Renewal of the Wedding Vows

[Gorgias]

Sorry, but how is this any different than a couple who marries validly and then later on find out that one of them had been cheating on the other while dating?

Cheating while dating, but not while married? Huge difference. If the cheater amended his ways, and on the wedding day, fully and truly consented to the marriage, then it’s valid. If on the day of the wedding, however, he still intended on cheating in the future, then the consent is invalid and the marriage could be found to be invalid (if it comes to a question of nullity, down the road.)

If they are validly married they are validly married. If they both made valid acts of consent then they are married.

That’s the point: in my example, John didn’t make a valid act of consent – at the time of the wedding, it may have looked like he did, but he didn’t – and therefore, the marriage may later be found to be invalid.

Why all this talk about it being unfair?

Because, to all exterior experiences, this is exactly the case that should allow for nullity… but because of the (seeming) “technicality” of the “renewal” (which was, in reality, itself a valid marriage ceremony), Sally would be told that she cannot get an annulment and remarry in the Church. Hence the claim of “unfairness”.

 

[Gorgias]

Matthew Holford:

Marriage law in the Church is very complex but it might somewhere make provision that a renewal is just that, a renewal, but that it cannot in any way validate what is otherwise a invalid marriage.

shipwrkd:

I think what MH stated is true, the Church must have safe guards regarding such an important Sacrament.

Nope, it isn’t true – there’s no “get out of jail free” clause in the canons. That’s why re-enactment of wedding vows is problematic. That’s why I’m standing on my head, making this case.

Has your scenario, in fact, happened?

Let’s suppose it did happen, and I knew about a particular case. I wouldn’t be able to disclose it in any way that identified the participants…

Gorgias, I think ya hit the nail with this word. I wouldn’t need, or want, to renew my vows because they are as binding now as they were 40 years ago. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, I did want to re-enact them. That’s what 99.9% of married couples do.

So… your intent would be “whether or not my previous attempt(s) at marriage were valid, I wan’t to attempt a ‘do-over’, just to be sure it ‘took’” ???

That’s problematic, too…

 

[thewanderer]

Cheating while dating, but not while married? Huge difference. If the cheater amended his ways, and on the wedding day, fully and truly consented to the marriage, then it’s valid. If on the day of the wedding, however, he still intended on cheating in the future, then the consent is invalid and the marriage could be found to be invalid (if it comes to a question of nullity, down the road.)

That’s the point: in my example, John didn’t make a valid act of consent – at the time of the wedding, it may have looked like he did, but he didn’t – and therefore, the marriage may later be found to be invalid.

Because, to all exterior experiences, this is exactly the case that should allow for nullity… but because of the (seeming) “technicality” of the “renewal” (which was, in reality, itself a valid marriage ceremony), Sally would be told that she cannot get an annulment and remarry in the Church. Hence the claim of “unfairness”.

I think you missed the point of my comparison. For this couple, as much as they thought they were married before, they only actually married with their renewal of vows (assuming that this scenario is actually a possibility) And so, they are in exactly the same position as the person who cheats while dating but then goes on to give proper consent on their wedding day. It is impossible for the cheating partner in your scenario to give full consent unless at the time of the vow renewal/actual marriage he actually gives fulll and proper consent, which includes a real intention to remain true to his spouse ‘until death do us part’, just as the person who cheats while dating must do for his consent to be valid. There really isn’t nearly as much of a difference as you would like to make out.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Nope, it isn’t true – there’s no “get out of jail free” clause in the canons. That’s why re-enactment of wedding vows is problematic. That’s why I’m standing on my head, making this case.

Not all law is found in the canons. This especially applies to liturgical law. If your analogy holds true then it could apply to priests on Maundy Thursday. A monk might suddenly become a monk after thinking he was one for the last 20 years. I can’t see that the Church has not foreseen these very circumstances. I do not believe the Church would want valid marriages being validated by a renewal ceremony and everyone not even knowing it had happened.

Let’s suppose it did happen, and I knew about a particular case. I wouldn’t be able to disclose it in any way that identified the participants…

Very achievable without giving identifiable information. You could even have answered the question with a simple yes or no.

 

[Gorgias]

Not all law is found in the canons. This especially applies to liturgical law.

But, this isn’t a liturgical question, per se. It’s a juridic one.

If your analogy holds true then it could apply to priests on Maundy Thursday. A monk might suddenly become a monk after thinking he was one for the last 20 years.

If the Maundy Thursday “renewal” included a bishop, the laying on of hands, and anointing with oil, then – sure! But it doesn’t. In the case of marriage, though, the essential elements are there in the case I outlined… so it’s a very different case, and not at all applicable as you would suggest.

I do not believe the Church would want valid marriages being validated by a renewal ceremony and everyone not even knowing it had happened.

You’re right – the Church doesn’t want it. That’s why it’s not written up that way in the Roman Ritual. (That a particular conference of bishops may have inserted it is a different question altogether, though. Not saying that they don’t have the right to insert a rite – they do – but the merits of this particular thing are a different kettle of fish…)

Very achievable without giving identifiable information. You could even have answered the question with a simple yes or no.

In that case, :sad_yes:

 

[Gorgias]

I think you missed the point of my comparison. For this couple, as much as they thought they were married before, they only actually married with their renewal of vows (assuming that this scenario is actually a possibility) And so, they are in exactly the same position as the person who cheats while dating but then goes on to give proper consent on their wedding day.

Except that your couple thinks that they were validly married on their wedding day (and they’d be correct in that thought), and the couple in my example thinks they were validly married on their wedding day (but they later found out that they weren’t validly married until 10 years later). Not the same situation at all, I think I’d assert.

It is impossible for the cheating partner in your scenario to give full consent unless at the time of the vow renewal/actual marriage he actually gives fulll and proper consent, which includes a real intention to remain true to his spouse ‘until death do us part’, just as the person who cheats while dating must do for his consent to be valid. There really isn’t nearly as much of a difference as you would like to make out.

Except, as I mentioned, the matter of the ten years of not really being validly married. That’s not huge? If, after being married ten years, you found out your spouse was really thinking the whole time, “meh… I don’t really believe in all this junk; but I’ll pretend, just for the sake of having a nice wedding day”… that wouldn’t rock you to the core?

 

[thewanderer]

Except that your couple thinks that they were validly married on their wedding day (and they’d be correct in that thought), and the couple in my example thinks they were validly married on their wedding day (but they later found out that they weren’t validly married until 10 years later). Not the same situation at all, I think I’d assert.

Except, as I mentioned, the matter of the ten years of not really being validly married. That’s not huge? If, after being married ten years, you found out your spouse was really thinking the whole time, “meh… I don’t really believe in all this junk; but I’ll pretend, just for the sake of having a nice wedding day”… that wouldn’t rock you to the core?

Yes, it would be a much more horrifying discovery. Which is why I said the two situations are much more similar than you seem to think rather than that they are exactly the same. So, yes, it is a much more difficult situation, but how does that make it unfair?

You do realize the kind of comitment one makes when they get married, right? Its not just a, ‘so long as you treat me at least tolerably I promise I will comit myself to you’. It is a complete and utter unconditional self-giving. ‘No matter what, I promise to comit myself to you, even if you become a raging philandering alcoholic who abuses me, I will continue to comit myself to you, even if I have to do it from a safe distance because of your failings and sins’.

Yes, it is horrible when the worst happens, such as you marry someone only to discover that they lied and betrayed you in the past without telling you,but if you are validly married then you have made an unconditional promise to be true to them. So how is it unfair to be told that you have a responsibility to keep that promise?

 

[Newbie2]

I really see vow renewals as tacky cries for attention and gifts. The beautiful thing about marriage is that it is a lifelong commitment, and vows don’t expire.

The only exception I can see is if a couple went through a really hard, almost got a divorce time and wanted to privately (privately being the key word) reaffirm their commitment to a life together.

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.

I don’t really like them either. I don’t really care if others want to do it, but I can’t ever see myself doing it. But then I am incredibly unromantic. Maybe that’s why.

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

We will be “restating” our marriage vows on our 25th anniversary. Not “renewing” them.

Good way to state it.

I really don’t get renewing your marriage vows. When I got married I made vows that were a lifelong commitment to my wonderful wife. If those vows were for life why do they need renewing?

That’s kinda how I feel, but I’ve got no issues with those who decide to.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, it would be a much more horrifying discovery. Which is why I said the two situations are much more similar than you seem to think rather than that they are exactly the same. So, yes, it is a much more difficult situation, but how does that make it unfair?

I’m saying that some people will claim it’s unfair, and use this claim to bash the Church for not letting Sally ‘out’ of her marriage. (Not me – a marriage vow, validly given, is a marriage vow. Period. End of story.)

You do realize the kind of comitment one makes when they get married, right? Its not just a, ‘so long as you treat me at least tolerably I promise I will comit myself to you’. It is a complete and utter unconditional self-giving. ‘No matter what, I promise to comit myself to you, even if you become a raging philandering alcoholic who abuses me, I will continue to comit myself to you, even if I have to do it from a safe distance because of your failings and sins’.

True. But, if your spouse is a raging philandering alcoholic on the day of the marriage, at the time of the vows, then the sacrament doesn’t happen. You, yourself, may have unilaterally made those vows, but you’re not held to them if the vows only legitimately come from you (and not your spouse, due to his state and intent at the time).

but if you are validly married then you have made an unconditional promise to be true to them.

Right. But in the example, as it turns out, Sally wasn’t validly married at the time that she thought she was simply ‘renewing’ already valid vows.

So how is it unfair to be told that you have a responsibility to keep that promise?

It’s not, if the promise was truly made by two people who were able to consent fully to it. But, to the people who use this type of thing to rail against the Church, the ‘unfairness’ is that Sally *should * have been able to escape her invalid marriage, but because she made a new set of vows (thinking she was just ‘renewing’ existing valid vows), the Church unfairly disallows her to step away from the situation.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m saying that some people will claim it’s unfair, and use this claim to bash the Church for not letting Sally ‘out’ of her marriage. (Not me – a marriage vow, validly given, is a marriage vow. Period. End of story.)

True. But, if your spouse is a raging philandering alcoholic on the day of the marriage, at the time of the vows, then the sacrament doesn’t happen. You, yourself, may have unilaterally made those vows, but you’re not held to them if the vows only legitimately come from you (and not your spouse, due to his state and intent at the time).

Right. But in the example, as it turns out, Sally wasn’t validly married at the time that she thought she was simply ‘renewing’ already valid vows.

It’s not, if the promise was truly made by two people who were able to consent fully to it. But, to the people who use this type of thing to rail against the Church, the ‘unfairness’ is that Sally *should *have been able to escape her invalid marriage, but because she made a new set of vows (thinking she was just ‘renewing’ existing valid vows), the Church unfairly disallows her to step away from the situation.

I’m really confused then… you’re saying that people shouldn’t have vow renewals because in certain hard cases it will make some people say that the Church isn’t being fair???

 

[Vico]

…

In CIC canon 1162 §2, even though consent was not proper at the time of the celebration, but was sometime later and still exists, the retroactive sanation can be granted. But for a celebrated marriage with approval of the Church, the validity of the couples consent given is presumed. So unless invalid consent can be proven, which means public proof, it is still valid, and private error (“Unbeknownst to all but John”) would not be grounds. (“Occurrance of adultery or that Sally decides that … John never really meant to be part of a Catholic marriage.” is not public proof of invalid consent.)

Canon 1162:
§1. A marriage cannot be radically sanated if consent is lacking in either or both of the parties, whether the consent was lacking from the beginning or was given in the beginning but afterwards revoked.
§2. If, however, consent was indeed lacking in the beginning but afterwards was given, a sanation can be granted from the moment the consent was given.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

But, this isn’t a liturgical question, per se. It’s a juridic one.

To be juridic your assertion must hold true. Based on the facts thus far discussed I am not convinced by your argument. That means it is a liturgical matter as the renewal of marriage vows is a liturgy but not a sacrament. The laws governing this liturgy will be found most likely in the rite’s praenotanda. They might, but I don’t know, state that this rite cannot bring about the sacrament of marriage. In fact, from what you’ve said this might only be possible in one country.

You’re right – the Church doesn’t want it. That’s why it’s not written up that way in the Roman Ritual. (That a particular conference of bishops may have inserted it is a different question altogether, though. Not saying that they don’t have the right to insert a rite – they do – but the merits of this particular thing are a different kettle of fish…)

Am I to understand after all this discussion that your concern is not over a liturgical rite issued by the Holy See and used throughout most of the world but by a particular rite used in Canada?

In that case, :sad_yes:

Does that mean that you are aware of a case where a man and a woman went through a Catholic marriage ceremony? Due to at least one reason their marriage was invalid. At some later date the couple had a marriage vow renewal liturgy. Obviously, you must not reveal any details but this poses several important questions. First, how could you know with moral certainty that the couple’s marriage was invalid at the time of their marriage? Then, how can you know that the marriage vow renewal ceremony brought about a valid marriage? Finally, if only Canada has a rite where this is possible did it happen in Canada? (I expect there are enough marriages and marriage vow renewal ceremonies in Canada for confirmation of that not to reveal the couple involved.)

 

[Gorgias]

To be juridic your assertion must hold true. Based on the facts thus far discussed I am not convinced by your argument. That means it is a liturgical matter as the renewal of marriage vows is a liturgy but not a sacrament. The laws governing this liturgy will be found most likely in the rite’s praenotanda. They might, but I don’t know, state that this rite cannot bring about the sacrament of marriage.

I don’t have the Marriage Rite on me; we’d have to double-check it to answer your question.

In fact, from what you’ve said this might only be possible in one country.

Am I to understand after all this discussion that your concern is not over a liturgical rite issued by the Holy See and used throughout most of the world but by a particular rite used in Canada?

No; Canada is just a convenient example that I’m using – taking Phemie at her word on it. I stated it that way just to cover the case in which a particular bishops’ conference might use their own version (and licitly, at that). However, your comment gives me pause for thought – if a bishops’ conference has taken that route, they would have had to have received the recognitio, so maybe this is simply a question of priests illicitly creating their own pseudo-liturgical rites, with all the implications that brings to the discussion…! I hadn’t considered thinking of it from that perspective, earlier. (However, with the priest simply taking on the role of an ordained witness, and the couple themselves as the ministers, the question of intent becomes an interesting one…!)

First, how could you know with moral certainty that the couple’s marriage was invalid at the time of their marriage? Then, how can you know that the marriage vow renewal ceremony brought about a valid marriage?

Hmm… I’m not certain whether you’re asking me whether my example could ever be known with certainty, or if you’re asking me if I’m talking about the details of a particular case that went before a tribunal? Hmm…

Finally, if only Canada has a rite where this is possible

Nope, I’m not making that assertion.

 

[shipwrkd]

Originally Posted by Gorgias
In that case,

Right. But in the example, as it turns out,

True. But, if

Except, as I mentioned, the matter of the ten years

That’s the point: in my example,

Gorgias, your whole argument seems to be based on one instance with very specific circumstances. Based on this specific set of circumstances, your claiming that some people will claim it’s unfair, and use this claim to bash the Church for not letting Sally ‘out’ of her marriage. If this specific example were the only thing some people bashed the Church about, I think She would be quite pleased.
Not sure about all the secrecy, You’ve already named John and Sally but that’s your prerogative. There just seems to be too many what if’s and in my example’s. I can’t imagine this could happen and certainly not more than once.

Nope, it isn’t true – there’s no “get out of jail free” clause in the canons. That’s why re-enactment of wedding vows is problematic

IMO your wrong here too. The “get out of jail free card” as you call it, would be an annulment of the second valid marriage.

 

[shipwrkd]

Hmm… I’m not certain whether you’re asking me whether my example could ever be known with certainty, or if you’re asking me if I’m talking about the details of a particular case that went before a tribunal? Hmm…

:banghead: Takes me a while to catch on…gottcha. But I stand by my statement that it couldn’t have happened more then once…could it??

 

[Matthew_Holford]

No; Canada is just a convenient example that I’m using

If I recall correctly you said that the Roman Ritual provides a liturgy for renewing one’s marriage vows but that rite couldn’t bring about a marriage if the original marriage was in someway invalid. Canada appears to have a rite that you think is in effect such that it could bring about a marriage. Are there other countries with a rite similar to the Canadian one? I’m trying to get a perspective of how widespread this possible issue might be. Is it confined to certain bishops’ conferences or is it universal?

Hmm… I’m not certain whether you’re asking me whether my example could ever be known with certainty, or if you’re asking me if I’m talking about the details of a particular case that went before a tribunal? Hmm…

You seem to know of an actual case that you have used to base your example on. What my question was is this: in that real case, how could you know that the marriage was invalid? This is a private and confidential issue. I’m intrigued as to how you could know a couple’s marriage was invalid. What I may not have made clear in my previous post: if you know of a real case rather than one summoned up by your imagination how can you know a marriage vow renewal liturgy brought about a valid marriage? Did some ecclesiastical authority declare this had happened? If that is the case it is an important piece of evidence needed for this discussion. It would give us something concrete rather than going round in circles with hypotheses. I would make it clear that I don’t want you to reveal any identifiable details of a real life case. That would, clearly, be completely inappropriate. Howver, you do intimate that your asserions are based on a real case. It is intriguing that you could have such intimate details of a couple’s marriage. How could you be so sure that a marriage vow renewal liturgy bought into existence a valid marriage? It is also dawning on me that this may be something very close to home for you.

 

[nagyszakall]

The CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS likes it (December 2001)

The CDF likes what exactly? if you follow up the footnote at the end of the paragraph you quoted, it will lead you to the Ordo benedictionis desponsatorum i.e. the Order of Blessing of Spouses. If you then look up that order of blessing in its present edition, you’ll find that it contains no repetition of the vows and not even anything similar to a repetition of vows. It does contain a sort of a nuptial blessing and a blessing of the rings. Interesting, isn’t it?

 

[Vico]

The CDF likes what exactly? if you follow up the footnote at the end of the paragraph you quoted, it will lead you to the Ordo benedictionis desponsatorum i.e. the Order of Blessing of Spouses. If you then look up that order of blessing in its present edition, you’ll find that it contains no repetition of the vows and not even anything similar to a repetition of vows. It does contain a sort of a nuptial blessing and a blessing of the rings. Interesting, isn’t it?

They like “where opportune, for the renewal of marriage vows taken by the spouses on their wedding day”.

 

[Phemie]

With apologies to Gorgias, consent definitely is exchanged in a renewal of vows, contrary to what I had previously posted. The words are slightly different in the US.

This is what the Rite for Canada says
201. (…)It is the custom in some places for the couple to renew their marriage vows at these celebrations [anniversaries], either during Mass or at another kind of prayer service. The following outlines are provided as examples of such celebration.

Care should be taken that a couple not be forced by custom into going through a renewal of vows which might be painful for them. Pastoral sensitivity might dictate that a Mass of thanksgiving be celebrated without any particular ceremony of renewal. In any event, the decision to renew marriage vows or not should be left to the jubilarians themselves. (…)

1. The priest addresses the couple in the following or similar terms. He may also wish more simply to conclude his homily with words of this nature.

My dear friends, (N. & N.),
you have come here with your family and friends
to celebrate your faithfulness to each other
and to thank God for the years he has given you to live in mutual love.

Through the joys and sorrows, the triumphs and trials of life,
God has been with you.

The Church shares your joy today
and is thankful to you\for being such a powerful sign
of God’s loyal and faithful love for the world.

(God has enriched and strengthened you over the years
by the sacrament of marriage.)
In renewing your vows today, you give witness once again to God’s love.

1. The priest then invites the couple to renew their consent.

You have proven your devotion to each other by your life together.
Now join your right hands and renew your consent before God and his Church.

The couple join hands.
The husband says the formula, followed by the wife. The formula is given on page 53, no. 52. (That refers us back to the rite of Marriage).

If it seems preferable to the couple the priest may ask them to renew their consent through questions, especially if this form more closely resembles the form used by the couple at their marriage. This form is given on page 54.

In receiving their consent, the priest says:
You have declared your consent once again before the Church.
May the Lord in his goodness fill you both with his blessing.
R. Amen.

 

[Gorgias]

With apologies to Gorgias, consent definitely is exchanged in a renewal of vows, contrary to what I had previously posted. The words are slightly different in the US.

Yep… this is exactly the circumstance I was alluding to: consent is asked for and received, and the intent of the minister and of the couple is exactly the exchange of consent. Add to that the proper form (minister, couple, witnesses) and (in the absence of impediment), you have everything that’s necessary for a valid wedding.