Marriage Convalidation Frustrations (Not Annulement)

[ms83]

Corki,

Yes we had a family member from out of town come because we had a newborn less then 2 months old. If it was only our six year old I am sure we could have worked something out. Also the witnesses that I am refering to are only people to witness the ceremony and what we were told is we have to have not only two witnesses but a man and a woman, that is what to me seems completely unnecessary. As for stressing about it and finding problems where there are not any, there is more background to the story but it has to do with people at my perish and did not want to go into that because I know it is not the Churches issue.

Also it is hard for my wife because she was not raised Catholic although she is in RCIA so she is not used to the vast requirements most Catholics are used to dealing with.

SMHW,

The classes were over a few weekends and were on average 8 hours typically on a Saturday and again when we asked if we could bring at least our newborn with us, because we had no “trustworthy” sitter availble in the state, we were told no. Which I do understand to a point because most likely one of us would have had to take the baby somewhere else during the class.

Personally I never dream this would be so time consumming when I started looking into it and contacting friends that had gone through it, they said it was a quick process. My wife and I have been together 10 years have two children and have never been married to anyone else, so I wasn’t expecting all these steps. Also oddly enough my wife and I through this whole process have never set down with the priest for a one on one, everything has been filling out questionaires and taking class. I feel like if they really wanted to get a feel for where a couple is at the priest should be directly involved.

 

[FAB]

This is false. Affidavits are NOT a canon law requirement. My DH and I had no such requirement when we married.

Now, if the bishop of that particular diocese requires it, that is within his authority. But is not accurate to say that it is a requirement of “all” couples.

Not true. Below are the relevant canons, and there is no mention of affidavits. The canons merely state that the pastor is to ascertain no impediments stand in the way, and the bishops conference may set norms-- via banns or other means.

Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

Can.* 1067 The conference of bishops is to establish norms about the examination of spouses and about the marriage banns or other opportune means to accomplish the investigations necessary before marriage. After these norms have been diligently observed, the pastor can proceed to assist at the marriage.
*

Again, if the bishop of the diocese established such a procedure, it must be followed but it is not a universal norm.

This is also entirely false.

There is NO canon law requiring the witnesses to be one of each sex. The law merely requires two witnesses, it does NOT require they be of opposite sex from one another.

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses* according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

Sorry IKE, your wrong,
I do wedding prep and witness marriages. The requirements I gave are the requirements

 

[1ke]

Sorry IKE, your wrong,
I do wedding prep and witness marriages. The requirements I gave are the requirements

Then you will easily be able to produce the relevant documentation that what you state is in fact a requirement, including that there must be a male and female witness.

Until then, I stand by the canons I posted, which require none of the items you listed.

 

[maryjk]

Sorry IKE, your wrong,
I do wedding prep and witness marriages. The requirements I gave are the requirements

So are these requirements listed anywhere?

I bet most of us find it incredible that these are required, since we didn’t have to meet those requirements.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Personally I never dream this would be so time consumming when I started looking into it and contacting friends that had gone through it, they said it was a quick process. My wife and I have been together 10 years have two children and have never been married to anyone else, so I wasn’t expecting all these steps. Also oddly enough my wife and I through this whole process have never set down with the priest for a one on one, everything has been filling out questionaires and taking class. I feel like if they really wanted to get a feel for where a couple is at the priest should be directly involved.

FWIW, each person’s situation is different. I would expect your situation to be on the longer end of the time frame, simply because your wife in not Catholic. Some Catholics don’t have to take the marriage prep classes due to their individual circumstances (like my wife and I, though we still did met with the priest to discuss matters, but that was one relatively short meeting). Marriage is a sacrament in Catholicism, and for the most part it isn’t outside of Catholicism (or Orthodoxy). That’s a very significant issue, and the nonCatholic party must be educated on that matter.

 

[SMHW]

Also oddly enough my wife and I through this whole process have never set down with the priest for a one on one, everything has been filling out questionaires and taking class.
ms83;11518658:

And this is the problem. Since the pastor has not spoken with you directly you are being prepped under a “one size fits all” set of requirements.
ms83;11518658:

I feel like if they really wanted to get a feel for where a couple is at the priest should be directly involved.

Indeed. Perhaps your pastor is overworked.

 

[FAB]

Then you will easily be able to produce the relevant documentation that what you state is in fact a requirement, including that there must be a male and female witness.

Until then, I stand by the canons I posted, which require none of the items you listed.

If I looked I could. But it’s not worth my time.
The church has required affidavites for years, two for each person.
Two witnesses are called for at the cerimony not including the preist or deacon. Tradition calls for them to be a male and female.

The bottom libe is that the original poster was not haviong to do anything more than any othere couple coming the the church to be married.
Preparation for marriage is a serious matter. MOre important than the dress, guess list and reception. Personlally we need to more, but as the OP made clear he thinks they are obsticals, even though we are working to set a strong foundtaion form a a lifelong marriage.

Canon or not, we require it, so if your getting married, and you want it the the Church, be prepared to do it.

 

[1ke]

If I looked I could. But it’s not worth my time.

In other words, you cannot produce such documentation b/c it does not exist.

The church has required affidavites for years, two for each person.

The Church does not require affidavits. Your particular diocese might. You cannot say it is a universal law, because it is not.

Two witnesses are called for at the cerimony not including the preist or deacon.

Yes, two witnesses. The law does not specify they must be opposite sex, nor even Catholic. Just that there must be two.

Tradition calls for them to be a male and female.

The law does not. To attempt to state that a male and female are required is a lie.

The bottom libe is that the original poster was not haviong to do anything more than any othere couple coming the the church to be married.

The OP has had to do substantially more than most couples seeking to convalidate their marriage.

Preparation for marriage is a serious matter. MOre important than the dress, guess list and reception. Personlally we need to more, but as the OP made clear he thinks they are obsticals, even though we are working to set a strong foundtaion form a a lifelong marriage.

I don’t think you read the OP’s post very carefully if that is what you got out of it.

Canon or not, we require it, so if your getting married, and you want it the the Church, be prepared to do it.

Those who know their rights under canon law might take a different approach.

 

[Phemie]

Two witnesses are called for at the cerimony not including the preist or deacon. Tradition calls for them to be a male and female.

Tradition does no such thing. Lots of couples through the 20th century had the fathers of the bride and groom as witnesses. I would even go so far as to say that it’s the wedding industry that has driven the maid-of-honour/best man format over the years.

 

[FAB]

In other words, you cannot produce such documentation b/c it does not exist.

The Church does not require affidavits. Your particular diocese might. You cannot say it is a universal law, because it is not.

Yes, two witnesses. The law does not specify they must be opposite sex, nor even Catholic. Just that there must be two.

The law does not. To attempt to state that a male and female are required is a lie.

The OP has had to do substantially more than most couples seeking to convalidate their marriage.

I don’t think you read the OP’s post very carefully if that is what you got out of it.

Those who know their rights under canon law might take a different approach.

IKe and Phemie
I know you take great delight in wanting to show how much you know. And I really don’t need to prove anything to you.
Bottom line, the church does an investigation of the couple to make certain there are no (name removed by moderator)edaments.
Unless you are preparing couples for marriage, stop giving a false impression of what is done.
The term convalidation is wrong, the church does not consider a couple, catholic persons who took married outside the church as married. The only valid marrige is one witnessed by a priest or deacon.
Since they are not considered to be married, they are prepared for marrige in much of the same way asa never, never married couple.
Is there less scrutany, yes.
We still make certain that thereare no impedaments and part of that process is once again the affidavites.

As traditional catholic, you should be happy that we are doing the investigations and the preparations. the reason is to reduce the divorce rate amoung Catholics

It is good the that OP had to do what he had to do. hopefully he hase learn how special marriage is, that it is for a lifetime and wants to make it work. He took a short cut the first time. I appaude the parish he belongs to for not letting him take one the second(First) try.

 

[maryjk]

IKe and Phemie
I know you take great delight in wanting to show how much you know. And I really don’t need to prove anything to you.
Bottom line, the church does an investigation of the couple to make certain there are no (name removed by moderator)edaments.
Unless you are preparing couples for marriage, stop giving a false impression of what is done.

All I can say, it that I did not have to provide affidavits. My priest didn’t even meet my parents or anyone from my past, other than myself and my husband until the day of the Convalidation.

The term convalidation is wrong, the church does not consider a couple, catholic persons who took married outside the church as married. The only valid marriage is one witnessed by a priest or deacon.

Hey, we didn’t name it. The Church did. If you don’t like the name, take it up with them.

Since they are not considered to be married, they are prepared for marriage in much of the same way as a never, never married couple.
Is there less scrutiny, yes.
We still make certain that there are no impediments and part of that process is once again the affidavits.

Again, I did not have to have affidavits.

As traditional catholic, you should be happy that we are doing the investigations and the preparations. the reason is to reduce the divorce rate among Catholics

It is good the that OP had to do what he had to do. hopefully he has learn how special marriage is, that it is for a lifetime and wants to make it work. He took a short cut the first time. I appaude the parish he belongs to for not letting him take one the second(First) try.

As I said, if we had been required to go through what the OP did, I don’t know that I would have ever received a Convalidation.

As our pastor and bishop said, the goal is to get you right with God and the Church.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

IKe and Phemie
I know you take great delight in wanting to show how much you know. And I really don’t need to prove anything to you.

Unless you are preparing couples for marriage, stop giving a false impression of what is done.

I don’t have to speak for 1Ke, but she knows what she is talking about regarding this particular matter. It’s not a case of taking delight in showing that you are wrong, but rather a case of you disseminating information that is entirely wrong.

The only way you could be possibly correct is that your bishop requires what you have stated, since he does have the authority to do so (which I seriously doubt, BTW). However, the would be a local requirement, and not a requirement for the Church as a whole.

The term convalidation is wrong,

The term “convalidation” is NOT wrong. This is what it is actually called in the Code of Canon Law (Title VII, Chapter X). You may wish to refer to what Canon Law actually states before you continue to post information that directly conflicts with Canon Law.

Since they are not considered to be married, they are prepared for marrige in much of the same way asa never, never married couple.
Is there less scrutany, yes.

There is not less scrutiny. Certain things may be dispensed of depending on individual circumstances. That’s less likely to be the case in the situation of convalidation involving a non-Catholic.

We still make certain that thereare no impedaments and part of that process is once again the affidavites.

My wife and I were interviewed and we may or may not have signed something; I don’t recall. But I do recall that no such affidavits were required by anyone else. That’s because no such requirement exists. I strongly suspect that you are referring to the annulment process, in which traditionally affidavits from four witnesses are requested (gender of witnesses irrelevant), but that is different from a convalidation. Furthermore, even in the case of annulments, four is not an absolute requirement and might not be required depending on the circumstances (I only had two for my annulment process).

With regard to witnesses to the convalidation (marriage), only two are required by the Church (we only had two, NOT four). Gender doesn’t matter.

 

[Gorgias]

This is false. Affidavits are NOT a canon law requirement. My DH and I had no such requirement when we married.

Not true. Below are the relevant canons, and there is no mention of affidavits. The canons merely state that the pastor is to ascertain no impediments stand in the way, and the bishops conference may set norms-- via banns or other means.

Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

Can.* 1067 The conference of bishops is to establish norms about the examination of spouses and about the marriage banns or other opportune means to accomplish the investigations necessary before marriage. After these norms have been diligently observed, the pastor can proceed to assist at the marriage.
*

Why is there so much screaming going on in this thread? 1ke, I’m sure you already know about this, but the complementary norms regarding c. 1067, set down by the USCCB, can be found at the USCCB website. They mention that “[w]here necessary, additional documentation (such as affidavits of parents) attesting to a Catholic party’s freedom to marry should be presented.”

In my diocese, these affidavits are not required to be made in person; they can be conducted via a phone call, for instance. As has been mentioned in this thread, they exist purely to establish formally that the couple is free to marry, so they only ask about the nature and the length of the relationship between the intended spouse and the person making the affidavit, and whether the person knows that the spouse was baptized, and whether they had been married previously.

 

[Phemie]

Why is there so much screaming going on in this thread? 1ke, I’m sure you already know about this, but the complementary norms regarding c. 1067, set down by the USCCB, can be found at the USCCB website. They mention that “[w]here necessary, additional documentation (such as affidavits of parents) attesting to a Catholic party’s freedom to marry should be presented.”

In my diocese, these affidavits are not required to be made in person; they can be conducted via a phone call, for instance. As has been mentioned in this thread, they exist purely to establish formally that the couple is free to marry, so they only ask about the nature and the length of the relationship between the intended spouse and the person making the affidavit, and whether the person knows that the spouse was baptized, and whether they had been married previously.

Affidavits are required in some dioceses but not routinely in others. There are certainly cases where the couple didn’t grow up in the parish and is not well known enough for the publication of banns to be useful.

Unless the new bishop has changed things recently, we don’t use affidavits for couples planning to marry.

 

[1ke]

Why is there so much screaming going on in this thread? 1ke, I’m sure you already know about this, but the complementary norms regarding c. 1067, set down by the USCCB, can be found at the USCCB website. They mention that “[w]here necessary, additional documentation (such as affidavits of parents) attesting to a Catholic party’s freedom to marry should be presented.”

In my diocese, these affidavits are not required to be made in person; they can be conducted via a phone call, for instance. As has been mentioned in this thread, they exist purely to establish formally that the couple is free to marry, so they only ask about the nature and the length of the relationship between the intended spouse and the person making the affidavit, and whether the person knows that the spouse was baptized, and whether they had been married previously.

There is no screaming going on. It needs to be stated that what is being presented as being universally required is NOT universal nor an absolutely requirement.

The complementary norm does not stated affidavits are a requirement. It states “where necessary”. It does not indicate what makes affidavits “necessary” but tyically the baptismal certificate of the Catholic party suffices. An afidavit may be needed for a non-Catholic party. It does not say FOUR affidavits are neededa nor that the parties making the affidavit have to physically go to a Catholic church to do so.

And, nowhere does it require a male and female witness to the exchange of consent the latest thing the parish is trying to foist on the couple.

These people only want to regularize their marriage and resume the practice of the faith and they have been given many burdens in this process that go beyond what is required to do that.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no screaming going on.

From where I’m standing, it’s quite the slap-fight…

It needs to be stated that what is being presented as being universally required is NOT universal nor an absolutely requirement.

Universally? No. In the U.S.? Well… that’s where the complementary norms come in…

The complementary norm does not stated affidavits are a requirement. It states “where necessary”. It does not indicate what makes affidavits “necessary” but tyically the baptismal certificate of the Catholic party suffices.

Note that the purpose of the affidavits isn’t strictly to establish baptismal status but rather, freedom to marry. Although the notations may indicate that the party has never entered into a sacramental marriage, they could not possibly establish whether the party entered into a lack of form marriage (which, of course, would require the documentary process in order to establish the person’s freedom to marry). In the case of parties who haven’t lived in the diocese for quite a while, an affidavit is a reasonable way to establish whether there was ever any sort of attempt at marriage in their lives.

It does not say FOUR affidavits are needed

Actually, it’s interesting that you bring this up. Looking at the way the norm was phrased, the assertion is that affidavits (plural) of parents (plural) attest to a party’s (singular) freedom to marry. I would assert that this suggests that one affidavit per party isn’t what the norm envisions (when an affidavit is necessary). Inasmuch as the OP and his wife have only recently moved into the diocese, affidavits (plural) for each of them seem to be what the norm anticipates.

nor that the parties making the affidavit have to physically go to a Catholic church to do so.

Agreed. Yet, this might be diocesan policy, no?

And, nowhere does it require a male and female witness to the exchange of consent the latest thing the parish is trying to foist on the couple.

Agreed. The presence of a ‘best man’ and ‘maid/matron of honor’ might be the typical custom, but is not the requirement. The good deacon seems to be extrapolating from his experience in his diocese to an assumption about what is required throughout the Church.

These people only want to regularize their marriage and resume the practice of the faith and they have been given many burdens in this process that go beyond what is required to do that.

It certainly seems that way. One might hope that the parish would have been more willing to work with the OP’s situation and limitations.

 

[Peebo]

IKe and Phemie
I know you take great delight in wanting to show how much you know. And I really don’t need to prove anything to you.
Bottom line, the church does an investigation of the couple to make certain there are no (name removed by moderator)edaments.
Unless you are preparing couples for marriage, stop giving a false impression of what is done.
The term convalidation is wrong, the church does not consider a couple, catholic persons who took married outside the church as married. The only valid marrige is one witnessed by a priest or deacon.
Since they are not considered to be married, they are prepared for marrige in much of the same way asa never, never married couple.
Is there less scrutany, yes.
We still make certain that thereare no impedaments and part of that process is once again the affidavites.

As traditional catholic, you should be happy that we are doing the investigations and the preparations. the reason is to reduce the divorce rate amoung Catholics

It is good the that OP had to do what he had to do. hopefully he hase learn how special marriage is, that it is for a lifetime and wants to make it work. He took a short cut the first time. I appaude the parish he belongs to for not letting him take one the second(First) try.

I’m confused about the church not recognizing marriage outside the church as being valid…so why does the church require a divorced Catholic who originally married in a civil ceremony…then remarried in another civil ceremony…why would he/she/both require an annulment if the church doesn’t recognize the marriage in the first place

 

[FAB]

I’m confused about the church not recognizing marriage outside the church as being valid…so why does the church require a divorced Catholic who originally married in a civil ceremony…then remarried in another civil ceremony…why would he/she/both require an annulment if the church doesn’t recognize the marriage in the first place

If a catholic baptized person or person get married and it is not in front of a priest or deacon, it is not a valid marriage and the church does not recognize except on a civil basis.
If they come to the church, then the proper preparation is done. At this time the church required that a investigation be done to insure there are no impediments. This includes copies of baptismal certificates reliable witnesses that are required to sign affidavits (at least in most of the dioceses I am familiar with in the United States) We also, depending on the number a year that a couple has been together, require them to go on a marriage retreat or other kind of prep including natural family planning.

In the case of two catholic being married outside of the church, if the divorce and want to get remarried, the matter of the first marriage is resolved in the eyes of the church called Lack of Canonical form. This is a form of nullity, but does not require a full investigation as with an annulment.

For baptized non catholic persons, who divorce and want to then marry in the Church, almost in a 100% of the cases they have to go through a full annulment process. The reason is that in the protestant church there is no Canon that lays out the rules for marriage, but the Church recognizes those marriages as sacramental in nature.

 

[1ke]

so why does the church require a divorced Catholic who originally married in a civil ceremony…then remarried in another civil ceremony…why would he/she/both require an annulment if the church doesn’t recognize the marriage in the first place

The Church does not require a decree of nullity in such a case. There is no marriage to be found invalid. Marriages that lack form are not putative marriages under the law.

What is required for lack of form situations, in the US and Canada, is an administrative process where those involved provide the paperwork to show they were married and divorced civilly and not in the Church. The paperwork is sent to the diocese.

This process is not used worldwide. In Europe there is no administrative case for lack of form, if the parties were not married in the Church they are free to marry and the priest handles it during premarital prep.

 

[FAB]

From where I’m standing, it’s quite the slap-fight…

Universally? No. In the U.S.? Well… that’s where the complementary norms come in…

Note that the purpose of the affidavits isn’t strictly to establish baptismal status but rather, freedom to marry. Although the notations may indicate that the party has never entered into a sacramental marriage, they could not possibly establish whether the party entered into a lack of form marriage (which, of course, would require the documentary process in order to establish the person’s freedom to marry). In the case of parties who haven’t lived in the diocese for quite a while, an affidavit is a reasonable way to establish whether there was ever any sort of attempt at marriage in their lives.

Actually, it’s interesting that you bring this up. Looking at the way the norm was phrased, the assertion is that affidavits (plural) of parents (plural) attest to a party’s (singular) freedom to marry. I would assert that this suggests that one affidavit per party isn’t what the norm envisions (when an affidavit is necessary). Inasmuch as the OP and his wife have only recently moved into the diocese, affidavits (plural) for each of them seem to be what the norm anticipates.

Agreed. Yet, this might be diocesan policy, no?

Agreed. The presence of a ‘best man’ and ‘maid/matron of honor’ might be the typical custom, but is not the requirement. The good deacon seems to be extrapolating from his experience in his diocese to an assumption about what is required throughout the Church.

It certainly seems that way. One might hope that the parish would have been more willing to work with the OP’s situation and limitations.

Thanks Gorgias,

Although I know this site is worldwide, most conversations have to do with the United States.
the Norms I speak are used by the majority of US diocese, coming from the USCCB and are carried out in various was across the US.
It is true that the two witnesses at the wedding can be of the same gender, I have yet to see it done that way, in my part of the world the tradition is to have a best man and a maid of honor.
Perhaps in shotgun wedding (like in Seven Brides for Seven Brother) are the father’s the only wittnesses