Convalidation Question

[DKIN]

I apologize in advance if I am posting this in the wrong section. Please feel free to move the post to a more appropriate area if need be.

I have searched for the answer to this question all over the forums, but can’t seem to find anything pertaining to my specific set of circumstances.

After many months of waiting I have received notification that my annulment has been approved and my family and I will be entering the Church at Easter Vigil. Following is our situation and I’m curious as to whether or not a convalidation of our marriage will be required. We have met with our Parish Priest and he made the comment that it isn’t absolutely necessary, but that the Church would prefer that we have it convalidated. I would like to know for certain. We likely will do it regardless, but would just feel better knowing what the answer is to the letter of the law.

My wife and I are were both baptized in the Southern Baptist faith as children. I was married and divorced before marrying my wife. My wife and I were both married in the Southern Baptist Church by a minister. We have completed RCIA and have not received the annulment for my past marriage. While I understand that the Catholic Church does recognize marriage by non-Catholic, baptized Christians as having a valid sacramental marriage, I’m curious if the annulment process has created a situation where the marriage needs to be convalidated.

If we do in fact need to have our marriage convalidated we will be required to go through “pre-marital” counseling beforehand. We have been married for close to twenty years, so this seems sort of funny to us, but nevertheless if it is what we need to do we will with a glad heart.

I believe I gave all of the details necessary to arrive at an answer by anyone who is well versed in such matters, but certainly if you have further questions, please ask.

God Bless!

 

[1ke]

After many months of waiting I have received notification that my annulment has been approved and my family and I will be entering the Church at Easter Vigil.

Congratulations!

We have met with our Parish Priest and he made the comment that it isn’t absolutely necessary, but that the Church would prefer that we have it convalidated.

I am sorry, but this is just plain silly. And wrong.

A convalidation is either necessary or it isn’t. A convalidation makes an invalid marriage valid by the exchange of new consent. Either a marriage is valid or invalid. It needs convalidating or it doesn’t.

There is no such thing as it “not being absolutely necessary” but being “preferred”. I hope you misunderstood your priest. Otherwise, he is out in left field.

If your first marriage was declared null, your second marriage is valid. You do not convalidate your marriage. See this document:

dioceseofbmt.org/lifelong/content/resources/PreviousandorInvalidMarriages.pdf

Yours would be case #3 (page 4) - baptized non-Catholic married/divorced/remarried to baptized non-Catholic. Annulment is required, convalidation is not required.

I’m curious if the annulment process has created a situation where the marriage needs to be convalidated.

No.

I believe I gave all of the details necessary to arrive at an answer by anyone who is well versed in such matters, but certainly if you have further questions, please ask.

The Vicar General of your diocese is the best resource-- he is a canon lawyer.

 

[SonCatcher]

Welcome Home!

You might need to ask a canon lawyer about your particular situation. However, your priest’s statement that the Church would “prefer” you convalidate your marriage probably means he thinks you should (but he’s likely not a canon lawyer). I don’t know if conditional convalidations are performed.

This forum is okay, but Liturgy and Sacraments will probably give you more specific answers to your situation.

EDIT: what 1ke said.

 

[Gorgias]

if the only issue on the table was the question of ‘prior bond’, and if that question has been resolved by the Church, such that there is no prior bond…

and if your Christian marriage is a valid, sacramental marriage…

then no, there’s no need for convalidation: you’re validly married.

(Edited to add: whoops! 1ke snuck in there while I was editing my message, and I didn’t see her post. What 1ke said, then… )

 

[Waiting]

You don’t need to be remarried, but why not – just as way to feel good about the new life you are entering upon as Catholics. My brother and his wife were “married” (renewed vows) several times during their long marriage. Each time was a testament to their love for each other.

 

[jwinch2]

Talk about good timing! I just attended a class on this exact subject from our Diocesan tribunal judge a couple of weeks ago. Here is the information that was presented:

If you were both married outside of the Church as non-Catholics, then your marriage will become sacramental at the moment you are both received into the Church. If you werre baptized as a Catholic, or one of you was, and were married outside of the Church without reception of a Dispensation from the Bishop, then you would either require a Sanation, or Convalidation, to have your marriage become acceptable in the eyes of the Church.
A Sanation is retroactive and makes the marriage sacramental on the date of the original wedding. A Convalidation is not retroactive and thus the actual wedding date in the eyes of the Church would be the date of Convalidation. In a Convalidation you are being re-married, while in a Sanation, you are not. Some diocese do not allow Sanation and require a Convalidation, while others do. It is up to the specific Bishop to decide that particular policy.

In your situation, it appears as if you were both married as non-Catholics outside of the Church. Thus, you should need neither a Sanation or Convalidation. If I am understanding your situation properly, then according to Canon Law, your marriage will become sacramental at the moment you are both baptized and confirmed in the Church.

I am 99% sure that I am relaying this information correctly. However, I would encourage you to contact your diocesan tribunal to make sure that there are not aspects of your particular situation that might cause this to change, or that I am not relating this accurately. The Canon Laws in this area can be tricky, and your parish pastor might not always be up on them or how they have been interpreted by the Church and/or, I could easily be mis-remembering something from our class. Please understand, I don’t mean to imply anything negative about your pastor, I am simply relating the information that I was told. According to the tribunal judge who taught our class, they have regular issues with a priest telling someone they can do something or not do something, and having to let them know otherwise. No one can know everything I suppose and I would hate to see things get messed up for you this course to the Easter Vigil.

Welcome home!

 

[jwinch2]

You don’t need to be remarried, but why not – just as way to feel good about the new life you are entering upon as Catholics. My brother and his wife were “married” (renewed vows) several times during their long marriage. Each time was a testament to their love for each other.

I am not discouraging the renewal of vows, far from it. However, it is important to recognize that a Convalidation is not a simple restating of vows. Rather, it is saying that the wedding did not exist until that time. For this reason, a couple may prefer asking for a Sanation instead. Unless of course, they just desire to be newlyweds again…

 

[SonCatcher]

Talk about good timing! I just attended a class on this exact subject from our Diocesan tribunal judge a couple of weeks ago. Here is the information that was presented:

If you were both married outside of the Church as non-Catholics, then your marriage will become sacramental at the moment you are both received into the Church. If you werre baptized as a Catholic, or one of you was, and were married outside of the Church without reception of a Dispensation from the Bishop, then you would either require a Sanation, or Convalidation, to have your marriage become acceptable in the eyes of the Church.
A Sanation is retroactive and makes the marriage sacramental on the date of the original wedding. A Convalidation is not retroactive and thus the actual wedding date in the eyes of the Church would be the date of Convalidation. In a Convalidation you are being re-married, while in a Sanation, you are not. Some diocese do not allow Sanation and require a Convalidation, while others do. It is up to the specific Bishop to decide that particular policy.

In your situation, it appears as if you were both married as non-Catholics outside of the Church. Thus, you should need neither a Sanation or Convalidation. If I am understanding your situation properly, then according to Canon Law, your marriage will become sacramental at the moment you are both baptized and confirmed in the Church.

I am 99% sure that I am relaying this information correctly. However, I would encourage you to contact your diocesan tribunal to make sure that there are not aspects of your particular situation that might cause this to change, or that I am not relating this accurately. The Canon Laws in this area can be tricky, and your parish pastor might not always be up on them or how they have been interpreted by the Church and/or, I could easily be mis-remembering something from our class. Please understand, I don’t mean to imply anything negative about your pastor, I am simply relating the information that I was told. According to the tribunal judge who taught our class, they have regular issues with a priest telling someone they can do something or not do something, and having to let them know otherwise. No one can know everything I suppose and I would hate to see things get messed up for you this course to the Easter Vigil.

Welcome home!

Actually, validly married, baptized Christians do have a sacramental marriage, even if they don’t have the belief that marriage is a sacrament. If the OP’s marriage is valid, then it already is a sacrament since they are already both baptized.

 

[1ke]

You don’t need to be remarried, but why not

Because it is not possible, that’s why not.

just as way to feel good about the new life you are entering upon as Catholics.

Asking for the Nuptial Blessing would be more appropriate, IMHO.

 

[jwinch2]

Actually, validly married, baptized Christians do have a sacramental marriage, even if they don’t have the belief that marriage is a sacrament. If the OP’s marriage is valid, then it already is a sacrament since they are already both baptized.

I am unaware of the validity of the baptism in the eyes of the Church of the Southern Baptists. Because of that, I was going on the assumption that both were being baptized at the Easter Vigil as well as confirmed. If you look at my post you will see that I stated “at the moment you are both baptized and confirmed in the Church…”

If this is the case, my understanding is that what they have now is a valid marriage, but not a sacramental one. At the point they come into the Church, the marriage becomes sacramental.

However, if they are already validly baptized according to the Church, then I believe you are accurate in your statements.

 

[1ke]

If you were both married outside of the Church as non-Catholics, then your marriage will become sacramental at the moment you are both received into the Church.

Both parties are already baptized. Their marriage is already a sacrament.

 

[DKIN]

This is all very interesting and getting increasingly interesting by the moment. I called the Tribunal office and asked for clarification on the issue and was told that we did need to have our marriage convalidated. We will go ahead and move forward with it if that is what we are asked to do, but it does leave a lot of confusion in my mind. As to the validity of our baptism’s as some have questioned. We were both baptized with the same formula used in the Catholic Church…in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Our baptism’s have been accepted as valid by the Church. Not sure why then our marriage would not be considered valid unless the distinction is whether it is sacramentally valid, thus the need for the convalidation. Now that the representative from the Tribunal has spoken, I’m not really sure where else I would go to seek an answer. Being new to Catholic faith I’d rather not seem like a know-it-all despite being pretty well informed and seeing the answers from various sources. Seems like it’s pretty definitive if not accurate.

 

[jwinch2]

This is all very interesting and getting increasingly interesting by the moment. I called the Tribunal office and asked for clarification on the issue and was told that we did need to have our marriage convalidated. We will go ahead and move forward with it if that is what we are asked to do, but it does leave a lot of confusion in my mind. As to the validity of our baptism’s as some have questioned. We were both baptized with the same formula used in the Catholic Church…in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Our baptism’s have been accepted as valid by the Church. Not sure why then our marriage would not be considered valid unless the distinction is whether it is sacramentally valid, thus the need for the convalidation. Now that the representative from the Tribunal has spoken, I’m not really sure where else I would go to seek an answer. Being new to Catholic faith I’d rather not seem like a know-it-all despite being pretty well informed and seeing the answers from various sources. Seems like it’s pretty definitive if not accurate.

Sounds to me like you have done what you can. The convalidation ceremony is beautiful and full of meaning, just like a wedding! I wish you the best.

 

[1ke]

This is all very interesting and getting increasingly interesting by the moment. I called the Tribunal office and asked for clarification on the issue and was told that we did need to have our marriage convalidated. We will go ahead and move forward with it if that is what we are asked to do, but it does leave a lot of confusion in my mind. As to the validity of our baptism’s as some have questioned. We were both baptized with the same formula used in the Catholic Church…in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Our baptism’s have been accepted as valid by the Church. Not sure why then our marriage would not be considered valid unless the distinction is whether it is sacramentally valid, thus the need for the convalidation. Now that the representative from the Tribunal has spoken, I’m not really sure where else I would go to seek an answer. Being new to Catholic faith I’d rather not seem like a know-it-all despite being pretty well informed and seeing the answers from various sources. Seems like it’s pretty definitive if not accurate.

I guess my question, if it were me, would be who at the tribunal office was speaking? A canonist or a receptionist?

 

[dans0622]

I guess my question, if it were me, would be who at the tribunal office was speaking? A canonist or a receptionist?

Unfortunately, if it was a canon lawyer you might still get a wrong answer, even about something that is rather simple and straightforward. I’ve seen my fellow canon lawyers say some pretty goofy stuff.

As for the OP–well, you have to do what they tell you to do. I’d just approach it as a renewal of vows and think of it as a good way of “initiating” your marriage in the Catholic Church.

Dan

 

[1ke]

Unfortunately, if it was a canon lawyer you might still get a wrong answer, even about something that is rather simple and straightforward. I’ve seen my fellow canon lawyers say some pretty goofy stuff.

As for the OP–well, you have to do what they tell you to do. I’d just approach it as a renewal of vows and think of it as a good way of “initiating” your marriage in the Catholic Church.

Dan

Honestly, this makes me crazy. I feel so bad for people who are told erroneous information about their VALID marriage!

 

[Phemie]

Unfortunately, if it was a canon lawyer you might still get a wrong answer, even about something that is rather simple and straightforward. I’ve seen my fellow canon lawyers say some pretty goofy stuff.

As for the OP–well, you have to do what they tell you to do. I’d just approach it as a renewal of vows and think of it as a good way of “initiating” your marriage in the Catholic Church.

Dan

I wondered about that.

I’ve had a canon lawyer tell me that there was no restriction on the number of godparents a child can have and that they can have two godmothers or two godfathers. He later admitted he’d been wrong, but in the meantime he’d given the wrong information to parents seeking Baptism.

I hate when that happens and you find out in the middle of a baptismal preparation session involving other parents. It always ends up looking like we’re the ones making up rules.

 

[thomasf]

If the OP has been civilly married for 20 years, I can’t imagine they would require pre-cana classes before convalidation. When my wife and I had ours done, we had been married for almost 5 years civilly and they didn’t even mention it. I would question that with your pastor.

And as far as the convalidation goes, it doesn’t have to be a big thing. My wife and I did it with the deacon the day after her annulment came back and it took all of 20 minutes I think. My wife’s sister and bro-in-law were our witnesses and we did it in the evening in the empty chapel. The deacon didn’t even ask for a stipend.

 

[Pemberley6703]

Related to the questioning of whether convalidating couples normally have to do a pre-marriage class, I have no personal expertise on this since I am not even Catholic yet, but I do know that our priest is having us do a traditional Pre-Cana class before our convalidation, and my (civil) husband and I have been married for 10 years. Not to rat myself out, but the circumstances of the individuals may have something to do with that, as when the priest asked me “what bothered me most about my husband” I said, “communication”. I think perhaps he rightly believed we might need what marriage prep has to offer.

 

[otjm]

Related to the questioning of whether convalidating couples normally have to do a pre-marriage class, I have no personal expertise on this since I am not even Catholic yet, but I do know that our priest is having us do a traditional Pre-Cana class before our convalidation, and my (civil) husband and I have been married for 10 years. Not to rat myself out, but the circumstances of the individuals may have something to do with that, as when the priest asked me “what bothered me most about my husband” I said, “communication”. I think perhaps he rightly believed we might need what marriage prep has to offer.

You might also consider Marriage Encounter. That has some things to teach about actively listening.