Renewal of the Wedding Vows

[Vico]

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…

Yet, such renewals cannot be another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving or renewing matrimonial consent. (CIC see 1127.3).

CIC Canon 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.
Canon 1127.1 The provisions of canon 1108 are to be observed in regard to the form to be used in a mixed marriage. If, however, the catholic party contracts marriage with a non-catholic party of oriental rite, the canonical form of celebration is to be observed for lawfulness only; for validity, however, the intervention of a sacred minister is required, while observing the other requirements of law.
Canon 1127.2 If there are grave difficulties in the way of observing the canonical form, the local Ordinary of the catholic party has the right to dispense from it in individual cases, having however consulted the Ordinary of the place of the celebration of the marriage; for validity, however, some public form of celebration is required. It is for the Episcopal Conference to establish norms whereby this dispensation may be granted in a uniform manner.

Canon 1127.3 It is forbidden to have, either before or after the canonical celebration in accordance with 1127.1, another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving or renewing matrimonial consent. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the catholic assistant and a non-catholic minister, each performing his own rite, ask for the consent of the parties.

 

[Phemie]

Yet, such renewals cannot be another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving or renewing matrimonial consent. (CIC see 1127.3).

CIC Canon 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.
Canon 1127.1 The provisions of canon 1108 are to be observed in regard to the form to be used in a mixed marriage. If, however, the catholic party contracts marriage with a non-catholic party of oriental rite, the canonical form of celebration is to be observed for lawfulness only; for validity, however, the intervention of a sacred minister is required, while observing the other requirements of law.
Canon 1127.2 If there are grave difficulties in the way of observing the canonical form, the local Ordinary of the catholic party has the right to dispense from it in individual cases, having however consulted the Ordinary of the place of the celebration of the marriage; for validity, however, some public form of celebration is required. It is for the Episcopal Conference to establish norms whereby this dispensation may be granted in a uniform manner.

Canon 1127.3 It is forbidden to have, either before or after the canonical celebration in accordance with 1127.1, another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving or renewing matrimonial consent. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the catholic assistant and a non-catholic minister, each performing his own rite, ask for the consent of the parties.

That canon is about mixed marriages and specifically forbids having a Catholic & non-Catholic ceremony as though one or the other is not valid. I doubt that you’d be able to convince the Tribunal that it forbids a renewal of one’s vows 10-25-50 years after the original ceremony.

At a vow renewal, the Church’s presumption is that it’s already a valid marriage and that the renewal will have no effect on anything.

 

[shipwrkd]

Here’s the case I’m making, as an example:

2000 – John and Sally are married in the Catholic Church; according to form, no impediments, an exchange of consent. It seems to be a valid marriage. Unbeknownst to all but John, he really doesn’t intend fidelity, and plans on keeping up a clandestine relationship on the side.

2005 – John and Sally ‘renew’ their marriage vows. The actual vows are just a ‘re-affirmation’, though.

2007 – John stops cheating on Sally. (Yay!)

2010 – John and Sally go to ‘renew’ their vows again (gee, we just love these renewals on our anniversary! they’re really meaningful to us! ). However, this time, the priest that celebrates the vows asks for and gets an act of consent.

2011 – Sally finds out that John cheated on her for the first seven years of their marriage. Boo!

Due to the circumstances, Sally decides that she’s been living a charade – John never really meant to be part of a Catholic marriage. After the divorce, she starts the nullity process. Now, the 2000 ceremony may be found to be invalid – after all, John’s consent was defective. The 2005 ceremony is immaterial – it has no practical effect. However, because of the 2010 “renewal” (which was actually a new act of consent, and therefore, a valid marriage), they are found to be validly married. Sorry, Sally – no annulment possible. And why? Solely because of the 2010 “renewal”.

So your saying if this were to have ended in 2007, Sally and John would never have a valid marriage, or is there a statute of limitations and after a certain time it becomes valid. Because I’m gonna bet that this happens far more often then than your scenario and there could be quite a few couples out there who have a legitimate “get out of jail free card” as you call it. IMO a vow is binding even if the person saying it has doubt that he or she will keep it. If not, the Sacrament of Marriage is in some real trouble.

 

[shipwrkd]

At a vow renewal, the Church’s presumption is that it’s already a valid marriage and that the renewal will have no effect on anything.

If a vow is not intended to be kept at the ceremony and that changes the next day, the Marriage can’t go from invalid to valid overnight.

 

[Phemie]

So your saying if this were to have ended in 2007, Sally and John would never have a valid marriage, or is there a statute of limitations and after a certain time it becomes valid. Because I’m gonna bet that this happens far more often then than your scenario and there could be quite a few couples out there who have a legitimate “get out of jail free card” as you call it. IMO a vow is binding even if the person saying it has doubt that he or she will keep it. If not, the Sacrament of Marriage is in some real trouble.

Canon law is clear that for a marriage to be valid both must know and intend to

1. marry until death do them part;
2. have children if they can;
3. be faithful.

If they speak their vows with the intention never to have children or to never give up the mistress/lover, then they are not in a valid marriage.

 

[shipwrkd]

Canon law is clear that for a marriage to be valid both must know and intend to

1. marry until death do them part;
2. have children if they can;
3. be faithful.

If they speak their vows with the intention never to have children or to never give up the mistress/lover, then they are not in a valid marriage.

Then there are quite a few invalid marriages, aren’t there. Got another one, 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? Just curious …

 

[Phemie]

Then there are quite a few invalid marriages, aren’t there. Got another one, 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? Just curious …

All marriages celebrated according to form are presumed valid until proven otherwise. It would take a ruling from the Tribunal to determine that.

 

[Vico]

[/indent]That canon is about mixed marriages and specifically forbids having a Catholic & non-Catholic ceremony as though one or the other is not valid. I doubt that you’d be able to convince the Tribunal that it forbids a renewal of one’s vows 10-25-50 years after the original ceremony.

At a vow renewal, the Church’s presumption is that it’s already a valid marriage and that the renewal will have no effect on anything.

I agree with you that it’s already presumed valid. In summary:

It can be see from the earlier post I made that the Vatican is in favor of renewal of vows.

Certainly two Catholics are not dispensed from canonical form, so disparity of worship (permission) or disparity of cult (impediment) apply 1127.Canon 1129 The provisions of cann. 1127 and 1128 are to be applied also to marriages which are impeded by the impediment of disparity of worship mentioned in canon 1086.1.
What my previous post attempted to show is the canonical concept that there not be “another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving or renewing matrimonial consent” when putative (supposed valid), see 1107, 1061.3. Canon 1107 Even if a marriage has been entered into invalidly by reason of an impediment or defect of form, the consent given is presumed to persist until its withdrawal has been established.

Canon 1061.3 An invalid marriage is said to be putative if it has been celebrated in good faith by at least one party. It ceases to be such when both parties become certain of its nullity.
If the consent were found to be defective, through proof, then simple convalidation might be used, or if the consent certainly became valid later, a retroactive convalidation.

 

[Vico]

If a vow is not intended to be kept at the ceremony and that changes the next day, the Marriage can’t go from invalid to valid overnight.

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

 

[nagyszakall]

Then there are quite a few invalid marriages, aren’t there. Got another one, 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? Just curious …

To satisfy your curiosity:
Yes, there are many invalid marriages.
Yes, that marriage (if what you have written is really the case and they intended not to accept children) would be invalid. 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.
Hope you are not intending to contract one of those invalid marriages…

 

[Vico]

To satisfy your curiosity:
Yes, there are many invalid marriages.
Yes, that marriage (if what you have written is really the case and they intended not to accept children) would be invalid. 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.
Hope you are not intending to contract one of those invalid marriages…

Invalid can also become valid, secretly. Three kinds of marriage states:

1. 
   *]valid: ratum non consummatum
   *]valid: ratum consummatum, presumed after cohabitation
   ]diriment impediment: putative when celebrated in good faith by at least one and at least one is uncertain of its nullity
   • defect of age, impotence, difference of worship (baptized and unbaptized), Sacred Orders, solemn vows, abduction, crime (adultery, homicide, or both), relationship, or affinity, within proscribed degrees, spiritual relationship, legal relationship (adoption when State forbids marriage between adopter and adopted), clandestinity, public decency.
     If consent is invalid it may be of three kinds and may be corrected, as long as the other’s consent still exists, based upon knowledge of the invalid consent (public: generally known):
   1. public - requires public consent with priest and witnesses.
   2. occult, known to both - re-validated by private and secret consent.
   3. occult, known on one - re-validated by interior consent.

 

[shipwrkd]

To satisfy your curiosity:
Yes, there are many invalid marriages.
Yes, that marriage (if what you have written is really the case and they intended not to accept children) would be invalid. 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.
Hope you are not intending to contract one of those invalid marriages…

Nope, my wife and I have been married for forty one years and both consider our original vows binding. We did have our marriage blessed on our 40th anniversary and when I started reading this thread I wondered what the big deal was with renewal. I’ve come to learn that marriage isn’t as cut and dried as it seems on the surface according to the Church. There seem to be too many loopholes. IMO, we both said the words in front of each other, our priest, our friends and our God and then signed the papers. In our eyes and in God’s eyes, we’re married, end of story. Then enter’s The Church and it’s canons and the waters start to muddy. I realize there has to be law for those that may wish to annul, I just never knew how complex they could get and hope never to have to find out.

 

[Gorgias]

shipwrkd:

Then there are quite a few invalid marriages, aren’t there. Got another one, 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? Just curious …

All marriages celebrated according to form are presumed valid until proven otherwise. It would take a ruling from the Tribunal to determine that.

This is the critical point. I’m only claiming that if, at some point, they were to divorce and attempt nullity, then and only then would this become a possibility.

 

[Gorgias]

In our eyes and in God’s eyes, we’re married, end of story.

Nope, you’re right, there! (Presuming that you both were intending to do what the Church intends as ‘marriage’.)

I just never knew how complex they could get and hope never to have to find out.

Absolutely!

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I am not in favour of marriage vow renewal ceremonies. I understand that the Church permits them. I appreciate it is a matter of choice. I do not believe anyone has presented convincing information that a marriage vow renewal ceremony can convert an invalid marriage into a valid one. It seems to me this may be one of those occasions when a dubium might be sent to the Holy See.

 

[Vico]

I am not in favour of marriage vow renewal ceremonies. I understand that the Church permits them. I appreciate it is a matter of choice. I do not believe anyone has presented convincing information that a marriage vow renewal ceremony can convert an invalid marriage into a valid one. It seems to me this may be one of those occasions when a dubium might be sent to the Holy See.

It would work if the invalid consent was occult, but then it would not be necessary to renew publicly.

 

[nagyszakall]

Invalid can also become valid, secretly. Three kinds of marriage states:

1. 
   *]valid: ratum non consummatum
   *]valid: ratum consummatum, presumed after cohabitation
   ]diriment impediment: putative when celebrated in good faith by at least one and at least one is uncertain of its nullity
   • defect of age, impotence, difference of worship (baptized and unbaptized), Sacred Orders, solemn vows, abduction, crime (adultery, homicide, or both), relationship, or affinity, within proscribed degrees, spiritual relationship, legal relationship (adoption when State forbids marriage between adopter and adopted), clandestinity, public decency.
     If consent is invalid it may be of three kinds and may be corrected, as long as the other’s consent still exists, based upon knowledge of the invalid consent (public: generally known):
   1. public - requires public consent with priest and witnesses.
   2. occult, known to both - re-validated by private and secret consent.
   3. occult, known on one - re-validated by interior consent.

1. 
   And what’s your point with all this?

 

[nagyszakall]

Nope, my wife and I have been married for forty one years and both consider our original vows binding. We did have our marriage blessed on our 40th anniversary and when I started reading this thread I wondered what the big deal was with renewal. I’ve come to learn that marriage isn’t as cut and dried as it seems on the surface according to the Church. There seem to be too many loopholes. IMO, we both said the words in front of each other, our priest, our friends and our God and then signed the papers. In our eyes and in God’s eyes, we’re married, end of story. Then enter’s The Church and it’s canons and the waters start to muddy. I realize there has to be law for those that may wish to annul, I just never knew how complex they could get and hope never to have to find out.

I don’t see our point of disagreement. I agree with you in everything except on the point of the Church confusing things. I think the Church defends marriage as no one else does.
I said there are many invalid marriages (I didn’t say yours was one of them). All those annulments would not possibly be declared if it weren’t so.

 

[nagyszakall]

This is the critical point. I’m only claiming that if, at some point, they were to divorce and attempt nullity, then and only then would this become a possibility.

I don’t see what’s the issue with a renewal celebration “convalidating” a marriage which was presumed to be valid anyway. If that happens, it’s actually a good thing. Later they try to annul it and can’t? Too bad. If we were celebrating good marriages in the Church, most annulment attempts would fail, and that would be a very good thing.
I feel for people who suffer through divorce and irregular marriage situations, but declaring nullity is not the right solution if their original marriage was valid… the Church needs to defend that.

My problem with renewal celebration is the repetition of consent which should be done only once validly. My initial intention in starting a thread was to discuss the liturgical tradition and value of such celebrations.
The current editions of liturgical books (not considering certain local adaptations, such as the ones put forth by the Canadian bishops) do NOT contain a repetition of the marriage consent, nor anything similar to that (and there must be a reason for that). This does not make the renewal of vows prohibited, but perhaps something to be discouraged, by favoring (in as much as possible) the rites which are in the liturgical books, such as can be found in the book of blessings.

 

[Vico]

And what’s your point with all this?

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.