My husband doesn't want to marry me in church

[szilvia]

I got married a couple of years ago. At that time we got married very quickly in the city hall,planning to get married later on in the Catholic church. Years went by, and we never had the opportunity to plan a wedding in the church. For some time know, I feel strong needs to become a better Christan and to get closer to God. I want to receive communion, and go to confession, but because we were not married in the church, I can’t.
The problem is that my husband doesn’t want to get married anyomore in the church. He thinks it would be a waste of time.
He is a Catholic, but doesn’t practice it anymore. I can’t convince him. Does this mean I will never be able to have a confession and receive communion again??? What can i do???

 

[LilyM]

I got married a couple of years ago. At that time we got married very quickly in the city hall,planning to get married later on in the Catholic church. Years went by, and we never had the opportunity to plan a wedding in the church. For some time know, I feel strong needs to become a better Christan and to get closer to God. I want to receive communion, and go to confession, but because we were not married in the church, I can’t.
The problem is that my husband doesn’t want to get married anyomore in the church. He thinks it would be a waste of time.
He is a Catholic, but doesn’t practice it anymore. I can’t convince him. Does this mean I will never be able to have a confession and receive communion again??? What can i do???

Talk to your local priest - you may be able go through a process called radical sanation. My understanding is that it applies in situations like yours - where one of the partners is dead set against having the marriage solemnized in church, and that it doesn’t require the participation of both partners.

 

[Seatuck]

I’d think very hard about being sacramentally married to a man who is so uncaring of matters that are so important to me.

You do have the choice for separating and/or not living a conjugal life while staying together. I’m not saying there wouldn’t be serious consequences in that scenario. Living without the Sacraments is also a serious consequence .

Praying for you .

 

[chevalier]

Radical sanation can be granted along with dispensation from canonical form. But for that, the consent must persist in both parties. He doesn’t actually have to know about radical sanation being given to that marriage (it’s actually possible to grant radical sanation with neither party knowing).

However, positive exclusion of the good of sacrament (of the sacramental quality of marriage) by an act of will, makes marriage invalid. See here, Canon 1101 para 2, Canon 1099.

A situation in which a nupturient (spouse to be, attempting marriage) would rather not contract marriage at all than contract a sacramental one is a typical academic example of exclusion of the good of sacrament, which is a title of invalidity.

In this situation, you need to contact your local priest and the tribunal. Since your marriage is invalid, you cannot have marital relations and receive Communion at the same time. You probably know that you need to go to Confession before receiving.

You’re in my prayers. Contact the priest and/or the tribunal ASAP. If I were you, I would seriously consider not getting the radical sanation and it’s also possible that your husband’s will excludes one of the essential qualities of marriage (the sacrament), which if true, bars radical sanation.

 

[chrysostom15]

First, you are not married. Let’s start with that. You’re in a pretend marriage, and every time you have sex, you’re fornicating.

You should tell your ‘husband’ that, if he is not willing to marry you, you’re going to leave him. If he does not respect you enough to marry you, don’t think that he loves you, because he does not. He is just using you.

 

[ElizaE]

What is he against? Perhaps he thinks that you will go all out and want to have a big wedding. Ask him to marry you with just the two of you and two witnesses?

It is difficult to give advice when we do not know the whole situation.

God bless

 

[yessisan]

I just went through this process (radical sanation) because DH didn’t want to marry in the Church. He was Catholic but now a JW. Because he was Catholic (and to the CC he still is) the process was a bit lengthy but worth it.

Speak to your Pastor, he can help you out. My Pastor tried everything before the radical sanation. He tried to have us do a convalidation, or a private blessing, just DH, 2 witnesses and him, but my DH didn’t want any of that.

The last recourse is a radical sanation but please make sure that this is what you really want. It can be a very emotional process. Mine took 4 months to be granted but now I am happy to say I am married through the CC. Oh, and because DH is Catholic by Sacraments (baptism, 1st Eucharist and confirmation) our marriage is sacramental…

 

[Daniel_Kane]

At the moment, the OP is in a valid, yet irregular marriage.

No marriage is ever invalid unless and until the marriage is judged to be invalid by the Church and every canonist will tell you that one can never presume a marriage to be invalid apart from a tribunal. Since a finding of invalidity has not been made, the presumption is that the marriage is valid, but irregularly contracted. The marriage is* irregular*, meaning that certain aspects of the wedding were not performed consistent with the methodology of the Church. A marriage surely occurred, the unanswered questions is did a sacramental marriage occur?

If both parties were baptized, the marriage is possibly sacramental, but because marriage, like all sacraments involve both the correct matter and the correct form, the sacramental nature of the marriage is in question. Radial Sanitation and Convalidation correct an underlying defect(s) of form and backdate this correction to the day of the original civil marriage. Defects of form are not trivial matters but they do not automatically make the marriage itself invalid, but irregular.

No one can presume the invalidity based on the lack of proper form (which is serious) as it is a finding of moral certainly that is reserved only to a Church tribunal that been granted access to all of the facts of the matter at hand.

But since the marriage was irregularly contracted and the Sacramental nature of the marriage is in question, the OP should seek the counsel of a priest know for his piety and fidelity to the Church and her teachings. Her options at the moment are limited but it seems to me that she may:

(1) Abstain from martial relations, live as brother and sister, go to Confession and Communion while this situation plays out;

(2) Or maintain martial relations, abstain from Communion while this situation plays out hoping that reconciliation is possible;

(3) Or, seek the radical sanitation or convalidation, the latter of which seems unlikely at the moment.

Cutting off martial relations with an unbelieving spouse or borderline believing spouse is not something that one should do apart from serious spiritual direction, as the marriage is presumed to be valid (as all marriages are) by the church. Because of the irregular manner that it was contracted, the sacramental nature of the marriage is questionable and the full communion of both parties in the Catholic Church is not possible at this moment because the form of the marriage contract matters much.

But at this moment, I am 100% certain that they are married, but, irregularly so.

 

[Seatuck]

At the moment, the OP is in a valid, yet irregular marriage.

No marriage is ever invalid unless and until the marriage is judged to be invalid by the Church and every canonist will tell you that one can never presume a marriage to be invalid apart from a tribunal. Since a finding of invalidity has not been made, the presumption is that the marriage is valid, but irregularly contracted. The marriage is* irregular*, meaning that certain aspects of the wedding were not performed consistent with the methodology of the Church. A marriage surely occurred, the unanswered questions is did a sacramental marriage occur?

If both parties were baptized, the marriage is possibly sacramental, but because marriage, like all sacraments involve both the correct matter and the correct form, the sacramental nature of the marriage is in question. Radial Sanitation and Convalidation correct an underlying defect(s) of form and backdate this correction to the day of the original civil marriage. Defects of form are not trivial matters but they do not automatically make the marriage itself invalid, but irregular.

No one can presume the invalidity based on the lack of proper form (which is serious) as it is a finding of moral certainly that is reserved only to a Church tribunal that been granted access to all of the facts of the matter at hand.

But since the marriage was irregularly contracted and the Sacramental nature of the marriage is in question, the OP should seek the counsel of a priest know for his piety and fidelity to the Church and her teachings. Her options at the moment are limited but it seems to me that she may:

(1) Abstain from martial relations, live as brother and sister, go to Confession and Communion while this situation plays out;

(2) Or maintain martial relations, abstain from Communion while this situation plays out hoping that reconciliation is possible;

(3) Or, seek the radical sanitation or convalidation, the latter of which seems unlikely at the moment.

Cutting off martial relations with an unbelieving spouse or borderline believing spouse is not something that one should do apart from serious spiritual direction, as the marriage is presumed to be valid (as all marriages are) by the church. Because of the irregular manner that it was contracted, the sacramental nature of the marriage is questionable and the full communion of both parties in the Catholic Church is not possible at this moment because the form of the marriage contract matters much.

But at this moment, I am 100% certain that they are married, but, irregularly so.

I don’t think this is correct. The fact that they did not get married in a Catholic church attests to the invalidity. Only two non catholics would get the presumption of valididty in the case of a civil marriage. A marriage tribunal is not necessary to declare this .

 

[Seatuck]

Just to clarify. I meant to say that the lengthy process of the marriage tribunal would not be necessary to declare this marriage null. There would be just providing the documentation of the marriage and some paperwork.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

At the moment, the marriage is irregular and such irregularity impedes the parties in grace and separates them from the Sacraments until the irregularity is corrected. Since the validity has not been proven, the marriage is considered to be valid.

Such irregularities suggest invalidity, but do not prove it absent a decision of a tribunal. Only a tribunal (or bishop) can find a marriage invalid.

At the moment, the marriage is presumed to be valid yet is irregular b/c of a defect of form.

I agree that it seems very likely that the marriage could be found to be invalid, but at this moment, such a finding has not been made nor can it be presumed that such a finding will be made. It is not our place (the laity) to determine the validity of marriage.

 

[chevalier]

At the moment, the OP is in a valid, yet irregular marriage.

No marriage is ever invalid unless and until the marriage is judged to be invalid by the Church and every canonist will tell you that one can never presume a marriage to be invalid apart from a tribunal. Since a finding of invalidity has not been made, the presumption is that the marriage is valid, but irregularly contracted. The marriage is* irregular*, meaning that certain aspects of the wedding were not performed consistent with the methodology of the Church. A marriage surely occurred, the unanswered questions is did a sacramental marriage occur?

I’m sorry, but invalidity exists from the very moment of contraction of vows. A marriage which is valid can never become invalid. That would indeed be annulment and not declaration of nullity. What you are trying to say is that the validity of marriage is presumed and that the law favours marriage. Additionally, you are wrong in claiming that the tribunal can presume a marriage invalid. The tribunal cannot. The tribunal investigates the marriage and will declare it null if it finds it to be so, but it cannot presume it invalid. If the tribunal “presumed” marriage to be invalid, it would violate canon 1060 that you have quoted.

There is no such thing as irregular marriage in canon law. You can have valid, valid but illicit, and invalid marriages. Regularity of marriage is unknown to canon law.

Additionally, if canon law says some marriages are null, they are not valid. They are not merely unsacramental.

If both parties were baptized, the marriage is possibly sacramental, but because marriage, like all sacraments involve both the correct matter and the correct form, the sacramental nature of the marriage is in question.

There’s no requirement of form for those who are baptised but are not Catholic. See canon 1117. Requirements of form apply only to Catholics.

Radial Sanitation and Convalidation correct an underlying defect(s) of form and backdate this correction to the day of the original civil marriage.

Sorry, but Convalidation does not. Form is dealt with by Radical Sanation only. See canon 1160.

Defects of form are not trivial matters but they do not automatically make the marriage itself invalid, but irregular.

Can. 1160 A marriage which is null because of defect of form must be contracted anew in canonical form in order to become valid, without prejudice to the prescript of

⇒ can. 1127, §2.

How “valid but irregular” is the above?

No one can presume the invalidity based on the lack of proper form (which is serious) as it is a finding of moral certainly that is reserved only to a Church tribunal that been granted access to all of the facts of the matter at hand.

That’s actually correct. Dispensations from form may be obtained unknowingly and I’ve known of at least one such case.

(3) Or, seek the radical sanitation or convalidation, the latter of which seems unlikely at the moment.

Not unlikely but impossible. Defects of form are not a matter for convalidation. Convalidation is for defects of consent and for impediments. Marriages null because of defect of form are to be contracted anew unless Radical Sanation is granted.

 

[Seatuck]

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

There isn’t a case of doubt here. Catholics are required to meet the canonical requirements . This was not done. Not a valid marriage.

I agree that it is in everyones best interest for marriage questions to be taken up with Priests . It is not completely out of line for Catholics to discuss these thongs though. It seems the original poster has already consulted a priest and knows her situation.

 

[chevalier]

There isn’t a case of doubt here. Catholics are required to meet the canonical requirements . This was not done. Not a valid marriage.

I agree that it is in everyones best interest for marriage questions to be taken up with Priests . It is not completely out of line for Catholics to discuss these thongs though. It seems the original poster has already consulted a priest and knows her situation.

Yup. That canon seems to be directed primarily at tribunals, dictating that all doubts should be solved in favour of marriage if there’s no clear logical solution - a bit as the benefit of doubt for the accused. It does also mean, however, that marriages are to be treated as valid by default - this does not, however, override common sense and prudence. After all, let’s say someone learns Mr and Mrs Smith are biological siblings separated at war (I haven’t seen the files but I’ve heard of at least one such case). Now then would be silly to insist there’s doubt, although it’s still the tribunal to deal with it - means they can’t decide they’re not married anymore - but they should of course stop sexual relations immediately.

In case of marriages of Catholics not meeting the formal requirements, there’s not even the need for a full trial. There’s basically a short investigation from written documents. The only thing to make sure of is that at least one party was Catholic and there was no dispensation, as well as no formal apostasy of the Catholic party, binding at the time of wedding.

 

[yessisan]

At the moment, the OP is in a valid, yet irregular marriage.

No marriage is ever invalid unless and until the marriage is judged to be invalid by the Church and every canonist will tell you that one can never presume a marriage to be invalid apart from a tribunal. Since a finding of invalidity has not been made, the presumption is that the marriage is valid, but irregularly contracted. The marriage is* irregular*, meaning that certain aspects of the wedding were not performed consistent with the methodology of the Church. A marriage surely occurred, the unanswered questions is did a sacramental marriage occur?

If both parties were baptized, the marriage is possibly sacramental, but because marriage, like all sacraments involve both the correct matter and the correct form, the sacramental nature of the marriage is in question. Radial Sanitation and Convalidation correct an underlying defect(s) of form and backdate this correction to the day of the original civil marriage. Defects of form are not trivial matters but they do not automatically make the marriage itself invalid, but irregular.

No one can presume the invalidity based on the lack of proper form (which is serious) as it is a finding of moral certainly that is reserved only to a Church tribunal that been granted access to all of the facts of the matter at hand.

But since the marriage was irregularly contracted and the Sacramental nature of the marriage is in question, the OP should seek the counsel of a priest know for his piety and fidelity to the Church and her teachings. Her options at the moment are limited but it seems to me that she may:

(1) Abstain from martial relations, live as brother and sister, go to Confession and Communion while this situation plays out;

(2) Or maintain martial relations, abstain from Communion while this situation plays out hoping that reconciliation is possible;

(3) Or, seek the radical sanitation or convalidation, the latter of which seems unlikely at the moment.

Cutting off martial relations with an unbelieving spouse or borderline believing spouse is not something that one should do apart from serious spiritual direction, as the marriage is presumed to be valid (as all marriages are) by the church. Because of the irregular manner that it was contracted, the sacramental nature of the marriage is questionable and the full communion of both parties in the Catholic Church is not possible at this moment because the form of the marriage contract matters much.

But at this moment, I am 100% certain that they are married, but, irregularly so.

A Catholic MUST marry in the CC, otherwise that marriage will not be valid. That is why I had to go through the radical sanation, I married an ex-Catholic, and figured he’d give in to marrying me through the CC… he didn’t give in… so in order for my marriage to be valid, I had to either convalidate or petition for a radical sanation. Since convalidating is basically a renewal of vows in front of a priest or deacon, I had to do the radical sanation so DH wouldn’t be involved at all with the CC.

So the answer to the OP is to speak to a priest PRONTO!

 

[chevalier]

You had to get Radical Sanation instead of Convalidation because defects of form are dealt with by Radical Sanation and Simple Convalidation is not enough. Just for the sake of clarity (canon 1160 for reference).

 

[yessisan]

You had to get Radical Sanation instead of Convalidation because defects of form are dealt with by Radical Sanation and Simple Convalidation is not enough. Just for the sake of clarity (canon 1160 for reference).

If this was directed at me, no, the priest tried to get me to do a Convalidation, he didn’t want to do a sanation, but that was the only way I could get my marriage blessed. DH didn’t want anything to do with the Church, you see, to the CC, as I have been told, he is still a Catholic since he never formally gave up the religion. But thanks for the comment (if it was directed at me).

 

[chevalier]

Well, I’m not a canon lawyer, so perhaps “must be contracted anew” etc actually doesn’t exclude Simple Convalidation, but in that case Simple Convalidation can be achieved, rather than Radical Sanation, by “contracting it anew”. Still, that would be different from a simple renewal of consent, which is the normal mode of Simple Convalidation.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

I stand corrected. Both my posts were largely in error.

I confused and misused the often used pastoral term, “irregular marriage” with “invalid marriage”, which has very precise meaning. Undoubtedly, those Catholics who marry outside of the Church, or depart from the form of the Church without proper permissions, marry invalidly although they may have a civil marriage under the secular law of the land.

Those persons found in that situation, and there are many, should seek to correct it without delay.