Marriage convalidation - again?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PursuitofJoy3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PursuitofJoy3

Guest
I recently came across a requirement for marriage convalidation that states that a marriage is not sacramental if the convalidation for an invalid marriage was not consented to with the intent of beginning a new marriage. This is from the Archdiocese of Atlanta and I will copy and paste/ link below.
My marriage in 2006 was invalid due to form (I had been baptized Catholic as a baby, but not raised in the church. My husband and I were protestant at the time and we married in a protestant church.) In 2014, we wanted to enter into full communion, so we received brief instruction in the faith and our marriage was convalidated. But as I (incorrectly) understood it, our previous marriage was valid in the eyes of God and the convalidation was a Church formality. Our parish priest basically said it was a man-made law. I didn’t take it too seriously, and honestly was kind of embarrassed by the whole thing. I really did want to believe and follow all Church teachings and practices, but did not fully understand that the entire validity of our sacramental union hinged on those vows. We have continued to celebrate our anniversary on our initial 2006 marriage date.
If this is considered grounds for annulment…does that mean that our marriage could be invalid? We really want to understand and do the right thing, but it’s so confusing. Thank you.

https://archatl.com/offices/metropolitan-tribunal/grounds-of-marriage-nullity/
"Invalid Convalidation
When a catholic person or couple seeks to have an invalid marriage recognized by the Church, it is accomplished only through a new marriage within the Church. Each party must make a totally new decision and a new act of consent. They must understand that they are beginning their sacramental marriage, not “blessing” the existing invalid marriage. This ground applies if one or both spouses were Catholic, first entered an invalid marriage not recognized by the Church, and later had that marriage convalidated in the Catholic Church. This ground can be considered if the convalidation was not done freely and knowingly, or if the spouses did not intend to enter a new sacramental marriage at the time, but saw the convalidation merely as a continuation of the existing invalid marriage.

At the time you married your former spouse, were either of you Catholic? Did the marriage first take place “outside the Catholic Church,” that is, not according to the laws of the Church? If so, was it later convalidated or “blessed” in the Catholic Church?.. When the marriage was validated or “blessed,” did you or your former spouse believe that it was simply a type of “renewal” of your earlier marriage vows? Did either of you think that the validation was simply a ceremony to go through, and not a new commitment to marriage? Did either of you think that the civil marriage was your “real” marriage, and the validation was just a formality? Did you continue to celebrate your anniversary on the date of your original marriage outside of the church?"
 
Thank you for your reply.
I’m not sure this is a decree, but more of a guideline for determining grounds for nullity. I certainly don’t want my marriage to be considered null, but I also don’t want to wrongly assume something that isn’t true.
 
Thank you!
This is helpful.
At the time of the convalidation, the issue of consent was interior, so it seems that this could be dealt with privately. However, following this event,“publicly,” we have treated our initial marriage in 2006 as our “real marriage” for the purpose of anniversary celebration, etc. But I’m thinking the issue of consent is going to be judged by the actual convalidation “ceremony” itself. Is that correct?
 
No, it wasn’t radical sanation. We each received our first reconciliation and then it was a convalidation ceremony, where we had witnesses and spoke vows before the priest and later received a new marriage certificate.
I read the canon laws and I can’t determine what is considered a defect in consent that can be proven vs one that can’t be proven.
 
Last edited:
Ok. That makes sense. Yes, our parish has a record. I don’t think anyone there thought anything of it. It was a defect in my understanding of precisely what was going on, but I was in my right mind (as much ad possible with three little children underfoot).
Thank you for your help 🙂
 
PursuitofJoy3 said:
I recently came across a requirement for marriage convalidation that states that a marriage is not sacramental if the convalidation for an invalid marriage was not consented to with the intent of beginning a new marriage. …

At the time you married your former spouse, were either of you Catholic? Did the marriage first take place “outside the Catholic Church,” that is, not according to the laws of the Church? If so, was it later convalidated or “blessed” in the Catholic Church?.. When the marriage was validated or “blessed,” did you or your former spouse believe that it was simply a type of “renewal” of your earlier marriage vows? Did either of you think that the validation was simply a ceremony to go through, and not a new commitment to marriage? Did either of you think that the civil marriage was your “real” marriage, and the validation was just a formality? Did you continue to celebrate your anniversary on the date of your original marriage outside of the church?"
Click to expand...
The convalidation with a new act of consent is called a simple convalidation. There is another type which is possible. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent" (CIC 1161:1) The radical sanation can be used where one of the two is not willing to give new consent, it uses the original consent that perdues.
 
The following opinions are based on statements made by the Apostolic Signatura and Roman Rota from around 2005-2010.

Applying the canons on “simple convalidation” to the circumstances of Catholics who contract civil marriages (i.e., “outside the Church”) is a mistake. Those canons do not address this sort of invalid marriage.

It is especially important to note that the canon which demands a “new act of the will concerning a marriage which the renewing party knows or thinks was null from the beginning” addresses a marriage that is invalid due to an impediment (c. 1157). Those marriages which are invalid due to a defect of consent can, of course, be made valid only with/by the valid the consent of the Parties (c. 1159). Those marriages which are invalid due to a defect of form (not a common occurrence–most often would be caused by a priest/deacon lacking the required faculty) are made valid by contracting the marriage anew, in accordance with canonical form (c. 1160). In each case, the (invalid) marriage would enjoy the presumption of validity since it was apparently, properly contracted.

None of these scenarios involve a total lack of form, which is what happens when Catholics totally ignore the Church’s law on how to marry. The one that is closest, certainly, is c. 1160. There, we see that the requirement is simple: marry in accord with canonical form. The Parties express their consent before an authorized witness (priest/deacon) and two other witnesses.

For those who marry (only civilly) outside the Church, the requirement is similar even though the union does not enjoy the presumption of validity: express your marital consent in accordance with canonical form. The quality of your consent is subject to the same requirements as those who, for example, marry “in the Church” right from the start. Those canons concerning defective consent are the ones that apply. So, was a Party lacking marital capacity, ignorant, in error, deceived, simulating, consenting conditionally, or forced to marry (cf. cc. 1095-1103)? If not, then there is no reason to wonder about the validity of the convalidation.

Basically and practically, the most important question is: when you expressed your marital consent before the priest/deacon, did you mean what you said? Whether or not you remember the date of the civil union or whatever, did you want to marry and be married when you stood there before the Church’s minister? Did the words you said correspond to the intention of your mind/will?

The whole notion of “invalid convalidation”, by and large and in my opinion, should be forgotten since it was almost entirely based on a misreading of the canons on convalidation and how those canons apply to Parties who married outside the Church and then married in accord with canonical form. Most especially, it was a misapplication of the requirement of canon 1157. This misapplication made unwarranted and illicit demands on those who wanted to marry “in the Church.”

Here endeth the lecture.

Dan
 
PursuitofJoy3 said:
But as I (incorrectly) understood it, our previous marriage was valid in the eyes of God and the convalidation was a Church formalit
Click to expand...
Sometimes a well-intentioned phrase can cause more confusion.

A Catholic attempts marriage outside the Church, that results in an invalid marriage.

Assuming no other impediments, there are two ways to take a legal marriage and make it real/valid for the Catholic.

A Convalidation. This means that from the date of the convalidation on, the marriage is valid. What the couple had before was a legal marriage, but, it was not valid in the eyes of the Church. This is where some folks want to soft pedal it and say they are going to “have the marriage blessed”. What actually happens is this is the real marriage as far as the Church is concerned (she does recognize there was a legal marriage before, in the eyes of the state.

The other way is a Radical Sanation. This is a way that the Church can retroactively validate the marriage from the time of the original wedding.

So, if your pastor guided you through a Radical Sanation, then, the marriage was made valid from the original wedding. If it was Convalidated, then, you can celebrate two anniversaries, one for the legal marriage and another for the Church marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top