Question re a convalidated marriage and annulment

[elaine23]

I am a practicing Catholic and was also married to a Catholic, and we had 2 children. In 2007 we separated and were divorced in July, 2008. In January 2011, the marriage was formally annulled.

I am now engaged to a Catholic man who was also divorced in 2008. His former wife was a non Catholic, and they were married in the United church. Up until now, I had every reason to believe that their marriage was not recognized by the Catholic church, and therefore, did not impede our intention to be married this year in the Catholic church.

My fiance today referred to a “blessing” that he recalled being given back in the early 1980’s by a Catholic deacon (approx 5 years after they were married in the United church) so that their 2 sons could be baptized and would then be able to attend a Catholic school. It was very low key, done in the parish side chapel on a Saturday morning one weekend so that their son’s baptism could be performed the following day. He does not recall making any actual new vows, and said that the whole thing took about 5 minutes. His Catholic parents and brother were also there.

In preparation for our own wedding , we are meeting with our current parish priest, and have been gathering our documentation to bring. Today I went looking on the internet about what effect this “blessing” of the marriage by the Catholic church, and discovered that it actually has a name: CONVALIDATION.

What I am unclear on is the following: if he and his former wife were married in the United church and later had their marriage “blessed/convalidated” by the Catholic church, does it now mean that he must ALSO obtain an annulment of his former marriage? In other words, does convalidating a marriage after the fact make it, for lack of a better word “equal” to a wedding that was recognized as a Catholic marriage right from the start?

This is making me pretty nervous right now…any and all info would be so appreciated

 

[puzzleannie]

I am a .

What I am unclear on is the following: if he and his former wife were married in the United church and later had their marriage “blessed/convalidated” by the Catholic church, does it now mean that he must ALSO obtain an annulment of his former marriage? In other words, does convalidating a marriage after the fact make it, for lack of a better word “equal” to a wedding that was recognized as a Catholic marriage right from the start?

This is making me pretty nervous right now…any and all info would be so appreciated

short answer, yes
“getting the marriage blessed” has no meaning
the proper term is convalidation, that is, a civil marriage now being made valid thorugh exchange of vows with a Catholic clergyman as witness for the Church (and now also made sacramental if both parties were baptized).

If this is indeed what happened, and yes it could be that low-key, it will show up on his baptismal record, which you need to obtain while preparing for this marriage in any case, so should remove all doubt. He his obligated to share this information with the priest preparing you for marriage, and yes it could be a glitch.

since his recollection is so vague I would not get spooked about it yet, just visit the priest and give him the facts and be guided by him. Obviously this will cool the romantic involvement until such time as it is established that he is indeed free to marry.

 

[joanofarc2008]

What was said above was correct. At this point since you don’t know what will be needed and how long it take either if it does go through I would also not put any money down on anything either. I hate to focus on the more practical matters but they are important as well. My prayers are with you.

 

[1ke]

I am now engaged to a Catholic man who was also divorced in 2008. His former wife was a non Catholic, and they were married in the United church. Up until now, I had every reason to believe that their marriage was not recognized by the Catholic church, and therefore, did not impede our intention to be married this year in the Catholic church.

Even if the marriage were invalid due to lack of form (marrying outside the Catholic Church without dispensation) he would still have to complete an administrative paperwork process through the diocese. It is a fairly straightforward process provided he can produce all the documentation. So, it does impede your intention to marry until he has actually *done *the paperwork and received an official response from the tribunal that he is free to marry.

What I am unclear on is the following: if he and his former wife were married in the United church and later had their marriage “blessed/convalidated” by the Catholic church, does it now mean that he must ALSO obtain an annulment of his former marriage?

Yes.

In other words, does convalidating a marriage after the fact make it, for lack of a better word “equal” to a wedding that was recognized as a Catholic marriage right from the start?

A convalidation makes an invalid marriage valid. It is considered to be a valid marriage from the time of the convalidation (a radical sanation makes it valid retroactively back to the original marriage date).

Either way, yes, he would be validly married and would not be free to marry anyone else. He would require a formal tribunal decree of nullity.

He needs to request current copies of his baptismal records and contact the Church in which he did this “blessing” to determine if it was in fact a convalidation.

This is making me pretty nervous right now…any and all info would be so appreciated

You need to contact your priest or deacon preparing your for marriage and your intended needs to get his sacramental records, pronto.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I would find out what the records say about the “blessing”…my stepmom says they got their marriage blessed on the way back from the honeymoon but as she has never had her first marriage annulled…that can not be.

 

[elaine23]

Thank you everyone for your (name removed by moderator)ut. It’s been a tough day. In gathering this info today from various parishes from more than 50 years ago, a couple of things have come to light:

1 - The parish that did the “blessing” does not have any record of this. The parish secretary even went in “the vault” to make sure. If it was a true convalidation, would it not be reasonable that it be somewhere in their records as a “Catholic” marriage?

2 - Even though the convalidating parish does not have a record, the date of this “blessing” somehow made it’s way to his baptismal parish hundreds of miles away, and it is recorded there as a Catholic marriage on his baptismal certificate . The date of this record is 4 years after his marriage in a United church, which brings these questions to mind:

My fiance was 18 at the time of his first marriage. They tried to get married in the Catholic church, but when his wife became pregnant with their first child before the wedding, the priest refused them. The marriage lasted 29 years before they divorced. He says that the only reason that my fiance agreed to the blessing at all in 1981 was because it was the only way that the priest would baptize his kids, and the only way they could then go to a Catholic school. (By the way, it was done by the same priest who had initially refused them and did not even remember doing so!) Let’s just say that at the age of 22 when this was happening, he was not as spiritually enlightened as he is now at 53, and was not really doing it for the right reasons. He looked at it then more as a rubber stamp to obtain a Catholic baptism for his kids. Does intent play a factor in all of this? Does the fact that there was no preparation for this “blessing”, that he thought all this was at the time for his kids somehow invalidate the resulting convalidation?

Also, does the fact that this all happened pre-November 1983 (before the new Canon law came out?) make any difference at all?

He is as dissapointed as I am that we may not be able to be married in the Catholic church. Emotions are running pretty high tonight, and he is very reluctant, having watched me go through a divorce and very messy and painful annulment, to take this on himself, and especially worries that his adult children will be upset if he decides to pursue one.

I am going to try and make an appt to speak to a priest who counselled me at the marriage tribunal tomorrow and see what he has to say about our situation. We have come so far in our spiritual journey together, and this 11th hour glitch is very upsetting…all prayers as we pray on this ourselves are appreciated…

 

[Vico]

elaine23,

That was a simple convalidation, the other kind is a retroactive convalidation, both take place at the moment of the grant, but for the latter, the canonical effects only are from the moment that the proper marital consent was given. (CIC 1161, 1165)

That convalidation was using the 1917 canon law. The document on Grounds in Formal Cases, from Diocese of Dallas states:

“Concerning Convalidation of Marriage: ([1983 CIC] canons 1156-1165) When considering a marriage that was convalidated, it is necessary to look at the consent at the time of convalidation, rather than the consent at the time of the attempted marriage. Therefore, any of the above grounds may be used in adjudicating a case for a convalidated marriage.”

cathdal.org/files/GRDSSEQ.pdf

 

[couponfit]

I am a practicing Catholic and was also married to a Catholic, and we had 2 children. In 2007 we separated and were divorced in July, 2008. In January 2011, the marriage was formally annulled.

I am now engaged to a Catholic man who was also divorced in 2008. His former wife was a non Catholic, and they were married in the United church. Up until now, I had every reason to believe that their marriage was not recognized by the Catholic church, and therefore, did not impede our intention to be married this year in the Catholic church.

My fiance today referred to a “blessing” that he recalled being given back in the early 1980’s by a Catholic deacon (approx 5 years after they were married in the United church) so that their 2 sons could be baptized and would then be able to attend a Catholic school. It was very low key, done in the parish side chapel on a Saturday morning one weekend so that their son’s baptism could be performed the following day. He does not recall making any actual new vows, and said that the whole thing took about 5 minutes. His Catholic parents and brother were also there.

In preparation for our own wedding , we are meeting with our current parish priest, and have been gathering our documentation to bring. Today I went looking on the internet about what effect this “blessing” of the marriage by the Catholic church, and discovered that it actually has a name: CONVALIDATION.

What I am unclear on is the following: if he and his former wife were married in the United church and later had their marriage “blessed/convalidated” by the Catholic church, does it now mean that he must ALSO obtain an annulment of his former marriage? In other words, does convalidating a marriage after the fact make it, for lack of a better word “equal” to a wedding that was recognized as a Catholic marriage right from the start?

This is making me pretty nervous right now…any and all info would be so appreciated

I don’t get it! You get married, have kids, then seek some church annulment! It’s beyond me what you are really trying to say. How can you seek so hard a church marriage yet try so hard to invalidate your other marriages? Even if the church annuls them, you know what you’re doing is really wrong at this point.

This is what makes me upset when I read posts like this about divorced catholics with children seeking annulments like it’s a piece of candy.

 

[elaine23]

Hi Couponfit

There are details here that you don’t know. Neither one of us left our first marriages, and while I am happy to have the annulment, i was not the one to initiate it.

 

[figs]

I don’t get it! You get married, have kids, then seek some church annulment! It’s beyond me what you are really trying to say. How can you seek so hard a church marriage yet try so hard to invalidate your other marriages? Even if the church annuls them, you know what you’re doing is really wrong at this point.

This is what makes me upset when I read posts like this about divorced catholics with children seeking annulments like it’s a piece of candy.

Piece of candy??? for who? Have you ever gone through an annulment? Candy isn’t the word that comes to mind.
Obviously you have issues with annulments, fine, but I hardly think it’s right to tell someone even if the Church decreed an annulment that what they are doing is wrong. :tsktsk:

 

[lizaanne]

This is what makes me upset when I read posts like this about divorced catholics with children seeking annulments like it’s a piece of candy.

Being insulting about something you clearly no nothing about is really not productive.

I don’t get it!

Apparently.

~Liza

 

[1ke]

1 - The parish that did the “blessing” does not have any record of this. The parish secretary even went in “the vault” to make sure. If it was a true convalidation, would it not be reasonable that it be somewhere in their records as a “Catholic” marriage?

It is their responsibility to ensure it is entered in the records of the *baptismal *parish. While, yes, they should have recorded it in the sacramental register for marriages in their own parish, it is the baptismal parish that is of most importance. That is where a person’s sacramental records reside.

There should be a record at the diocese of permission for a mixed marriage since the wife was not Catholic.

2 - Even though the convalidating parish does not have a record, the date of this “blessing” somehow made it’s way to his baptismal parish hundreds of miles away, and it is recorded there as a Catholic marriage on his baptismal certificate . The date of this record is 4 years after his marriage in a United church, which brings these questions to mind:

There you have it. He has a prior bond of a valid marriage at this point.

My fiance was 18 at the time of his first marriage. They tried to get married in the Catholic church, but when his wife became pregnant with their first child before the wedding, the priest refused them. The marriage lasted 29 years before they divorced. He says that the only reason that my fiance agreed to the blessing at all in 1981 was because it was the only way that the priest would baptize his kids, and the only way they could then go to a Catholic school. (By the way, it was done by the same priest who had initially refused them and did not even remember doing so!) Let’s just say that at the age of 22 when this was happening, he was not as spiritually enlightened as he is now at 53, and was not really doing it for the right reasons. He looked at it then more as a rubber stamp to obtain a Catholic baptism for his kids. Does intent play a factor in all of this? Does the fact that there was no preparation for this “blessing”, that he thought all this was at the time for his kids somehow invalidate the resulting convalidation?

That is something he will have to work out through your priest and the tribuanal nullity process.

Also, does the fact that this all happened pre-November 1983 (before the new Canon law came out?) make any difference at all?

Maybe. Again, he needs to go see your priest.

He is as dissapointed as I am that we may not be able to be married in the Catholic church. I am going to try and make an appt to speak to a priest who counselled me at the marriage tribunal tomorrow and see what he has to say about our situation.

Yes, please do. This is a complex situation and needs professional guidance not speculation here on this board.

 

[Phemie]

It is their responsibility to ensure it is entered in the records of the *baptismal *parish. While, yes, they should have recorded it in the sacramental register for marriages in their own parish, it is the baptismal parish that is of most importance. That is where a person’s sacramental records reside.

**There should be a record at the diocese of permission for a mixed marriage since the wife was not Catholic.
**
There you have it. He has a prior bond of a valid marriage at this point.

That is something he will have to work out through your priest and the tribuanal nullity process.

Maybe. Again, he needs to go see your priest.

Yes, please do. This is a complex situation and needs professional guidance not speculation here on this board.

Pre-1983 he needed a dispensation, not just permission, to enter into a mixed marriage. It would be worth it to investigate further.

 

[dans0622]

… Also, does the fact that this all happened pre-November 1983 (before the new Canon law came out?) make any difference at all?..

Hello elaine23,

You (he) will certainly have to lay all this out to the pastor/tribunal to get authoritative answers. I am only going to respond to the above and say no, it would not have made any difference. The “old” law was practically, if not literally, the same as the “new” as far as this topic is concerned.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

Pre-1983 he needed a dispensation, not just permission, to enter into a mixed marriage. It would be worth it to investigate further.

Hello Phemie,

You are correct that the previous law used the term “dispensation” for the “impediment” of mixed religion. However, the terminology was not understood the way it is today. The bottom line is that if the couple in question did not receive this “dispensation” it would not have impacted the validity of the marriage. This “dispensation” equaled, in today’s vocabulary, “permission.”

I hope this makes sense.

Dan

 

[elaine23]

“Concerning Convalidation of Marriage: ([1983 CIC] canons 1156-1165) When considering a marriage that was convalidated, it is necessary to look at the consent at the time of convalidation, rather than the consent at the time of the attempted marriage. Therefore, any of the above grounds may be used in adjudicating a case for a convalidated marriage.”

cathdal.org/files/GRDSSEQ.pdf

So VICO, after reading through the link, are you saying that the “condition of consent” may have been invalid if they were only being convalidated in the Catholic church in order for their school age children to be baptized and be eligible to attend a Catholic school?

This has been a very interesting discussion, and I really appreciate all the terrific information as it really helps ask the right questions. We have a meeting on Monday with someone from the marriage tribunal to wade through all of this, and I will keep you posted!

 

[Vico]

“Concerning Convalidation of Marriage: ([1983 CIC] canons 1156-1165) When considering a marriage that was convalidated, it is necessary to look at the consent at the time of convalidation, rather than the consent at the time of the attempted marriage. Therefore, any of the above grounds may be used in adjudicating a case for a convalidated marriage.”

cathdal.org/files/GRDSSEQ.pdf

So VICO, after reading through the link, are you saying that the “condition of consent” may have been invalid if they were only being convalidated in the Catholic church in order for their school age children to be baptized and be eligible to attend a Catholic school?

This has been a very interesting discussion, and I really appreciate all the terrific information as it really helps ask the right questions. We have a meeting on Monday with someone from the marriage tribunal to wade through all of this, and I will keep you posted!

Oh yes, if the consent was invalid, then it could be annulled. (Free will, perpetual, exclusive, and granting the conjugal act, etc.)

 

[Vico]

In 1970 (Phemie mentioned this) was an important change to the canons.

Mixed requires permission, disparity requires dispensation from the diriment impediment.** “In these cases, dispensation was no longer required, though permission was still needed (Matrimonia Mixta 1970: norm 1), confirmed in the current Code (CIC 1983: 1124). However, for those married to the non-baptised, the more severe line on dispensations remained (Matrimonia Mixta 1970: norm 2) and (CIC 1983: 1086.1).”

chezpaul.org.uk/chrstian/MSt_essay3.htm

Catechism of the Catholic Church**

Mixed marriages and disparity of cult

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a non-baptized person) requires even greater circumspection.

1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage, when they succeed in placing in common what they have received from their respective communities, and learn from each other the way in which each lives in fidelity to Christ. But the difficulties of mixed marriages must not be underestimated. They arise from the fact that the separation of Christians has not yet been overcome. The spouses risk experiencing the tragedy of Christian disunity even in the heart of their own home. Disparity of cult can further aggravate these difficulties. Differences about faith and the very notion of marriage, but also different religious mentalities, can become sources of tension in marriage, especially as regards the education of children. The temptation to religious indifference can then arise.

1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority.137 In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage.138 This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.139

1636 Through ecumenical dialogue Christian communities in many regions have been able to put into effect a common pastoral practice for mixed marriages. Its task is to help such couples live out their particular situation in the light of faith, overcome the tensions between the couple’s obligations to each other and towards their ecclesial communities, and encourage the flowering of what is common to them in faith and respect for what separates them.

1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."140 It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this “consecration” should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.141 Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

 

[puzzleannie]

records as a “Catholic” marriage?

2 - Even though the convalidating parish does not have a record, the date of this “blessing” somehow made it’s way to his baptismal parish hundreds of miles away, and it is recorded there as a Catholic marriage on his baptismal certificate . The date of this record is 4 years after his marriage in a United church, which brings these questions to mind:

then it happened and the marriage is valid by this evidence

Also, does the fact that this all happened pre-November 1983 (before the new Canon law came out?) make any difference at all?

it might, there are some issues
which is why you are still to going to get an answer that relates to your personal situation unless and until you meet with the priest, who will refer you to the tribunal if necessary, and get specific answers to these specific questions

what is ironic is that the reason the first priest refused to marry them in the circs was that it might render the contract invalid because of force (most priest interpret “premature pregnancy” this way).