Marriage annulment/convalidation question

[Vancleave596]

So my wife and I separated for about 9 months and she even started the divorce process in court. She changed her mind at the last minute, we started working on our marriage, we attended Retrouvaille, and we are on the road to a healed and hopefully better marriage.

However my question is this:

While going through this, she was all but guaranteed by multiple priests that the marriage would get annulled if it went through the process post divorce in the court. Meaning that our marriage was never valid in the first place, and never was to start with. So even though we no longer want to get divorced, if it would through the process it would be considered invalid.

With that logic, regardless of whether we stay together or not, our marriage is still invalid.

We were married originally almost 11 years ago outside the Catholic Church in a small non-denominational church. About 5 years ago we had our marriage convalidated in the Catholic Church.

However after talking with 3 different priests, they all told me the same thing:
“It doesn’t matter that we had our marriage convalidated, the annulment process will always look at the original marriage date and whether or not it was valid at the time.”

Meaning that no matter what we do, our marriage is only “valid” because the Church assumes all marriages are valid until proven otherwise. And since we aren’t getting divorced, and we aren’t going through annulment process, it won’t ever get “proven invalid”.

This greatly disturbs me. I feel its like:
A thief steals something and is guilty, but since no court has even found him guilty, he is presumed innocent since no one proved he committed a crime. The fact that the court hasn’t found him guilty doesn’t mean he isn’t guilty of the crime.

So my questions are this:

If my marriage would be invalid after going through the annulment process(which it most certainly would), and if getting our marriage convalidated doesn’t matter when they look at whether we have a valid marriage, then A)whats the point of convalidating a marriage?, B)won’t my marriage always be invalid (if it would be invalid after going through the annulment process, it would mean its actually invalid now right?) C) There is nothing to be done except divorce, get an annulment, and get remarried to make it 100% valid.

This logic seems crazy to me, but if the convalidation didn’t make our marriage valid if it was invalid to start with, then what else can we do?

Thanks, and I hope my spiderweb logic makes sense.

 

[Usige]

Assuming the initial marriage outside the church was when either of you were Catholic, that initial attempt would have been invalid, but…

Once you convalidated the marriage, new consent was exchanged and any investigation would only look at the marriage from that time and not the initial attempt with lack of form. If there were no impediments or defects of consent then the marriage would be valid from the time of the convalidation.

Strictly speaking, from the initial attempt outside of the Church until the convalidation the marriage would not have the assumption of validity (assuming either of you were Catholic). It is only after the convalidation that the assumption of validity would exist.

 

[Vancleave596]

The same issues that would have caused it to be invalid initially were still there when we had it convalidated. So would we need it to be convalidated a 2nd now that everything is out in the open?

 

[Usige]

It would depend on if that issue were an impediment or defect of consent that has ceased and if the issue was public or can be proven.

One does not always need to renew consent in the canonical form depending on what the issue was and if it was occult, but it is best to talk to a priest versed in Canon Law to see what option there is going forward. You can generally contact the Tribunal and ask if one of the canonist can help address your specific situation.

 

[Vancleave596]

Ok I will get ahold of someone at the Tribunal. I am worried that I have an invalid marriage and want to make it right with God.

Thanks.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Talk to a competent priest (meaning one who’s been on the tribunal, etc). My thought is that marriage enjoys the favor of the law. You haven’t received a decree of nullity, just opinions that it might be or even “is likely” to be so declared. Thus, you have a valid marriage, and it will remain so until there is an official decree to the contrary.

 

[Vancleave596]

Right, because if we dont get divorced and seek invalidation, our marriage is considered valid.

However if we do divorce and seek invalidation, it would more than likely be determined invalid.

However the original state never changed, so wouldn’t it be invalid no matter what?

 

[1ke]

While going through this, she was all but guaranteed by multiple priests that the marriage would get annulled if it went through the process post divorce in the court.

That is quite sad, as no one can “guarantee” that.

Meaning that our marriage was never valid in the first place, and never was to start with

No. Your marriage is VALID unless proven otherwise.

“It doesn’t matter that we had our marriage convalidated, the annulment process will always look at the original marriage date and whether or not it was valid at the time.”

Um. I don’t even know what to say to that. It’s so completely wrong. The convalidation IS the marriage.

So, I don’t know what these priests are babbling about but they clearly don’t know what they are talking about at all.

If my marriage would be invalid after going through the annulment process(which it most certainly would),

No, this is not correct. If a Catholic marries outside the Church without dispensation, the convalidation is the exchange of consent in Catholic form. That IS the marriage. That IS the consent. So, no there is no “certainly null” in this scenario.

and if getting our marriage convalidated doesn’t matter when they look at whether we have a valid marriage

This is the heart of it right here— whoever told you that is 100% wrong.

 

[Vancleave596]

Yeah, that’s why I am so confused. I would assume based on what I have read that getting our marriage convalidated would push forward the “marriage date” to the convalidation date, so when looked at in terms of being valid, it would examine the state of my wife and I at the time of convalidiation 5 years ago and not 10 years ago when first married. I will get ahold of someone on the Tribunal and get a straight answer. If we need to get our marriage convalidated again, so be it.

 

[Canvas]

You should not be disturbed.

If my marriage would be invalid after going through the annulment process(which it most certainly would), and if getting our marriage convalidated doesn’t matter when they look at whether we have a valid marriage,

I am not a canon lawyer and even I can tell you from what you posted that your marriage was made valid when you had the convalidation. That would be what the tribunal would investigate, not the original ceremony.

C) There is nothing to be done except divorce, get an annulment, and get remarried to make it 100% valid.

You already did that part, minus the divorce, when you had the convalidation. That was your marriage date.

 

[Vancleave596]

So last question, if when convalidated, my wife still brought issues with her that would constitute an annulment, would you say we would need to get our marriage convalidated again, even though we are moving past those issues?

For example she was still in love with another man, and was only going through the convalidation because we had come back to the Catholic Church and was too afraid to leave and believed that divorce was not an option, among other things. Later when she had a better understanding of annulment, and based one some things that I had brought to the marriage, she was told by multiple priests that we had multiple reasons for an annulment, and would surely have our marriage invalidated.

So if it would get annulled if we tried(presumably), wouldn’t that stand to reason that we would need it convalidated again if we stayed together?

 

[1ke]

So if it would get annulled if we tried(presumably),

I don’t really see anything that you’ve written that leads to this conclusion.

 

[whatistrue]

So if it would get annulled if we tried(presumably), wouldn’t that stand to reason that we would need it convalidated again if we stayed together?

My opinion as an opinionated nobody: No, because the marriage is valid unless and until a Tribunal issues a Decree of Nullity. As an analogy, in the US criminal justice system, a person accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. What this means is that, regardless of whether the individual actually committed the crime, he/she is legally innocent until a competent court declares them guilty under the law. So your marriage is valid under Canon law unless and until a Tribunal says otherwise. It makes no difference whether they would, only if they do.

 

[whatistrue]

invalid and therefore non-Sacramental

The point is that the marriage is, in fact, valid unless and until it is declared not valid by a Tribunal.

ETA: I don’t think it is a good idea for me to continue here as I am not an expert on Canon Law or Tribunals. I just read a lot and I need to bow out and leave any further answers to the actual experts.

 

[Sursumcorda1]

Rather than contact the Tribunal, why don’t you contact a marriage therapist since these issues are obviously “eating away” at your marriage? I don’t know about your area, but in Atlanta, Catholics have Holy Family Counseling Center which charges about $125 per hour. It is totally worth it.

 

[TomH1]

The priests are wrong. What would be the point of convalidation if a marriage remained null?

When your marriage was convalidated your marriage became valid and that is the date on which the Church considered you were married.

Life can be hard enough without going to look for problems. Contact your tribunal and tell them what happened. Experts who work in the tribunal will put your mind at rest.

 

[1ke]

For example she was still in love with another man, and was only going through the convalidation because we had come back to the Catholic Church and was too afraid to leave and believed that divorce was not an option, among other things.

So, it seems the crux of what people are telling the two of you is because she had feelings for someone else and didn’t think divorce was an option and was afraid to leave, etc., that the convalidation was not valid.

Two things. First, the Church presumes that when you say the words of your marriage vows, your interior disposition conforms to the words you are saying. IOW, if you are asked the questions before consent regarding freedom of choice, fidelity to each other, and the acceptance and upbringing of children and you give consent (I do) during the exchange of consent-- the exterior words and actions match the interior disposition.

You exchanged consent in Catholic form. It is valid consent.

Doubts, feelings, etc, do not negate consent.

IF there was any defect in consent on your wife’s part, there would have to be evidence. And I would think substantive evidence based on the fact that she approached the Church and asked for convalidation and gave new consent. If it were simply reservations she had in her own head, if she truly believes she didn’t give valid consent-- she just has to give that consent now. If it were something that could be proven in the external forum (i.e. she went around telling everyone that she really didn’t mean what she was about to do…) then there would need to be a new exchange of consent in the canonical form. See below,

Can. 1159 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of a defect of consent is convalidated if the party who did not consent now consents, provided that the consent given by the other party perseveres.

§2. If the defect of consent cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party who did not consent gives consent privately and in secret.

§3. If the defect of consent can be proven, the consent must be given in canonical form.

Based on what you’ve written-- in my opinion-- (a.) I don’t think you have a situation that is a “slam dunk” annulment case the way people are insinuating. (b.) It sounds like you have a normal, valid marriage to me… one with issues, but everyone has issues, fears, and etc. That’s normal stuff. (c.) if there REALLY was some sort of defect in your wife’s consent she CAN fix it by giving new consent, either just privately or in the external forum (before a priest/deacon and witnesses) depending on the situation.

So, in NO scenario is your marriage invalid without remedy. And NO you do not have to get divorced, an annulment, and remarried. All of that is nonsense. And, if someone in the Church actually told you that-- OY-VEY that’s really sad.

PLEASE talk to someone at the diocesan level, or a competent canon lawyer if you are truly concerned. From where I’m sitting, I don’t think this is actually a case of anything other than BAD advice.

 

[Usige]

Thanks, @1ke, for taking the time to explain what I was alluding to earlier about public versus occult defects of consent.

 

[Usige]

The point is that the marriage is, in fact, valid unless and until it is declared not valid by a Tribunal.

That is not exactly true. A marriage is valid or invalid at it’s inception. It does not become invalid when a tribunal makes a positive declaration. That declaration simply confirms what has always been true.

What we say is that all marriages are presumed to be valid unless proven otherwise. A negative declaration of nullity also does not say that the marriage is 100% proven to be valid, but rather that the grounds for the petition were not proven. In that case the marriage reverts to the assumption of validity. It’s why there is the possibility to file a new petition even after a negative finding is pronounced.

Does that mean that there are people living in putative marriages that are truly invalid? Yes, but if there is no doubt raised about there validity then we trust that the intent was correct and that a marriage truly took place.

While it might not make people warm and fuzzy, there is no process that proves that a marriage is valid. We start with the presumption of validity and only possitively find if there is proof of invalidity.

That may sound bad, but we live most of our lives trusting in presumptions. I presume that if I go through a green light that cross traffic will stop on their red. In 30 years of driving that presumption has born out. That doesn’t mean that sometimes people run red lights, but if we always assume that we are going to get tboned when going through a green, then roads would be a parking lot.

The same with marriage, we assume that what we said at marriage is true and only question it if there is a reason to doubt it.

 

[MNathaniel]

This sounds like a fantastic case study for a canon law class.

Which I’ve never taken so I don’t have an answer for you.

So definitely reach out to your local canon law experts, or a tribunal advocate (or whomever the right authority is for questions of annulment/marriage consolidation – I literally don’t even know).