RCIA and Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter pioneercynthia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Listed is the Canon below that I was referring to when I say that presumption of validity falls to the current marriage after the previous has been declared invalid.

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.
 
Okay, let me review the important details in my case.

I was baptized at the age of 14 in the Baptist Church.

By age 19, I renounced Christianity and became an atheist.

At 21, I married a woman who had been married before and divorced. She was a baptized Lutheran and her first husband is still alive.

At 29 I divorced her.

At age 35 (1997), I married another woman who had never been baptized. The marriage was performed by a Wiccan high priestess / witch.

In 2003 I had a sudden and miraculous conversion to the Catholic Church and began the RCIA.

During Holy week, 2005, I received my declaration of nullity for my first marriage (lack of form). I was informed by the Tribunal that I would have have to have my current marriage convalidated by a priest or deacon in the Church in order to be able to receive Holy Communion. I was confirmed at the Easter vigil Mass, 2005.

Shortly after this, I told my wife about the need for convalidation. At first she agreed then a day or so later withdrew that consent. I informed my priest that she refused to go along with the convalidation. He conferred with the Tribunal or some such group at the diocesan pastoral center. He had me fill out some form stating that I was a convert, was confirmed, was married outside the Church and that my wife refused to consent to the convalidation. I was also asked if she was baptized, which she was not.

About six weeks later, I received a letter that said I was being granted a radical sanation and that my current marriage has been presumed to be valid.

Four months later, my wife fled the USA and divorced me from overseas. (If she re-enters the USA, she will be arrested for failure to pay taxes on more than $5 million she had managed to hide overseas from me. That is why I use the word “fled”.)

The divorce was final in 2006 and I received my declaration of nullity in April of 2008 (The grounds included: lack of marital permanence (we had a pre-nup), not open to life, hiding facts from a spouse that would affect a decision to marry and two others.)

In conclusion, I just want to say that while I believe I am called to the vocation of marriage, there is no way I m ever going to ever give a second thought about a woman who is not absolutely a faithful Catholic, committed to conforming her mind, conscience and will to ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church, is free to marry, and meets some other basic compatability stuff.
 
Thanks for sharing that rpp. I think I understand now - a radical sanation is a convalidation without the renewal of consent - which states your marriage was valid from day one. As opposed to the convalidation, which basically says your marriage is valid at the moment you take your vows at the convalidation ceremony.
 
Can anyone else confirm whether this is correct? If the presumption of validity automatically falls to the next marriage, then in the example rpp gave why would he have been advised that he needed to have his second marriage convalidated (or radically sanated)? (I am not trying to second guess what he was told to do, merely to better understand the church’s marriage laws as illustarted by this example).
Yes, it is correct that when a person has a series of marriages, once the first has been declared invalidi then the presumption of validity falls on the second. However, this is only true when the individuals are not bound to follow canonical form. Therefore, he did not need a convalidation or a radical sanation. That was bad advice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top