Renewal of the Wedding Vows

[Gorgias]

Oh, it was that “However, it’s validity would be presumed until proven otherwise. And if it lasts until death, then no one ever challenges its validity, and presumably valid (but in reality invalid) it stays till the grave.”

So in some occult cases it would not remain invalid in reality till the grave.

Hmm… that’s not my understanding of the situation. Consider two couples: Alan and Beth, Charles and Danielle. Let’s say that their situations are exactly alike. They marry on the same day, live happy married lives, and on the same day, Alan and Beth both pass away, while Charles and Danielle file for divorce (subsequently, they petition for nullity). It’s found that Charles and Danielle’s marriage was invalid; nullity is granted, and Charles and Danielle are free to marry.

We said that the two couples’ situations were identical. What does this say about Alan and Beth’s marriage, then? It says nothing. Alan and Beth were married, it was presumed valid, and as the marriage ended naturally (with the death of spouse(s)), it remained valid. Period.

 

[nagyszakall]

Oh, it was that “However, it’s validity would be presumed until proven otherwise. And if it lasts until death, then no one ever challenges its validity, and presumably valid (but in reality invalid) it stays till the grave.”

So in some occult cases it would not remain invalid in reality till the grave.

The only problem is that the original question of shipwrkd was:

What if a couple never intended to have children but slipped and had one they didn’t intend to? This too would be invalid? Even if both marriages lasted till death?

In which case you have a problem with the consent and it will remain invalid even if no one becomes aware of it.

 

[nagyszakall]

Hmm… that’s not my understanding of the situation. Consider two couples: Alan and Beth, Charles and Danielle. Let’s say that their situations are exactly alike. They marry on the same day, live happy married lives, and on the same day, Alan and Beth both pass away, while Charles and Danielle file for divorce (subsequently, they petition for nullity). It’s found that Charles and Danielle’s marriage was invalid; nullity is granted, and Charles and Danielle are free to marry.

We said that the two couples’ situations were identical. What does this say about Alan and Beth’s marriage, then? It says nothing. Alan and Beth were married, it was presumed valid, and as the marriage ended naturally (with the death of spouse(s)), it remained valid. Period.

I disagree. Presumed validity does not make validity. It simply is never challenged – as if you had no family and no friends, no one knew you existed and a fatal accident occurred but the corpse was never found. No one knows and no one digs, but the corpse is still there – dead.

 

[thewanderer]

I disagree. Presumed validity does not make validity. It simply is never challenged – as if you had no family and no friends, no one knew you existed and a fatal accident occurred but the corpse was never found. No one knows and no one digs, but the corpse is still there – dead.

Right, although it is important to add that there is nothing sinful in living in an invalid marriage if you are unaware that it is invalid. So if nobody knew it was invalid then there would have been no sin involved.

 

[bigflower]

It is putatively valid, and when the consent was secretly invalid (occult), there is no proof of that invalidity, so there is no juridic process.Canon 1101§1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.

Canon 1158 §2. If the impediment cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party conscious of the impediment renews the consent privately and in secret, provided that the other perseveres in the consent offered; if the impediment is known to both parties, both are to renew the consent.
According to Marriage legislation in the new Code of canon law (1918), by Henry Amans Ayrinhac, Catholic Church, p. 209, when the fear of invalid consent is occult it is renewed in secret:

“(Causa Osnabrucensis, Jan. 11, 1912 ; A. A. S., vol. iv, p. 186.) That renewal may be made in secret if the fear was occult: Continuance of cohabitation will suffice for that.”
archive.org/details/marriagelegislat00ayriuoft

By “renewed in secret,” does that just between the two people? Or does that mean discretely with a priest, but not publicly?

I ask this because I am going through a marriage situation myself. I wrote about it on this thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=720035. In short, before marriage, I asked my husband, “do you look at porn?” He didn’t really verbally answer, but gave me the impression that he doesn’t. I do feel I was deceived, and do question the validity of our marriage, although validity is of course is still presumed. We both very much want to be married to each other, and have hope that we can overcome the problems I’ve described in the thread. Assuming that we get over this hump, I feel as though we would need to say our vows again.
I’m probably getting the terms wrong, but is there such thing as a “conditional sacrament of marriage,” similar to conditional Baptism?

Regarding the original point of the thread, if my husband and I were to say our vows again to make certain our marriage was valid, I would definitely not want it done as a public celebration. It seems prudent to be as discrete as possible, so as to avoid any kind of drama or outside judgement associated with it.

 

[nagyszakall]

Right, although it is important to add that there is nothing sinful in living in an invalid marriage if you are unaware that it is invalid. So if nobody knew it was invalid then there would have been no sin involved.

You are right. Sin is another question. I guess, there is the sin of omission many times on the part of those whose duty would have been to prepare the couple…

 

[Maria_in_Ramona]

The Archbishop in New Orleans (a very Catholic city) hold an annual Renewal of Vows for all couples who are celebrating their 50th anniversaries in the entire diocese. It is attended by hundreds of couples and thousannds of family members and well wishers. [edited]

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I don’t think gifts are a part of a vow renewal, are they? All the “vow renewals” I’ve ever seen are simply a brief ceremony.

Me too. Just call me “Mr. Unromantic”.

I’ve seen some that are just a brief ceremony, and I’ve seen others that have formal wear, bridesmaids, groomsmen, the whole 9 yards.

I can understand wanting to reaffirm your vows, like I said earlier, especially after a particularly rough time. But to me that needs to be a private affair. Not every intimate moment that we have needs an audience, and I think that inviting people to that cheapens it.

I’m not unromantic and I don’t like them. In fact, I think that I probably don’t like them because I am so hopelessly romantic. I can’t think of anything less romantic than restating vows that were meant to last a lifetime in front of my friends and family. My idea of romance is those vows enduring through a daily commitment to each other, not a renewal ceremony.

 

[Gorgias]

I disagree. Presumed validity does not make validity. It simply is never challenged – as if you had no family and no friends, no one knew you existed and a fatal accident occurred but the corpse was never found. No one knows and no one digs, but the corpse is still there – dead.

I see. And tell me, on what do you base this theory?

I’m making a statement based on legal theory – on canon law, as it were. And, according to canon law, your statement is not correct. However, if you have some evidence to the contrary, or if you’re working in a different realm (e.g., your own personal opinions), it would be helpful for you to identify it as such…

 

[Gorgias]

The only problem is that the original question of shipwrkd was:

What if a couple never intended to have children but slipped and had one they didn’t intend to? This too would be invalid? Even if both marriages lasted till death?

No. The marriage, assuming it was was never proven invalid, enjoys the favor of the law. Therefore, it is valid. The question of whether a child was born from the marriage is immaterial (unless the parent(s) in question changed their mind about intending children and the appropriate convalidation occurred).

 

[Gorgias]

The Archbishop in New Orleans (a very Catholic city) hold an annual Renewal of Vows for all couples who are celebrating their 50th anniversaries in the entire diocese. It is attended by hundreds of couples and thousannds of family members and well wishers. [edited]

Maria,

I have no idea whom you’re addressing – but I know it isn’t me. However, given your statement about a renewal of vows, let me repeat something that was mentioned a few pages back in this thread. The discussion that is being aired here isn’t about a renewal of vows that simply re-affirms the marriage, it’s the case of a renewal of vows that attempts to re-enact the wedding ceremony (and generally, this does not occur and is not part of the official rite). Unless I learned otherwise, I would assume that the New Orleans ceremony is one of the former, not the latter.

 

[nagyszakall]

I see. And tell me, on what do you base this theory?

I’m making a statement based on legal theory – on canon law, as it were. And, according to canon law, your statement is not correct. However, if you have some evidence to the contrary, or if you’re working in a different realm (e.g., your own personal opinions), it would be helpful for you to identify it as such…

I don’t know what you’re talking about. We were making a hypothesis, one of the premises of which was that two identical marriages were invalid. One of them was declared null, the other not. Since we set invalidity as one of the premises, I don’t understand what “theory” you mean. What I meant that if a marriage is in fact invalid, but since no one attacks its validity and therefore is **presumed **to be valid, it still remains invalid. This is mere logic, no theory whatsoever.
Of course, in real life you wouldn’t know if a marriage that might seem invalid is valid or not until its nullity is declared by the tribunal, and anyway there are no two “identical” marriages.
Mind you, I began my statement with “**I **disagree”. Obviously it is my opinion which I am posting on a blog forum… I am not claiming any undue authority. You, on the contrary are saying the “according to Canon Law” my statement is incorrect…

 

[Gorgias]

What I meant that if a marriage is in fact invalid, but since no one attacks its validity and therefore is **presumed **to be valid, it still remains invalid. This is mere logic

In the example, there is some factor which would make the marriage invalid (if a tribunal were to investigate and rule on it). However, since all involved have attempted to follow everything required of a valid marriage, and there is no implication of invalidity (or request to determine the facts), then the marriage is valid, juridically. If nothing happens to change that fact, then the marriage is considered valid; if the spouse(s) die, then there is no means by which to raise the question: therefore, the marriage ends naturally, and is considered valid.

no theory whatsoever.

I think we’re using ‘theory’ in different senses. I’m not saying the marriage is “theoretically valid”; I’m saying that this what legal theory, in the realm of canon law, asserts.

Obviously it is my opinion which I am posting on a blog forum… I am not claiming any undue authority. You, on the contrary are saying the “according to Canon Law” my statement is incorrect…

OK, then. In your opinion, the marriage is invalid. Canon law says otherwise.

 

[shipwrkd]

Originally Posted by nagyszakall
I disagree. Presumed validity does not make validity. It simply is never challenged – as if you had no family and no friends, no one knew you existed and a fatal accident occurred but the corpse was never found. No one knows and no one digs, but the corpse is still there – dead.

IMO Gorgias is more correct on this. In law, one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, why would canon law differ so drastically? If I unknowingly go over the speed limit, I am not a speeder unless charged and convicted.

 

[thewanderer]

In the example, there is some factor which would make the marriage invalid (if a tribunal were to investigate and rule on it). However, since all involved have attempted to follow everything required of a valid marriage, and there is no implication of invalidity (or request to determine the facts), then the marriage is valid, juridically. If nothing happens to change that fact, then the marriage is considered valid; if the spouse(s) die, then there is no means by which to raise the question: therefore, the marriage ends naturally, and is considered valid.

I think here is where the difference is coming in. I think we all accept that the marriage would still be considered valid by canon law, the difference is that we are pointing out that there is a reality behind this opinion which is not dependant on whether or not the invalidity is known. In other words, we aare pointing out that an annulment does not make a marriage invalid, all it does is simply declare that a marriage that was already invalid never existed. In other words, unless you want to start talking about annulment as just a Catholic version of divorce you have to admit that the reality of the invalidity of the marriage is not changed simply because the marriage is still considered valid. It either is or isnt valid, and that fact cannot change. What can change is people’s perception of the validity or invalidity of the marriage, not the reality itself.

 

[Vico]

By “renewed in secret,” does that just between the two people? Or does that mean discretely with a priest, but not publicly?

I ask this because I am going through a marriage situation myself. I wrote about it on this thread, forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=720035. In short, before marriage, I asked my husband, “do you look at porn?” He didn’t really verbally answer, but gave me the impression that he doesn’t. I do feel I was deceived, and do question the validity of our marriage, although validity is of course is still presumed. We both very much want to be married to each other, and have hope that we can overcome the problems I’ve described in the thread. Assuming that we get over this hump, I feel as though we would need to say our vows again.
I’m probably getting the terms wrong, but is there such thing as a “conditional sacrament of marriage,” similar to conditional Baptism?

Regarding the original point of the thread, if my husband and I were to say our vows again to make certain our marriage was valid, I would definitely not want it done as a public celebration. It seems prudent to be as discrete as possible, so as to avoid any kind of drama or outside judgement associated with it.

If the consent was invalid secretly known only to one, then secret correction of consent is enough, a priest does not need to know or be informed.

If the consent was invalid secretly known only to just to couple, then private correction of consent is enough, a priest does not need to know or be informed.

And public means generally known, which is the case where it must be publicly corrected.

 

[Vico]

The only problem is that the original question of shipwrkd was: What if a couple never intended to have children but slipped and had one they didn’t intend to? This too would be invalid? Even if both marriages lasted till death?
In which case you have a problem with the consent and it will remain invalid even if no one becomes aware of it.

If the test case assumes that it will remain invalid, they what I wrote does not apply. I mean to consider the case where a change occurs, specifically because it would change the disposition for receipt of sacramental grace, with full knowledge. Sometimes these are due to lack of understanding not lack of charity.

Valid consent as a couple is open to accepting the children that come of the marriage, and intend to grant the gift of proper conjugal relations, reasonably requested, lifelong and exclusively of their own free will.

So if that was not so, if could follow several occult scenarios:
invalid consent of one, unknown to anyone else
invalid consent of two, unknown to anyone else
invalid consent of one, known to the spouses only
invalid consent of two, known to the spouses only

All of these could be corrected without a publicity.

 

[nagyszakall]

IMO Gorgias is more correct on this. In law, one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise, why would canon law differ so drastically? If I unknowingly go over the speed limit, I am not a speeder unless charged and convicted.

The problem, though, with nullity that it is a pre-existent thing: the tribunal, when it makes a declaration of nullity, declares that the marriage never existed. So you can’t say that it was valid and **became **invalid because of the tribunal’s decision. No, indeed it was invalid from the beginning; however, in defense of valid marriages, we presume validity until such declaration is made.
Moreover, the Church wants to defend even invalid marriages inasmuch as she prefers healing an invalid marriage (i.e. convalidating, making into a marriage what is not a marriage) to a declaration of nullity whenever that is possible:

When one considers the role of law in marital crises, all too often one thinks almost exclusively of processes that ratify the annulment of marriage or the dissolution of the bond. At times, this mentality extends even to canon law, so that it appears as the avenue for resolving the marital problems of the faithful in a way that does not offend one’s conscience. There is indeed some truth to this, but these eventual solutions must be examined in a way that the indissolubility of the bond, whenever it turns out to be validly contracted, continues to be safeguarded. The attitude of the Church is, in contrast, favourable to convalidating, where possible, marriages that are otherwise null (cf. CIC, can. 1676; CCEO, can. 1362). It is true that the declaration of the nullity of a marriage, based on the truth acquired by means of a legitimate process, restores peace to the conscience, but such a declaration - and the same holds true for the dissolution of a marriage that is ratum non consummatum or a dissolution based upon the privilege of the faith - must be presented and effected in an ecclesial context that is totally favourable to the indissolubility of marriage and to family founded upon it. The spouses themselves must be the first to realize that only in the loyal quest for the truth can they find their true good, without excluding a priori the possible convalidation of a union that, although it is not yet a sacramental marriage, contains elements of good, for themselves and their children, that should be carefully evaluated in conscience before reaching a different decision.

[…] THE ROMAN ROTA 28 January 2002](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...ents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020128_roman-rota_en.html) #6.