Delayed Marriages

[Gorgias]

Many of us over 35 have lived on our own, paid bills, and many of us had trouble finding someone to marry due to work obligations

On the other hand, none of these things are requirements (or even predictors!) of a happy Christian marriage. Knowing how to balance a checkbook isn’t an indicator that you know how to live out the vocation of marriage, is it?

My question is as follows: because we are in the midst of very unusual circumstances and Catholic Church weddings are on hold for the foreseeable future, would it be permissible for a couple to get married by a Justice of the Peace and later do as we did and have a Catholic ceremony?

There’s a difference, though, between “we had our marriage convalidated because we didn’t realize at the time of the first ceremony that it was invalid in the eyes of the Church” and “knowing it’s invalid, let’s go do it anyway; we can just go back and do the ‘Catholic thing’ later”… no?

Obviously, cohabitating is not permissible. But when you have two adults ready for marriage how long can they reasonably be expected to wait when there are two rents to pay, two household utilities, etc and, as mentioned above, couples in their late thirties have a limited window during which to have children.

I’m confused – you write “cohabitating is not permissible” and then proceed to talk about cohabitating and conceiving children…

I don’t see anything wrong with a courthouse wedding, followed by a Catholic Church wedding/validation when we aren’t on lockdown.

It gives witness to an invalid ceremony as if it actually were valid, right? Moreover, it says “the Catholic ceremony isn’t the important part – what’s important is the state’s approbation”, no?

Regardless of an annulment or lack thereof, we were married as evangelicals so we had to have a convalidation either way. This is what our parish and priests told us.

They were mistaken on that count, if that’s what they said. A valid marriage between two baptized Christians is a valid, sacramental marriage. The Catholic Church doesn’t “redo” weddings merely because two non-Catholics got married elsewhere. In your case, it seems that – prior to the annulment – your husband wasn’t free to marry, so once that impediment was removed, ya’ll were free to marry in a valid wedding rite. Since you were Catholics, that rite takes place in the Church.

 

[TC3033]

Regardless of an annulment or lack thereof, we were married as evangelicals so we had to have a convalidation either way. This is what our parish and priests told us.

That’s highly incorrect.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

How so?

Characters

 

[NevermoreLenore]

Knowing how to balance a checkbook isn’t an indicator that you know how to live out the vocation of marriage, is it?

No. However, for me personally, by moving out at nineteen, holding a full time job, putting myself through university, which taught me how to be independent, wise with money, how to maintain a house, to understand the burden of being the sole provider for myself. These things are often learned through time and experience. Causation of this phenomenon hasn’t been established, but there is often correlation. It’s not that directly moving from a childhood home to marry is always a bad idea, but experience and maturity goes a LONG way regarding the success of a marriage. My husband signed up with the Navy at seventeen, later putting himself through university, and had an established career. Out of four siblings, he is the only one to cut the apron strings, so to speak. He credits the Navy especially for helping him to grown up and establish himself, making him more prepared to enter marriage and fatherhood. This isn’t a hill upon which I care to die, but by having some life experience and learning to ‘adult’ before joining your life to another presumably a lifetime has many benefits.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

There’s a difference, though, between “we had our marriage convalidated because we didn’t realize at the time of the first ceremony that it was invalid in the eyes of the Church” and “knowing it’s invalid, let’s go do it anyway; we can just go back and do the ‘Catholic thing’ later”… no?

My purpose in participating in this discussion is to understand the Church’s position better. I have teenagers who are (far too rapidly) approaching adulthood and we’ve been actually discussing the current restrictions of Mass and other gatherings at Church, including weddings, because of the pandemic and what are the implications. I want it to be clear: I am not trying to find loopholes, I am trying to learn what the Church actually teaches.

This is my understanding:

–my husband, one of our children, and I were baptised as evangelical Christians. These baptisms were ‘valid’ and the Church accepted them as such; there was no need for us to be rebaptised. Our younger children were baptised in the Catholic Church (as evangelicals, we didn’t automatically have our children baptised because we believed that baptism follows ‘being saved’ and you cannot ‘be saved’ until you’re at an age of reason and can express the desire to ‘ask Jesus into your heart’). After everyone had been baptised, catechised, and prepared we all were confirmed in the Church as a family. A beautiful day that was, after a lifetime of feeling unrest and considerable angst regarding church, always searching for ‘home’–I never doubted God Himself, but there was always something missing. Since my confirmation, I have experienced ZERO unrest and I feel and know I am a part of the ONE, TRUE, CATHOLIC, & APOSTOLIC CHURCH.

–just like our non Catholic but true Christian baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was considered valid, we were told, likewise, our Christian marriage was valid and we just needed convalidation. So my (possibly mistaken?) understanding was our Christian marriage was valid.

Unless, because of the necessary annulment, we actually were not validly married. Is that it? And if it is, why were we convalidated and not actually married after becoming Catholic?

It gives witness to an invalid ceremony as if it actually were valid, right? Moreover, it says “the Catholic ceremony isn’t the important part – what’s important is the state’s approbation”, no?

See comment/question above.

Perhaps I am not understanding the difference between a Catholic marriage and a convalidation?

 

[MNathaniel]

Better not get stuck on a desert island with a beautiful woman then!

Haha yes, better take extraordinary precautions to avoid that incredibly likely event.

()

 

[TC3033]

How so?

Characters

Because the marriage of two non-Catholics is a valid marriage, recognized by the Catholic Church.

If you were both baptized at the time, the Catholic Church sees it as a valid, sacramental wedding.

Either way, non-Catholic Christians don’t need their wedding convalidated in the Catholic Church just because they were married as evangelicals, Lutherans, etc… Whoever told you this was indeed very incorrect.

 

[Phemie]

–just like our non Catholic but true Christian baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was considered valid, we were told, likewise, our Christian marriage was valid and we just needed convalidation. So my (possibly mistaken?) understanding was our Christian marriage was valid.

Unless, because of the necessary annulment, we actually were not validly married. Is that it? And if it is, why were we convalidated and not actually married after becoming Catholic?
Perhaps I am not understanding the difference between a Catholic marriage and a convalidation?

A convalidation IS a Catholic marriage ceremony. It’s called convalidation because it makes valid an already existing legal marriage that is, for some reason, not valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church. In your case it was because of your husband’s previous marriage.

Once he received his decree of nullity he was free to marry you and that is what the convalidation did. There is no difference in the vows of a convalidation and the vows in a normal marriage ceremony.

Convalidations can be done as regular wedding ceremonies (as is often done in countries where a civil marriage is required before a religious one, as well as by some couples who chose to do so in North America) or as a simple ceremony in Fr.’s office with only the couple and their two witnesses present.

 

[Gorgias]

He credits the Navy especially for helping him to grown up and establish himself, making him more prepared to enter marriage and fatherhood. This isn’t a hill upon which I care to die, but by having some life experience and learning to ‘adult’ before joining your life to another presumably a lifetime has many benefits.

No doubt. Life experience is very valuable. Yet… it doesn’t ensure successful marital relationships! There are countless examples of successful adults who are unable to hold a marriage together!

I want it to be clear: I am not trying to find loopholes, I am trying to learn what the Church actually teaches .

Yep. Makes sense!

just like our non Catholic but true Christian baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was considered valid, we were told , likewise, our Christian marriage was valid and we just needed convalidation. So my (possibly mistaken?) understanding was our Christian marriage was valid.

Right: so, either it was valid (and therefore, no convalidation needed) or it was invalid (and therefore, convalidation was necessary). After all, you don’t need to validate something that’s already valid, right?

Unless, because of the necessary annulment, we actually were not validly married. Is that it?

Right. If an annulment was needed, then the marriage wasn’t yet valid in the eyes of the Church.

Here’s the thing: it’s a pretty tough row to hoe to tell good people who wish to enter into the Church that their marriage isn’t valid in the eyes of the Church. So, in an effort to be pastorally sensitive, sometimes they’ll assert that it’s valid (civilly) but must be convalidated by the Church. Sometimes, that “(civilly)” part is downplayed, in an effort not to offend.

Most often, that attempt at pastoral sensitivity leads to a misunderstanding of the Church’s stance.

Perhaps I am not understanding the difference between a Catholic marriage and a convalidation?

Actually… there’s no difference. Both are the Catholic ritual of performing a valid and licit marriage.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

NevermoreLenore:

Obviously, cohabitating is not permissible. But when you have two adults ready for marriage how long can they reasonably be expected to wait when there are two rents to pay, two household utilities, etc and, as mentioned above, couples in their late thirties have a limited window during which to have children.

I’m confused – you write “cohabitating is not permissible” and then proceed to talk about cohabitating and conceiving children…

I’m sorry my meaning was unclear. I’m saying:

–as a married couple, converting to the Church, we had a convalidation.

–if two people are ready to be married but cannot have a Catholic wedding because of our current pandemic restrictions, why would they not be able to get married legally and THEN, when Mass and Catholic weddings resume, they can have the Catholic wedding and/or convalidation?

–the point being, because it is wrong to cohabitate, a couple should not cohabitate. But in our unusual circumstances, we don’t know when a Catholic wedding will be allowed, the stay-at-home/large gatherings restrictions will likely continue for many months, possibly years. There are many circumstances that conceivably make waiting a long and unknown duration to marry could be detrimental. For example, to maintain sexual purity, because financially one or both persons lost a job and cannot afford to live separately, the woman is close to 40 and has limited time left during which to conceive, etc. This is a highly unusual time and the unknowns are vast, making many situations, like getting married, exist in this nebulous, unpredictable unknown. If this goes on for 2-3 years, like the pandemic of 1918-1920, are we saying every couple has to ‘wait it out’? Would it not be better to elope or otherwise legally marry to avoid the sin of cohabitation? (not that cohabitation in itself is sinful, but goodness, it would be nigh impossible for many to abstain completely from sex whilst their partner is living in the same home, all the while having no idea when this might end and when they can marry).

I hope I’m not coming across as argumentative–I’m trying to gain a grasp on Church teaching. I am in no way trying to ‘work around’ properly and validly marrying. Thank you for taking the time to help me understand our faith better

 

[NevermoreLenore]

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this and help me work through everything. I understand it now. I was not clear that marriage and convalidation were the same. Hope you have a good day! Thanks again.

 

[Gorgias]

in our unusual circumstances, we don’t know when a Catholic wedding will be allowed, the stay-at-home/large gatherings restrictions will likely continue for many months, possibly years.

OK, but… are we presuming that the couple cannot reach out to their parish priest and request a private nuptial ceremony? Just the priest, the couple, and two witnesses? That’s all that is required.

If, on the other hand, you mean “we’re not allowed to have a big wedding”, then that’s not a restriction on the part of the Church – that’s the preference of the couple, right? And, if so, then I would say that an invalid ceremony outside of the Church isn’t warranted. Have a small valid ceremony now, and a big party once they’re again permitted!

I hope I’m not coming across as argumentative–I’m trying to gain a grasp on Church teaching.

Nope – it’s all good!

I’m still a little confused, though. You say:

because it is wrong to cohabitate, a couple should not cohabitate.

and yet you continue…

There are many circumstances that conceivably make waiting a long and unknown duration to marry could be detrimental. For example, … the woman is close to 40 and has limited time left during which to conceive

So, you’re suggesting “have a civilly valid but canonically invalid wedding, and then go conceive”… right? So… “don’t cohabitate… but consummate nevertheless”… right?

(That’s what’s got me confused. After all, it’s not the “cohabitation”, per se, but rather, the actions typically performed while cohabitating that are sinful!)

 

[poche]

This is why I am asking this. What do we do if the Church makes herself unavailable?

 

[AngelaMarie]

Not directly related to the OT, but a bit.
We know that for a marriage to be valid it has to be done in front of a priest/clergy and 2 witnesses.
What exactly has to be done? The vows? Can they be vows that the couple make for themselves? Do they have to be said verbally?

Exactly what is the specific moment in the marriage rite that makes the couple married?
TIA

 

[Phemie]

The vows have to be said or signed for non-verbal persons.
Yes, the “exchange of consent” must be in front two witnesses. This exchange of consent can be received by a priest/deacon/bishop or even by a lay person appointed by the bishop – that has happened at least once in my diocese, in a remote community that the priest couldn’t get to within the 30 days specified by Canon Law.

There are so many pitfalls with writing your own vows that if a couple wanted to do that they would likely have to submit them to the marriage tribunal to make sure that they contain all they must contain and contain nothing that could render the marriage invalid. That’s why writing one’s own vows is strongly discouraged. It’s so much simpler just to go with what the Church already provides.