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.
achmafooma said:
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! 🙂
Click to expand...
As a diocesan priest from Europe who is now retired, I thought it would be an interesting project to set for myself to answer a couple of questions per day from this site, trying to choose judiciously; I said that I would try it for a couple of months and see what happens. After almost 100 posts, this thread has helped me to reach the conclusion that there really is no point to my spending a bit of my day on this forum.

I find I am agreeing with the comment: “There are far too many who ‘argue’ here, which essentially means they don’t know, but are just making grand assumptions.” I don’t know why someone would think there is no priest present when I related my own experience as a priest by writing: 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 my response, I also quoted the declaration of your country’s bishops conference: “The heart of the rite of marriage is the exchange of consent.” The manifestation of consent, lawfully received, is fundamental to the contracting of marriage, as stated in Canon 1057. Canon 1104 is the canon upon which this case turns, as best I can tell, and what minimally constitutes the manifestation of consent necessary. Without the answers to the questions I posed, which were asked to try to help me figure out what happened when the manifestation of consent should have occurred (and been properly received by the priest), I have really said all I can say about the matter.

I will say that several of the posts I read present either assumptions that are wrong or conclusions that are wrong, be it canonically or theologically – but it seems pointless for me to attempt to address them. My parting advice, therefore, to the original poster is very simple: call the judicial vicar of your diocese so that you may have the authoritative answer you seek and the resolution to your problem. You can reach him by telephoning your diocese’s chancery – or pastoral center, as I think that term is often used in America. It will be much more useful to you than the myriad of people writing here “It seems to me.” What “seems” in this case is irrelevant.

In any event, I leave you. I wish you well. Good bye.
 
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 just want to re-affirm what was posted here in #12

That is the correct answer.

Unfortunately, you’ve already received some inaccurate answers (which I won’t reference) because people guess at what the answer “might be” instead of knowing the answer.

As long as your husband indicated in some way that he consented to what the priest spoke when the priest articulated the vow, then there is no problem.

Typically, we hear “I do” but that is not the only means. A person who is unable to speak (even unable just for that moment because he’s nervous) can do his best to make a sign (like nodding an affirmative) or even speaking something unintelligible (for some people it can be very difficult to speak in front of a crowd), as long as he clearly indicated his consent to the priest.

If this were me, and I knew ahead of time that the groom had difficulties speaking in front of a crowd, a simple nod of the head would suffice. Of course, if it were me, I would not have done the “repeat after me” formula in the first place. If anything, it seems to me that was the priest’s biggest mistake.

First and foremost, marriage enjoys the favor of the law, but even beyond that, after 18 years, it seems only reasonable that if he completely lacked any indication of his consent, and had no intention of consenting, he would have said something by now. Understand: in this paragraph, I’m not discussing his understanding of “to what” he was consenting (beyond “marriage”), but the actual expression of consent, whether verbal or otherwise.
 
I’ll throw my two cents in…

I have to say that this is a very odd scenario. Checking through my typical books, I see no reference to such an event ever happening or a discussion of what to do/think if it does happen. So, I am left to make my own conclusions.

Marital consent, in order to be binding, has to be mutually expressed. “Canonical form” requires the priest/deacon to ask the parties to manifest (express) their consent and receive it in the name of the Church (c. 1108). The most obvious moment of this “asking and receiving” is when the priest actually says “declare your consent before God and his Church.” When he told the man to do this, the man did not. In this context, silence does not equal consent.

However, there is more to the Rite of marriage than “the vows”, even though that’s the heart of the whole thing. The Parties express their consent in other ways during the Ritual, at the prompting of the priest. Most notably, there are the three questions about freedom, permanence and children as well as the exchange of rings.

Apparently, the priest thought he had received the consent of the Parties and the Parties thought they expressed it. My conclusion: he did and they did.

Dan
 
In any case - the persons involved - ought to go see their Pastor…
 
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...
As long as your both said I do and agreed, its over!! Your married!!
 
dans0622 said:
I’ll throw my two cents in…

I have to say that this is a very odd scenario. Checking through my typical books, I see no reference to such an event ever happening or a discussion of what to do/think if it does happen.
Click to expand...
You are very correct. I was a professor who taught liturgy and sacraments and I never encountered this – neither in the texts I read or those I taught from.

Thank you also to Father David for your kind response. Oremus pro invicem.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
As a diocesan priest from Europe who is now retired, I thought it would be an interesting project to set for myself to answer a couple of questions per day from this site, trying to choose judiciously; I said that I would try it for a couple of months and see what happens. After almost 100 posts, this thread has helped me to reach the conclusion that there really is no point to my spending a bit of my day on this forum.
…
In any event, I leave you. I wish you well. Good bye.
Click to expand...
Hello,

What you have experienced so far is typical and you are certainly free to do as you see fit–retirement + public internet forum might not be the best combination. Nevertheless, I encourage you to “hang in there.”

Dan
 
Don_Ruggero said:
As a diocesan priest from Europe who is now retired, I thought it would be an interesting project to set for myself to answer a couple of questions per day from this site, trying to choose judiciously; I said that I would try it for a couple of months and see what happens. After almost 100 posts, this thread has helped me to reach the conclusion that there really is no point to my spending a bit of my day on this forum.

I find I am agreeing with the comment: “There are far too many who ‘argue’ here, which essentially means they don’t know, but are just making grand assumptions.” I don’t know why someone would think there is no priest present when I related my own experience as a priest by writing: 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 my response, I also quoted the declaration of your country’s bishops conference: “The heart of the rite of marriage is the exchange of consent.” The manifestation of consent, lawfully received, is fundamental to the contracting of marriage, as stated in Canon 1057. Canon 1104 is the canon upon which this case turns, as best I can tell, and what minimally constitutes the manifestation of consent necessary. Without the answers to the questions I posed, which were asked to try to help me figure out what happened when the manifestation of consent should have occurred (and been properly received by the priest), I have really said all I can say about the matter.

I will say that several of the posts I read present either assumptions that are wrong or conclusions that are wrong, be it canonically or theologically – but it seems pointless for me to attempt to address them. My parting advice, therefore, to the original poster is very simple: call the judicial vicar of your diocese so that you may have the authoritative answer you seek and the resolution to your problem. You can reach him by telephoning your diocese’s chancery – or pastoral center, as I think that term is often used in America. It will be much more useful to you than the myriad of people writing here “It seems to me.” What “seems” in this case is irrelevant.

In any event, I leave you. I wish you well. Good bye.
Click to expand...
Reverend Don,
North Americans are probably thrown by the title “Don” for a priest. We need all the priests we can get on these boards to counter the “grand assumptions” of those who (as Fr. David once put it) “speak with the authority of a papal bull” yet are completely off base. I hope you stay!
 
dans0622 said:
Hello,

What you have experienced so far is typical and you are certainly free to do as you see fit–retirement + public internet forum might not be the best combination. Nevertheless, I encourage you to “hang in there.”

Dan
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your kind comment, Dan. I will consider your encouragement. The occupants of this forum are decidedly different from my classroom and my theology students.

In turn, though, I owe you a kind comment, too. I visited your blog and was very impressed. My compliments to you. I look forward to reading more of your blog.

Perhaps the scenario presented here could provide you with material for a Canon Law Journal article. I have never encountered this exact scenario. One can never legitimately think “I have seen it all.”

In any event, I wish this couple a happy resolution.

Don Ruggero
 
twf said:
Reverend Don,
North Americans are probably thrown by the title “Don” for a priest. We need all the priests we can get on these boards to counter the “grand assumptions” of those who (as Fr. David once put it) “speak with the authority of a papal bull” yet are completely off base. I hope you stay!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your kind comment. I think you are surely right about my title. Your comment humorously reminds me of when I was once in France and was lost in thought (and had not made the linguistic transition) and it was, they said, only on the fourth rather insistent “MONSIEUR L’ABBE!” that I turned my gaze to them…which is when I really heard them and realized that I was the one being addressed. Switching gears, I think is the expression.

I have happily learned, however, that there are a few fans of Don Matteo here. I wish I could still ride my bike as he does.
 
Don_Ruggero said:
…I don’t know why someone would think there is no priest present when I related my own experience as a priest by writing: 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.…
Click to expand...
I am very sorry about this. I either missed your first post or it didn’t register with me that you are a priest, so I did not acknowledge it in my reply. I did not intend any offense. When I wrote it, I honestly did not realize that a priest had commented. If I had, I would have worded that part of my post very differently.

Of course I understand if you choose not to spend any more of your valuable time on this forum, since it can be challenging…but I do truly apologize if my post made you feel unwelcome. This was due to my error – I did not read all of the previous posts as closely as I should have before writing my response.

I truly value you and the other clergy who participate in these forums. I thank you for your service to Christ’s Church, and for your participation here, and I too hope you will continue.
 
A marriage is presumed valid unless a tribunal issues a decree of nullity.
 
PaulinVA said:
A marriage is presumed valid unless a tribunal issues a decree of nullity.
Click to expand...
That is the case.

(Though one can say that such would not be the case for example a person who is Catholic who does not observe the form of marriage without proper dispensation…or attempting a second marriage while their spouse lives etc)

Doubts such as* this *(and this is an unusual one of import) are something to resolve.
 
PaulinVA said:
A marriage is presumed valid unless a tribunal issues a decree of nullity.
Click to expand...
While you are correct that a marriage is presumed valid until declared otherwise, that maxim is true by virtue of the reason that it is presumed valid because marriage enjoys the favor of law. This is a radically different proposition. The essence of the question in the scenario posed by the original poster goes to the very heart of the theology of the sacrament itself…although Canon Law, especially c. 1057 and c. 1104, would certainly be implicated by necessity, as I believe at least three of us have clearly enough stated.

The relative positions that she describes in her exposition are so atypical and in opposition to what the Rite of Marriage prescribes as normative that, in the absence of more information, I can’t even begin to speculate as to what the priest assisting at the marriage may have witnessed or not witnessed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top