful. They could ask for him to continue the process at his new parish.

Would it be out of line to ask him to have a word with the new priest?

Yes. If he needs correction, it needs to be through the bishop. Former pastors cannot go meddling into their old parishes. Even if there is no canonical prohibition, it violates common sense.

BTW, the new priest is very young and proudly regards himself as being a “hardcore Catholic.” Now, I realize that it’s part of his job description to enforce the rules, but I’ve heard that he has painted himself into a corner on a few previous occasions by refusing to be even a little flexible. Hopefully this will be a learning experience for everyone.

Hopefully, he too will learn from the experience.

 

[anruari]

Hi
I know you’ve been given a fairly unanimous response, and I’d like to add my own voice:

I was married 4 years ago. I was co-habiting at the time. I was *advised * to separate if possible untill the wedding, and to sleep seperately or at least abstain from sex before the wedding if separating is not possible.
It was spiritual advice and it was made clear that it was not binding or a pre-condition for the marriage.

It is my understanding that your current priest is totally out of line, and I am aware of NO guideline that would require this action.

I believe there is a requirement for 6 months notice of intention to marry. Certainly there is in the UK and in Ireland. That may vary from country to country - or it may be cannon law I don’t know.

The priest does not have the right to insist you live separately during this period.
He does have an obligation to *reccomend * it to unmarried couples.

 

[anruari]

Point 2:
This is a Convalidation, not a new marriage.

A Convalidation is an acknowledement that the marriage is and always has been valid and retrospectively blessing it, thereby removing the illicit factors (such as having been married outside the church)

Quote:
According to the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, Canon 1161 states that the
“radical sanation [healing] of an individual marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, granted by competent authority and including a dispensation from impediment, if there was one, and from the canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity into the past of the canonical effects.”
Most couples who seek convalidation seek convalidation due to lack
of “canonical form,” i.e. marrying outside of a church or parish.

The church does not say this couple are were validly married, just ilicitly married. - there is a difference.
The original marriage of the husband has been anulled - that means it never happened. his original “marriage” never existed it was a sham / fraud for some reason which has been conclusively proven…
Therefore neither the husband nor the wife were ever previously married, therefore they were free to marry at the time they did so assuming there are no bars to the marriage that were present at the time. -
Neither party was a practicing catholic at the time therefore the requirement to have married in the Church is significantly watered down.

Convalidation is therefore the *retrospective * acknowledgement that the marriage is legal, and blessing it.
Assuming there are no other barriers to prevent this convalidation, then once this is done your friends will have been validly and sacramentally married from the day they first made their vows. Therefore they will not be living in sin to consumate that marrige between now and the time they obtain that convalidation.

 

[dans0622]

Point 2:
This is a Convalidation, not a new marriage.

A Convalidation is an acknowledement that the marriage is and always has been valid and retrospectively blessing it, thereby removing the illicit factors (such as having been married outside the church)
…

Neither party was a practicing catholic at the time therefore the requirement to have married in the Church is significantly watered down.

Convalidation is therefore the *retrospective * acknowledgement that the marriage is legal, and blessing it.
Assuming there are no other barriers to prevent this convalidation, then once this is done your friends will have been validly and sacramentally married from the day they first made their vows. Therefore they will not be living in sin to consumate that marrige between now and the time they obtain that convalidation.

Hello,

I will try to condense my response down as much as possible: a full response would take a few pages. First, a Catholic who contracts a civil marriage with no regard for the requirements of canonical form (i.e., marrying “in the Church”) is not in an invalid marriage. In the perspective of the law, such a person’s “marriage” is inexistent. It is as if a couple of US citizens in whatever state simply went to the beach and said “I do” in front of a few friends. The state would not recognize such a scene as a wedding or say that a marriage of any sort resulted.

A convalidation is a way to make an invalid marriage a valid one. When it comes to a Catholic in a civil union, the way to have such a person have a valid marriage is for the couple to marry. Convalidation is not the best term since, as noted, this is not even an invalid marriage.

You are applying part of the notion of a radical sanation to all convalidations, including “simple convalidation.” The “retroactivity” is in regard to canonical effects: it cannot make the marriage valid from the beginning. That’s impossible. The marriage is valid from the moment the sanation is granted.

All Catholics, fallen away or not, must marry “in the Church.” There is no “watering down” of the requirement. Now, from the perspective of moral culpability, you can certainly say that is lessened if someone enters a civil union with no idea of the requirements of the Church.

These comments are based on canon law. In particular, cc. 1108, 1117, 1160, 1161.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[anruari]

Thanks Dan… I defer to your professional knowledge in these matters. I was basing my conclusions on incomplete understanding.

How does your statement alter the conclusion I made in my last sentence? (or are you not willing to go that far?).

I would assume that at the very least the culpability of the people would be considered to be greatly lessened?

 

[dans0622]

… How does your statement alter the conclusion I made in my last sentence? (or are you not willing to go that far?).

I would assume that at the very least the culpability of the people would be considered to be greatly lessened?

Hello again,

Thanks for the response. Certainly, culpability would be lessened and could even be absent. In the case at hand, the couple seemed to start their relationship and civil union with appropriate intentions and in ignorance. The Catholic party, now, has come to a deeper understanding of the reality of the situation and, I suspect, is aware that she should not engage in marital relations. So, I hope she is able to regularize her marital status as soon as possible. I will only say that the priest is right to tell the couple that they should not engage in marital relations until they are married. “Living in sin”? That’s what people tend to call it. Again, though, I agree that the actual, subjective sin might not be present. Besides, I’d hesitate to say “You’re living in sin” to the couple in question since that would probably result in the same thing as the (arbitrary and counterproductive) six month separation “requirement.”

Dan

 

[1ke]

Thank you for your response. I know that you are interested in and very knowledgable about Church rules regarding marriage issues. After our recent dust-up I was afraid you would have no interest in commenting on my post. Please know that I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Gosh, I must be really horrible! Am I really that bad?

Thanks to all who responded. I’ll provide updates as they develop.

I hope your friend can see past the human foibles of the priest. Priests are people too, and unfortunately can be insensitive, have bad timing, lack tack, and all of those things that we somehow don’t expect of a priest. They can have bad days, just like everyone.

I think we need to give them them benefit of the doubt, even when it’s difficult.