Does this marriage need to be convalidated?

[1ke]

Legitimacy is a civil concept only. The Church does NOT consider children born in a putative marriage (an invalid marriage that was entered into in good faith by at least one party) to be illegitimate.

I have no idea why people continue to post this when it is simply not true. There are canons in the Code of Canon Law that clearly define legitimacy and illegitimacy

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

Can. 1138 §1. The father is he whom a lawful marriage indicates unless clear evidence proves the contrary.

§2. Children born at least 180 days after the day when the marriage was celebrated or within 300 days from the day of the dissolution of conjugal life are presumed to be legitimate.

Can. 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents or by a rescript of the Holy See.

Can. 1140 As regards canonical effects, legitimated children are equal in all things to legitimate ones unless the law has expressly provided otherwise.

.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

JustinM, you seem pretty irritated. I understand. A lot of people would probably be irritated if something they thought was valid was suddenly invalid, especially when they come from a background that doesn’t affirm or even appreciate sacramentality.

Take a few minutes in prayer to ask for a soft and yielding heart and remember that the husband loves the Church and with the Church comes the mercy of learning service and humility. What could be more wonderful than a husband honoring his wife, himself and their family by making sure that their marriage is sacramental? Don’t fall victim to ego This will cause many problems in the home.

“If someone criticizes you, first ask yourself, is it right? If he is right, apologize and change, and the issue is resolved. If he is not right, clarify and correct, but if that does not work, take up the unjust accusations with both hands and offer it to Jesus in union with his suffering, because he was slandered by all sides.” Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

 

[YADA]

…Civilly, the children are legitimate but they are illegitimate as far as the Church is concerned, though that has no impact on their lives whatsoever. They become legitimate as soon as the marriage is convalidated…

:nope: You are wrong on the legitimacy of their children … the Church does not consider them illegitimate in any sense - even if a decree of nullity is received … and you should not muddy the waters by claiming that it does. The Church makes this point very clear to those in the annulment process - especially as this is typically the first response of the party not seeking the annulment. It is clearly stated in the paperwork.

Marriage has two components - civil and sacramental … the civil action causes the children to be legitimate …

You do understand that the Church will not even accept an application to consider the sacramentality of the marriage bond unless the couple have obtained a civil divorce or annulment? AND yes - like the Sacramental element - there are impediments to civil marriage that prevent a legal marriage from having taken place no matter how many guests observed the ceremony and/or who officiated - ergo; civil annulment decrees.

One could argue though - that no child is illegitimate in the eyes of our loving God - the author of life and who calls us by name in our mother’s womb -

 

[Phemie]

:nope: You are wrong on the legitimacy of their children … the Church does not consider them illegitimate in any sense - even if a decree of nullity is received … and you should not muddy the waters by claiming that it does. The Church makes this point very clear to those in the annulment process - especially as this is typically the first response of the party not seeking the annulment. It is clearly stated in the paperwork.

Marriage has two components - civil and sacramental … the civil action causes the children to be legitimate …

The children born of a valid or putative (presumed valid) marriage are legitimate. The marriage the OP described is neither valid nor putative.

You do understand that the Church will not even accept an application to consider the sacramentality of the marriage bond unless the couple have obtained a civil divorce or annulment? AND yes - like the Sacramental element - there are impediments to civil marriage that prevent a legal marriage from having taken place no matter how many guests observed the ceremony and/or who officiated - ergo; civil annulment decrees.

A decree of nullity does not rule on the sacramentality of a marriage but on its validity.

You can have a valid sacramental civil marriage (2 baptized people marry at City Hall), you can have a valid non-sacramental Church marriage (Catholic with a non-baptized).

One could argue though - that no child is illegitimate in the eyes of our loving God - the author of life and who calls us by name in our mother’s womb -

I’ll give you that. Legitimacy is a legal matter. It can be a matter of civil law (inheritance rights) or Church law (not so long ago an illegitimate man could not be ordained a priest).

 

[powerlinemom]

This situation is very similar to what my husband and I were in when we came back to the Catholic church. He was a cradle Catholic, but had not been practicing for years and had not been especially well-taught in the rules of the Church. I was actually baptized Catholic, too, but I was raised in the Methodist church.

Since my husband was non-practicing, and I identified as Methodist, we got married in the church that I grew up in. Twelve years later we decided to come back to the church, and it was only then that we realized that we had not followed the rules of the church. Since it was the only marriage for both of us, it was a relatively easy thing to set things right.

We still celebrate our anniversary on our original wedding date, as one of the previous posters said. The way I view it is that we did the best we could with the knowledge we had at the time. We believed that we had made our vows before God and our families, and had no idea that we had not followed the correct form. Once we decided to come back to the church, we corrected an honest mistake. To be committing a sin requires full knowledge and consent of the person committing the act, and we honestly didn’t know. Once we did know, we corrected it as quickly as possible.

The ceremony itself was really nice - we had just my family and some good friends of ours, and our boys were there to do some of the readings and bring up our rings. It was a nice way to publicly affirm that from that point on we were going to be a Catholic family.

 

[Mike30]

The person coordinating RCIA and the pastor receiving Catholics into the Church failed in their obligation of due diligence, and in their obligation to assist this couple.

The wife has always been subject to the laws of the Church. The wife failed to be married in the Catholic form or receive a dispensation from form. Therefore, the marriage is invalid.

By making a profession of faith and asking for reception into the Church and confirmation, the husband has voluntarily placed himself under the authority of the Church. So, at this point, the husband needs to get over it.

Regarding convalidation, YES this is necessary. The couple is absolutely not in a valid marriage right now. Convalidation can occur in two ways: simple convalidation in which the couple exchanges vows in the Catholic form or radical sanation which requires no new exchange of consent.

The wife should approach her pastor about the option of radical sanation if the husband remains opposed to exchange of consent in Catholic form. He entered the marriage in good faith, but that does not change the fact that his wife was bound by Catholic law as a baptized Catholic.

Yes convalidation is required. The wife, who is a cradle Catholic, is bound by Canon Law in regards to the marriage being recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. Had both parties never been Catholic there would be no need for convalidation as I understand it. I was a Catechist with an RCIA program for many years and we ran into this problem frequently…

 

[Mike30]

Does this marriage need to be convalidated?

The situation:

• Husband: raised protestant, devout evangelical family
• Wife: cradle Catholic, but was never confirmed due to very difficult childhood
• Couple joined protestant/evangelical church while dating, were active members of protestant/evangelical church, were married in protestant/evangelical church.
• First marriage for both, no children prior to marriage, etc.
• After birth of child, couple were motivated to re-evaluated faith, make it as strong as possible for family and child’s future. Wife felt a desire to return to Catholic Church. Husband became disillusioned with Protestant/evangelical church. Husband really liked Catholic approach to Christianity (everything from sacraments, to Papal encyclicals, to Knights of Columbus).
• Couple attended RCIA together. Couple became confirmed Catholics at end of RCIA (wife felt that she had “successfully returned” to Church; husband felt like he was a “new Catholic” and that Catholicism is the best, most pure form of Christianity.
• Catholic Church’s paster never mentioned being “Re-married” to one another or having marriage “convalidated.” Wife now feels a need to convalidate marriage, and husband had never heard of this concept (after several years of marriage, no less).

*Husband objects to convalidation. He feels that several years of marriage do not need to be “validated” by anyone; he feels that it is ridiculous to say that couple have been “living in sin” because marriage wasn’t Catholic; he feels that Church/wife are basically saying that their children are “illegitimate”. He feels that if this were a civil union (no church marriage), that wife might have a point. But because it was a Christian (albeit non-Catholic Christian marriage), it is valid (ie- approved by God).

• Husband wonders – if the Church requires divorced couples seeking 2nd marriages to have past marriages annulled (ie- their marriages exist and must be undone), then why doesn’t the Church feel that his one/only/Christian marriage “exists”??

*** BOTTOM LINE: This was not a civil union; It was a non-Catholic Christian marriage; does it need to be convalidated?

BOTTOM LINE:
Yes convalidation is required along with all of the requirements for it. The wife, who is a cradle Catholic, is bound by Canon Law in regards to the marriage being recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. Had both parties never* been Catholic there would be no need for convalidation as I understand it. I was a Catechist with an RCIA program for many years and we ran into this problem frequently.

 

[His_helpmeet]

BOTTOM LINE:
Yes convalidation is required along with all of the requirements for it. The wife, who is a cradle Catholic, is bound by Canon Law in regards to the marriage being recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. Had both parties never* been Catholic there would be no need for convalidation as I understand it. I was a Catechist with an RCIA program for many years and we ran into this problem frequently.

To the best of my understanding, this is correct.

If one is baptized a Catholic, one is bound by the teachings of the Catholic Church for life. Baptism places an indelible mark on the soul.

If a baptized Catholic desires to marry someone and does not wish the marriage to occur in a Catholic church, the Catholic party may ask for a dispensation. If a dispensation is granted, the marriage is considered valid. If the dispensation is not requested, or is not granted, and the Catholic party marries outside the Church, the marriage is invalid.

If two non-baptized parties, or a baptized and a non-baptized party, marry, this is considered to be a valid natural marriage (until proven otherwise, all marriages are considered de facto valid). If the two parties subsequently become baptized, their marriage becomes a sacramental marriage, without the need for convalidation if they choose to become Catholic.

If a divorce occurs, there are two ways the Church can proceed depending on the circumstances: a dissolution of a natural marriage, or a declaration of nullity for a natural OR a sacramental marriage.

Dissolution of marriage:

1. If NEITHER party is baptized, the bishop may dissolve the marriage. This is called the Pauline Privilege.
2. If ONE party was baptized, AND that party was not the primary cause of the marital breakdown, the Pope may dissolve the marriage. This is called the Petrine Privilege, or Favor of the Faith.

Declaration of Nullity:

1. If a defect that can be proven “on paper” (e.g. lack of form (being married outside the Church without a dispensation), being too closely related, being underage, or polygamy) exists, the process is very straightforward. This is commonly referred to as “documentary procedure” and doesn’t take very long. Everything is done through documentation.
2. If a more nebulous defect exists (e.g. not understanding the nature of marriage, not being prepared to be faithful, not wanting to have children, abuse, incomplete consent, etc.), a formal nullity trial is held. This requires the cooperation of at least one spouse and at least three witnesses to the marriage. Two tribunals must agree that the marriage is invalid in order for the parties to be free to remarry. This process normally takes anywhere from 1-2 years, depending on the nature of the case.

*Please be aware that this is based on my current understanding of this process as determined through reading material on the subject. You will want to discuss a similar matter with your priest/pastoral assistant to determine the course of action relevant to a specific situation.

 

[Phemie]

If two non-baptized parties, or a baptized and a non-baptized party, marry, this is considered to be a valid natural marriage (until proven otherwise, all marriages are considered de facto valid).

The bolded is the only part you have that’s not correct. The marriage of a Catholic outside the Church is not considered valid unless there was a dispensation. That’s why if there is no notation of marriage in the Catholic’s baptismal record that person is not considered married. While these lack of form cases are submitted to the Tribunal in most dioceses in Canada and the US, such is not the case in other countries. Our former bishop didn’t require lack of form cases to be submitted but allowed priests to deal with them in marriage preparation.

 

[Green_Crush]

“We all have free will. We us it for good or for evil. We all have obligations. So, I am not sure what your point is.”

JustinM makes an excellent point. If, as Catholics, we believe that baptism places an indelible mark on the soul, then the wife did not have free will when this indelible mark was placed upon her soul as an infant. Put another way, as an infant, she was not able to exercise free will when it came to her baptism. Her parents made this decision for her.

 

[Vico]

“We all have free will. We us it for good or for evil. We all have obligations. So, I am not sure what your point is.”

JustinM makes an excellent point. If, as Catholics, we believe that baptism places an indelible mark on the soul, then the wife did not have free will when this indelible mark was placed upon her soul as an infant. Put another way, as an infant, she was not able to exercise free will when it came to her baptism. Her parents made this decision for her.

However, the woman needs to exercise free will, in that which requires it. An act of free will on the part of the infant is not required for the seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit in infant baptism.
CCC 1250 " The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifested in infant Baptism."

CCC 1272 “Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation. Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.”

 

[Green_Crush]

@Vico — You’re missing the point that JustinM is making. The wife has no choice but to be married in the Catholic Church, because her parents baptized her as an infant. In other words, she has no free will in the matter. She MUST be married in the Church. Others, whose parents did not baptize them as infants, can marry as they please, because they --unlike the wife-- have free will.

 

[Vico]

@Vico — You’re missing the point that JustinM is making. The wife has no choice but to be married in the Catholic Church, because her parents baptized her as an infant. In other words, she has no free will in the matter. She MUST be married in the Church. Others, whose parents did not baptize them as infants, can marry as they please, because they --unlike the wife-- have free will.

It seems that JustinM is in favor of the opposite by posing the question (emphasis mine) “So you would have us believe that the wife is not able to exercise free will, because she was baptized at birth, but the husband is able to exercise free will (ie- evangelicals make a decision to be baptized later in life)?”

I believe JustinM does not agree that infant baptism implies a lack of free will as an adult.

JustinM where are you?

Free will is a difficult term to use because of the varied definitions for it. We have free will to oppose the will of God.

There are marriages that have proper consent and those that do not. True matrimony requires proper consent without indispensable impediments in order to be accepted as valid to a tribunal, even those of non-Catholics.

 

[k5rakitan]

Even if it’s not absolutely necessary, I think that convalidation is a beautiful process that would help them grow spiritually.

 

[Vico]

Even if it’s not absolutely necessary, I think that convalidation is a beautiful process that would help them grow spiritually.

It is only necessary (or even allowed) to convalidate when no true marriage exists.

 

[1ke]

Even if it’s not absolutely necessary, I think that convalidation is a beautiful process that would help them grow spiritually.

I don’t think you understand. It isn’t POSSIBLE to convalidate an already valid marriage.

 

[rcuk]

In the same token as this thread, has anyone come across a ‘Request for Sanitation’ and followed this method?

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Does this marriage need to be convalidated?

The situation:

• Husband: raised protestant, devout evangelical family
• Wife: cradle Catholic, but was never confirmed due to very difficult childhood
• Couple joined protestant/evangelical church while dating, were active members of protestant/evangelical church, were married in protestant/evangelical church.
• First marriage for both, no children prior to marriage, etc.
• After birth of child, couple were motivated to re-evaluated faith, make it as strong as possible for family and child’s future. Wife felt a desire to return to Catholic Church. Husband became disillusioned with Protestant/evangelical church. Husband really liked Catholic approach to Christianity (everything from sacraments, to Papal encyclicals, to Knights of Columbus).
• Couple attended RCIA together. Couple became confirmed Catholics at end of RCIA (wife felt that she had “successfully returned” to Church; husband felt like he was a “new Catholic” and that Catholicism is the best, most pure form of Christianity.
• Catholic Church’s paster never mentioned being “Re-married” to one another or having marriage “convalidated.” Wife now feels a need to convalidate marriage, and husband had never heard of this concept (after several years of marriage, no less).

*Husband objects to convalidation. He feels that several years of marriage do not need to be “validated” by anyone; he feels that it is ridiculous to say that couple have been “living in sin” because marriage wasn’t Catholic; he feels that Church/wife are basically saying that their children are “illegitimate”. He feels that if this were a civil union (no church marriage), that wife might have a point. But because it was a Christian (albeit non-Catholic Christian marriage), it is valid (ie- approved by God).

• Husband wonders – if the Church requires divorced couples seeking 2nd marriages to have past marriages annulled (ie- their marriages exist and must be undone), then why doesn’t the Church feel that his one/only/Christian marriage “exists”??

*** BOTTOM LINE: This was not a civil union; It was a non-Catholic Christian marriage; does it need to be convalidated?

You just described my situation to a T–with the exception of children. Go get the marriage convalidated…(Blessed). What makes it an issue is that the wife was Catholic and therefore had an obligation to follow the marriage rules of the Church. Whether she knew them or not. All you are doing now is allowing the Church to bless your marriage and make it a sacrament (in the eyes of the Church). It has no effect on the status of the children just as an annulment has no effect on the status of the children.

Even though mine came down to a technicallity due to a rewrite of Cannon Law…we still had our marriage convalidated and it was really a blessing to do so.

Look at it this way…the wife loves the husband so much that she wants to do it again…and this time really be on the hook. I know people that won’t do it because they don’t think their marriage is that strong and they want that out if they need it…

 

[rcuk]

Dear all;

We are in the process of having our marriage convalidated.

I am also bringing my wife, gently, into the Church.

Our marriage is very, very strong and it means an awful lot to my wife. She is very traditional and is a beautiful role model for others.

She has had some bad experiences with the Catholic church as a child- nothing sinister- but issues of exclusion.

So I am being careful bringing her to RCIA.

She understands that the Church doesn’t recognise our Anglican marriage, and she is happy to have our marriage blessed.

However, we can’t do this until May at the earliest as our priest will be away.

We are obviously very close and living as husband and wife at the moment.

I feel I should raise the issue of sexual relations; but I don’t want to open a can of worms that our marriage is invalid. We both feel (me, to a point- but I understand the need for full communion) that our marriage was done in good faith, in front of God in Church.
The day meant a great deal to her- and taking us back to being outside of marriage, essentially, may be damaging.

I hope this makes sense.

It brings me to another point- that of mortal sin. I.e. ‘full willingness’. Being as I am having these doubts, reading online, and being here on this forum…I know we can’t look through the eyes of God, or cast judgements on His mercy- but is there any way I can avoid mortal sin in this scenario?

I will go to confession, regardless.

 

[otjm]

Dear all;

We are in the process of having our marriage convalidated.

I am also bringing my wife, gently, into the Church.

Our marriage is very, very strong and it means an awful lot to my wife. She is very traditional and is a beautiful role model for others.

She has had some bad experiences with the Catholic church as a child- nothing sinister- but issues of exclusion.

So I am being careful bringing her to RCIA.

She understands that the Church doesn’t recognise our Anglican marriage, and she is happy to have our marriage blessed.

However, we can’t do this until May at the earliest as our priest will be away.

We are obviously very close and living as husband and wife at the moment.

I feel I should raise the issue of sexual relations; but I don’t want to open a can of worms that our marriage is invalid. We both feel (me, to a point- but I understand the need for full communion) that our marriage was done in good faith, in front of God in Church.
The day meant a great deal to her- and taking us back to being outside of marriage, essentially, may be damaging.

I hope this makes sense.

It brings me to another point- that of mortal sin. I.e. ‘full willingness’. Being as I am having these doubts, reading online, and being here on this forum…I know we can’t look through the eyes of God, or cast judgments on His mercy- but is there any way I can avoid mortal sin in this scenario?

I will go to confession, regardless.

Headaches? Not to be facetious, But we are not talking months and months. And any more discussion of that is TMI. Do your best that you can.