If spouse never said vows, is it a Sacramental Marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kerkvliet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kerkvliet

Guest
Strange as it may sound, my spouse of 18 years never actually recited vows to me on our wedding day, so it’s always made me wonder if our marriage was a sacramental marriage. I guess I could ask a priest/our priest but he’s very busy, so just wanted to ask here first.

To clarify, my husband is very keen on rehearsing things that he is unfamiliar with, so at the rehearsal evening at church the night before our wedding, my husband wanted the priest to specifically go over the vow part and have us practice it, but the priest really didn’t see the need for it, so we didn’t. So the day of the wedding the priest gets to the vow part of the marriage ceremony and says rather quietly I may say, “repeat after me, I, Michael James,” and my husband didn’t say anything. My husband said that he wasn’t sure that he was supposed to speak then, and that’s why he wanted to practice it the night before. So after the silence from my husband, the priest didn’t repeat it, or say something like, “it’s your turn”, but he continued with the vows that my husband was supposed to say (ie take you Jane Marie, etc.). Perhaps the priest thought my husband was saying them but very quietly. Also we were kneeling towards the altar and not facing each other so that made a difference. Anyway, it happened so quickly and it didn’t seem like we could interrupt the priest and start over. When it came to my turn to say the vows, I repeated after the priest, and then my husband realized his mistake and wanted to say something but didn’t feel like he could. Of course, then after the ceremony things got carried away with photos, and greetings and then the reception and we never followed up on it with the priest. We’ve always joked about it, but I’ve always wondered in the back of my mind, whether it was a legitimate sacramental marriage.

Thanks.
 
Hi, your husband had the intention to say the vows, so I would think the Lord accepted the intention, however, yes, speak to a priest.
If there are any concern, you could arrange with your priest for a quiet renewal of the vows. May God bless you both.
 
If you have any doubt, I would suggest that you do go ahead and discuss it with your priest.

But I strongly suspect that your marriage is indeed perfectly valid and sacramental, even if your husband never actually spoke the vows during the ceremony ;). Generally, a sacrament is not invalidated because the minister made unintentional mistakes or errors in the ceremony…and in marriage, the spouses themselves are the ministers of the sacrament.

The Priest probably should have said something to prod your husband along, but it sounds like an honest mistake, and I really, really doubt that it would call the validity into question. I assume your husband still agreed to the vows and accepts them, even if he didn’t say them at the right time!

Another thing to keep in mind is that the Church accepts marriages between non-Catholics as presumptively valid (assuming no previous marriages, etc.).

I know this because my wife and I were married as Methodists, and later became Catholics. When we converted our marriage was accepted without question. The church did not even inquire about what kinds of vows, if any, were spoken. Even a nonreligious civil marriage is accepted as presumptively valid.

So my point is that the vows, while part of the normal Catholic form, are not really an absolute essential component of a valid sacramental marriage, at least not as I understand it.

God bless.
 
achmafooma said:
Generally, a sacrament is not invalidated because the minister made unintentional mistakes or errors in the ceremony…and in marriage, the spouses themselves are the ministers of the sacrament…
Click to expand...
Although this is true, there are certain things that are required for a sacrament to take place. In baptism, the minister must say the correct formula (i.e., “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”) and he *must *pour water. If, out of nervousness or forgetfulness he instead just says, “I baptize you, Jane” or if he accidentally grabs a bottle of chrism and uses that instead of water, the sacrament has not taken place.

In marriage the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament. But the way they confect the sacrament is by reciting vows. If one of the spouses did not give vows, I’d argue that’s a strong indication that the couple was never validly married.

I agree that the couple’s best course of action is to make an appointment with a priest or canon lawyer (probably not the one who witnessed the vows) and explain the situation. My initial thought was that the priest may offer them radical sanation, which is when the bishop accepts the original vows and the marriage retroactively becomes valid, but I’m not sure how this applies when there is doubt about whether the original vows were ever spoken.
 
Also just out curiosity, OP, did you happen to have anyone videotaping the ceremony?
 
The question is: did your husband intend to make the vows before God?

In legal terms, did your husband sign a marriage license?
 
Your husband has been a good husband for 18 years. He has protected you and yours; assisted in feeding, clothing, putting a roof over the family for 18 years.And yet you worry you don’t have a real husband in a sanctified marriage? Give the bloke a break.
In law, you can imply consent by course of action eg equitable estoppal. LOL
Remember, the sacrament of marriage is made between the two parties. In my humble opinion, if he has kept the vows for 18 years it is proof far greater than many words spat out in divorce by many.
Just give the poor incoherent mug a hug. He is yours for good or sadness.
 
nodito said:
If one of the spouses did not give vows, I’d argue that’s a strong indication that the couple was never validly married.
Click to expand...
Even though the poster reaffirmed the importance of speaking to a priest, until you do, take the comment above with a grain of salt. There are far too many who “argue” here, which essentially means they don’t know, but are just making grand assumptions.
 
nodito said:
In marriage the spouses are the ministers of the sacrament. But the way they confect the sacrament is by reciting vows. If one of the spouses did not give vows, I’d argue that’s a strong indication that the couple was never validly married.
Click to expand...
This is not clear to me.

The way a couple administers the sacrament to each other is by the exchange of consent.

I do not know whether or not the recitation of vows is the *only *way to manifest the exchange of consent?

tee
Who Is Not A Canon Lawyer
 
Okay, I got a canon lawyer on his way to answer the OP. dans0622 can help out.
 
kerkvliet said:
Strange as it may sound, my spouse of 18 years never actually recited vows to me on our wedding day, so it’s always made me wonder if our marriage was a sacramental marriage. I guess I could ask a priest/our priest but he’s very busy, so just wanted to ask here first.

To clarify, my husband is very keen on rehearsing things that he is unfamiliar with, so at the rehearsal evening at church the night before our wedding, my husband wanted the priest to specifically go over the vow part and have us practice it, but the priest really didn’t see the need for it, so we didn’t. So the day of the wedding the priest gets to the vow part of the marriage ceremony and says rather quietly I may say, “repeat after me, I, Michael James,” and my husband didn’t say anything. My husband said that he wasn’t sure that he was supposed to speak then, and that’s why he wanted to practice it the night before. So after the silence from my husband, the priest didn’t repeat it, or say something like, “it’s your turn”, but he continued with the vows that my husband was supposed to say (ie take you Jane Marie, etc.). Perhaps the priest thought my husband was saying them but very quietly. Also we were kneeling towards the altar and not facing each other so that made a difference. Anyway, it happened so quickly and it didn’t seem like we could interrupt the priest and start over. When it came to my turn to say the vows, I repeated after the priest, and then my husband realized his mistake and wanted to say something but didn’t feel like he could. Of course, then after the ceremony things got carried away with photos, and greetings and then the reception and we never followed up on it with the priest. We’ve always joked about it, but I’ve always wondered in the back of my mind, whether it was a legitimate sacramental marriage.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I am struggling to understand this scenario as you are presenting it. Are you of the Roman Rite or do you belong to one of the Eastern Rites?

Do you remember why you were kneeling at this point? In the Roman Rite, the normative posture would have been standing for the exchange of consent and kneeling only later for the nuptial blessing.

For the consent, in the Roman Rite, as you should have been standing, so you should also have been facing each other so that the minister (whether he is a bishop, a priest or a deacon), who in turn is facing you, could easily witness the exchange of consent being expressed between you and your husband. This allows the congregation to see this happen. Standing and facing each other also facilitates the giving of the rings, which follows the consent. Were you kneeling also for the exchange of rings?

When you say you were kneeling and facing the altar and not facing each other, are you also saying the priest was not facing you either? And you had your backs to the congregation?

The heart of the rite of marriage is the exchange of consent, which for validity also has to occur before a minister who has the faculty, either by canon law itself or by delegation, to witness the exchange of consent.

Can. 1104 §1. To contract a marriage validly the contracting parties must be present together, either in person or by proxy.
§2. Those being married are to express matrimonial consent in words or, if they cannot speak, through equivalent signs.

I have had it happen where one of the parties is too nervous or emotional to repeat the formula due to the excitement of the moment…but then I have to act so that the exchange of consent is effected (or made manifest) with me witnessing it. In the case where the person cannot repeat the formula, the minister must use the option to pose the consent as a question so that the person need only answer “I do” – but even then the person must indicate, by some positive act, that they consent…even if it is shaking their head “yes” if they are unable to speak.

Yes…you should speak to either the pastor of the parish to which you belong or to the judicial vicar of your diocese, explaining what you have described. Either will probably be a bit incredulous as it is the responsibility of the minister to make sure that the exchange of consent he was supposed to witness was, in fact, articulated in some outward way and in a fashion that can be actually witnessed as having really and truly happened.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
I am struggling to understand this scenario as you are presenting it. Are you of the Roman Rite or do you belong to one of the Eastern Rites?

Do you remember why you were kneeling at this point? In the Roman Rite, the normative posture would have been standing for the exchange of consent and kneeling only later for the nuptial blessing.

For the consent, in the Roman Rite, as you should have been standing, so you should also have been facing each other so that the minister (whether he is a bishop, a priest or a deacon), who in turn is facing you, could easily witness the exchange of consent being expressed between you and your husband. This allows the congregation to see this happen. Standing and facing each other also facilitates the giving of the rings, which follows the consent. Were you kneeling also for the exchange of rings?

When you say you were kneeling and facing the altar and not facing each other, are you also saying the priest was not facing you either? And you had your backs to the congregation?

The heart of the rite of marriage is the exchange of consent, which for validity also has to occur before a minister who has the faculty, either by canon law itself or by delegation, to witness the exchange of consent.

Can. 1104 §1. To contract a marriage validly the contracting parties must be present together, either in person or by proxy.
§2. Those being married are to express matrimonial consent in words or, if they cannot speak, through equivalent signs.

I have had it happen where one of the parties is too nervous or emotional to repeat the formula due to the excitement of the moment…but then I have to act so that the exchange of consent is effected (or made manifest) with me witnessing it. In the case where the person cannot repeat the formula, the minister must use the option to pose the consent as a question so that the person need only answer “I do” – but even then the person must indicate, by some positive act, that they consent…even if it is shaking their head “yes” if they are unable to speak.

Yes…you should speak to either the pastor of the parish to which you belong or to the judicial vicar of your diocese, explaining what you have described. Either will probably be a bit incredulous as it is the responsibility of the minister to make sure that the exchange of consent he was supposed to witness was, in fact, articulated in some outward way and in a fashion that can be actually witnessed as having really and truly happened.
Click to expand...
 
You are asking the wrong questions. First of all, a marriage is either valid or invalid, that is at the heart of your question. If it is valid, and you are both baptized, then it is sacramental. If it is invalid, then the question of sacramentality is irrelevant.

Secondly, marriage enjoys the favor of the law. It is of little effect to fret and frown about whether a marriage which you are currently in, and have not divorced or even attempting to obtain a declaration of nullity, is invalid, because your marriage is putatively valid until such time it is proven not so. So banish the question of validity from your mind and enjoy your time with your husband.
 
tee_eff_em said:
This is not clear to me.

The way a couple administers the sacrament to each other is by the exchange of consent.

I do not know whether or not the recitation of vows is the *only *way to manifest the exchange of consent?

tee
Who Is Not A Canon Lawyer
Click to expand...
No, you’re right. I worded my response poorly. Two individuals who do not speak, for example, would be able to use sign language to exchange consent.
 
nodito said:
Although this is true, there are certain things that are required for a sacrament to take place. In baptism, the minister must say the correct formula (i.e., “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”) and he *must *pour water…
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I understand this. Which is why I discussed the presumed validity of non-Catholic marriages, including simple civil marriages. These might had little form at all…in some U.S. states, perhaps nothing more than signing the licenses.

I didn’t want to get into all of these details in my initial message…but in Baptism, the matter is water, the form is the Trinitarian form, and the minister is anybody [but in the Catholic Church, usually a priest or deacon]. In Marriage, the matter is mutual offering/consent, the form is an indication of mutual consent [traditionally the vows/the ‘I do’], and the ministers are the spouses.

Although Catholics are typically bound by the traditional form under canon law, unless dispensed, the Church has shown itself to be very accepting of almost anything as valid form when it comes to non-Catholics…which indicates to me that, most likely, the specific details of the form aren’t very relevant to the validity, as long as consent was expressed in some way. A non-Catholic Baptism is not accepted by the church without Trinitarian form (and rightly so); and yet a non-Catholic marriage is accepted without any evidence of an ‘I do’ or repeating of the vows.

I strongly suspect that the gentleman we are talking about made a clear expression of consent at some point! In signing the forms, in meetings with the priest before and/or after the ceremony itself, in the way he has lived his life subsequently, etc. So we have an apparent error in canonical form, but all of the essentials (as far as I can tell) are present.

But I must reiterate, along with some of the other posters, that your priest can give a definitive answer – or get you in touch with somebody who can. I don’t think any of us are canon lawyers or priests or trained experts in this area! I am the first to admit that everything I am saying here is just my understanding, and my interpretations based on the things I know. I don’t pretend to be an authority here! 🙂

God bless.
 
Neofight said:
Even though the poster reaffirmed the importance of speaking to a priest, until you do, take the comment above with a grain of salt. There are far too many who “argue” here, which essentially means they don’t know, but are just making grand assumptions.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true. I don’t know the answer to the OP’s question; I was trying to reason my way there based on what I do know (which is essentially what everyone else in the thread is doing as well).
 
Petaro said:
Your husband has been a good husband for 18 years. He has protected you and yours; assisted in feeding, clothing, putting a roof over the family for 18 years.And yet you worry you don’t have a real husband in a sanctified marriage? Give the bloke a break.
In law, you can imply consent by course of action eg equitable estoppal. LOL
Remember, the sacrament of marriage is made between the two parties. In my humble opinion, if he has kept the vows for 18 years it is proof far greater than many words spat out in divorce by many.
Click to expand...
Such would not reflect the reality of it was a valid marriage or not. The person is quite right to be concerned here. They want to be really married. The fact that someone behaved “as a good husband” as being married does not make that person actually married. Such is not proof. What really matters is the reality - and they want to be married - really married as in the Sacrament of Marriage and for a Sacrament one needs proper matter and form.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top