Could you please clarify what exactly you are arguing here?
I’m not arguing anything, per se. In reading this thread, I sense a disconnect between what Agent is asking, and what some of the other posters are advising him to do. My analysis of this disconnect is that some of the other posters are treating Agent’s question as though he were only inquiring as to the mechanics of performing a particular Church process, and they are advising Agent based on what “boxes on the form” need to be checked off in order to complete this process. However, I understand Agent to be asking a much deeper question, going beyond the mechanical following of a Church process in order to find out what is required of him in order to truly please God.
In concrete terms, some of the these posters, as well as some of the parish priests, apparently, are just telling him to go through the convalidation process and all will be well. However, this seems to me to be ignoring Agent’s very real concern that such a mechanical convalidation ceremony would be invalid, and thus not pleasing to God.
I am using the language of internal forum and external forum (see
here) to explore this disconnect more fully. I am hesitant to make definitive statements concerning the internal forum, i.e., the way God views Agent’s marriage, because I don’t like speaking for God.
I’m assuming you are arguing that the April 2006 document was not retroactive, and thus all marriages contracted before that would have been bound to the more conventional and popular interpretation of “formal act” of defection.
My understanding is that the Vatican has not clarified whether the April 2006 document is to applied retroactively. I’ve read, and I agree with, Jimmy Akin’s and Ed Peters’ arguments that it should not be applied retroactively. However, I’ve also seen indications that canonical jurisprudence is making retroactive application of the document. For example, there was a poster on Catholic Answers about a year ago who, prior to April 2006, joined a Protestant church, married in that church, divorced civilly, and reverted back to the Catholic church. He applied for an annulment, but was turned down on the grounds that he had defected from the Church by a formal act and so was no longer bound by canonical form, and there were no other grounds for annulment. However, after April 2006, he reapplied to the tribunal, and was found free to marry under the document’s new definition of defection by a formal act.
In Agent’s case, it is clear that his diocese is applying the April 2006 document retroactively, in that they hold his marriage to be invalid due to lack of form. In this case, it only seems fair to me that the bishop should grant Agent a (retroactive) radical sanation of his marriage to counteract the retroactive application of the document.
Ideally, it would be nice if Agent’s diocese clarified that the document does
not apply retroactively in his case, so that he need do nothing in order to be right with God and the Church, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
I have read conflicting things about this. I have read in some places that both parties must acknowledge that the present marriage is invalid, and I have read in others that only the Catholic party must acknowledge this, while the non-Catholic party must only renew their consent. And I understand that the latter side is often held to in practice.
Here, I have had a different experience than you. Everything I have read by canon lawyers has consistently indicated that both parties must have some awareness that their original marriage was invalid in order to be able to give the full consent required for the convalidation to be valid. The gold standard is Lawrence Wrenn’s The Invalid Marriage, which states on page 171:
F. Convalidating Marriages Invalid Because Of Lack Of Form
C. 1160 is clearly speaking about marriages that involved at least one Catholic in which the form was neither observed nor dispensed. In convalidating such marriages, as noted in Section B, even the non-Catholic party has, under both the old and the new Code, been obligated to observe ecclesiastical law. In such cases, therefore, it is required that both parties a) personally recognize the invalidity or at least the probable invalidity of the former marriage and b) transfer the marital right to their partner, i.e. not merely confirm or reiterate a former exchange of rights but actually give a new marital consent distinct from the former inefficacious one.
This does not usually involve a problem where both parties are Catholic but these requirements demand more than can reasonably be expected of most non-Catholics. Consequently many convalidations involving a non-Catholic can be proven invalid on the ground that the non-Catholic party either failed to recognize the original union as invalid or failed to give new consent.
Finally, it must be remembered that in these cases it is not necessary to prove simulation, i.e. exclusion of marital consent by a
positive act of the will; but it is only necessary to prove the
negative omission of the new consent required for a valid convalidation. See …
For example, see the way Jimmy Akin handled a similar case. While he doesn’t address this question explicitly, his answer seems to imply to me that the spouse does not need to recognize that the marriage was never valid in the first place:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/06/convalidation_w.html
Thanks for the link. I agree that Jimmy Akin does not address the question explicitly. My take is that his answer just ignored the issue altogether.
I’m sure we all sympathize with you, but pray for perseverance. I pray for some of my children who are in the same situation.
A canon lawyer could answer that for you.