Marriage annulment/convalidation question

[whatistrue]

That is not exactly true. A marriage is

This is why I bowed out. Totally outside my comfort zone or expertise.

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.

I am glad for you. I have been driving for 45+ years and have been hit by a red light runner (3 cars totaled in that incident, including mine that I had owned for almost exactly 2 months), only missed being smeared by a pickup while riding a motorcycle by NOT pulling out when the light turned green because “something told me to wait and look” and getting t-boned by a car who stopped at a stop sign and then pulled out while I was riding the very same motorcycle. The motorcycle incidents happened within the first 10 years of my driving career. But that’s me.

 

[1ke]

But what recourse is there then for a couple who has serious doubts about the validity of their marriage?

The couple can make a new act of consent privately if there is a REAL doubt about the validity or if they’ve concluded it is not valid or a new act of consent in canonical form if needed.

 

[1ke]

Is this an example of something that couldn’t be proven in the external forum because no one but the person knew of it?

Yes. I would say so.

Person takes something or drinks something and no one else knows versus the groom and all his buddies go out back for a joint…

 

[Vancleave596]

First, thanks to everyone for their (name removed by moderator)ut on this. I appreciate it. My wife and I have resaid our vows to each privately in local Church sanctuary.

But to a previous post, the Tribunal will not look at the marriage or even answer questions about it until the divorce is finalized in the civil court. (Even though the Church “doesn’t recognize divorce”, as I have been told multiple times).

So I have both emailed and called the diocese Tribunal, and the response I got both times is to talk to my local priest.

So I guess we will just move forward because no one will give me a straight answer to my question:

IF my marriage was not valid at either the initial marriage or at the convalidation, and IF the Church only PRESUMES the marriage to be valid, but would be declared INVALID upon both divorce and the seeking of annulment(assuming it would be declared invalid, which I think it would based on all the facts), does my wife and I NEED to have our marriage convalidated again?

I am more curious now to learn more about this, because I feel it is like a catch-22. It’s valid until you look into, but to look into it, you have to get divorced.

I am going to push to have it convalidated again with our local priest. Better safe than sorry right?

Thanks again to everyone.

 

[1ke]

Even though the Church “doesn’t recognize divorce”, as I have been told multiple times).

This is an inaccurate view of civil divorce. The Church certainly recognizes the civil effects of divorce. It grants legal status, property rights, custody rights, etc.

What it does not grant a person is the right to marry someone else.

oes my wife and I NEED to have our marriage convalidated again?

§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

If you and your wife have both become certain of its nullity, I would say yes. But you said you already did it by renewing consent: My wife and I have resaid our vows to each privately in local Church sanctuary

That IS convalidation.

 

[Gorgias]

But to a previous post, the Tribunal will not look at the marriage or even answer questions about it until the divorce is finalized in the civil court. (Even though the Church “doesn’t recognize divorce”, as I have been told multiple times).

Correct. Think about it for a second: if the Church said that a legally-valid marriage is invalid in the Church, they’d be making an assertion with putatively civilly-legal effects. They can’t go there.

So, even though the Church doesn’t recognize divorce as a pronouncement that a marriage is invalid (and it’s important to remember that clause!), she does wait until the civil authorities have made a pronouncement before opening her own investigation.

So I guess we will just move forward because no one will give me a straight answer to my question:

IF my marriage was not valid at either the initial marriage or at the convalidation, and IF the Church only PRESUMES the marriage to be valid, but would be declared INVALID upon both divorce and the seeking of annulment(assuming it would be declared invalid, which I think it would based on all the facts), does my wife and I NEED to have our marriage convalidated again?

We haven’t? Here it is:
If your wife were married in the Church (and ‘convalidation’ counts as “married in the Church”), then the Church treats your marriage as valid. Therefore, there’s no need to re-convalidate.

There you go! There’s your straight answer!

§3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

If you and your wife have both become certain of its nullity, I would say yes.

Here’s the thing: how can a couple “become certain of nullity” without the Church’s declaration of the same, and in a context in which the Church herself already presumes the marriage valid?

 

[Phemie]

Here’s the thing: how can a couple “become certain of nullity” without the Church’s declaration of the same, and in a context in which the Church herself already presumes the marriage valid?

A person can certainly become aware that, although their marriage is presumed valid, they personally withheld proper consent or felt coerced to marry for whatever reason.

 

[Gorgias]

A person can certainly become aware

Sure, they can reach an opinion. Does that rise to the level of a “certainty”, though?

 

[Vancleave596]

pronouncement before opening her own investigation.

We haven’t? Here it is:
If your wife were married in the Church (and ‘convalidation’ counts as “married in the Church”), then the Church treats your marriage as valid. Therefore, there’s no need to re-convalidate.

There you go! There’s your straight answer!

I meant that neither the Tribunal or our local priest could give us an answer.

 

[1ke]

Here’s the thing: how can a couple “become certain of nullity” without the Church’s declaration of the same, and in a context in which the Church herself already presumes the marriage valid?

Huh, somehow I missed this when you posted it.

Of course one or both parties can become aware of the fact that they withheld valid consent. If they do, it is sufficient that they then consent anew and validly. There is no requirement the Church declare a marriage invalid for a couple to come to that conclusion and take action to correct the defect of consent or intention.

It’s also possible for a priest to become aware of an invalidating defect or impediment— such as discovering there was never a dispensation from disparity of cult— and he can remedy that through a petition for radical sanation and he need not ever even notify the couple.