Hello.
My request for a radical sanation was denied by my Bishop. My letter from my priest said, and I quote: “Both the Bishop and Monsignor [Martin, from the diocesan Tribunal] agree that a Radical Sanation does not apply in your case.”
My annulment from my second marriage was recently approved. Two years ago, I laid out the details of my previous/current marriage situation to my parish priest, and he recommended a radical sanation - but said I should file for annulment from my second husband and come see him when it was finalized. Well, he was transferred before I received my annulment.
My current husband is Mormon. We were married by the President of his church, in a civil ceremony. My husband has no wish to convert.
I have a son who is 11, and who has been baptized in two churches - Catholic and Mormon. The annulment has taken so long, my son is more interested in and is pursuing the Mormon faith.
Can anyone tell me the most likely reason they would deny a radical sanation? Was there some canonical law I missed in my internet research, or is it really Tribunal/Bishopric preference? I guess I would feel slightly better if it was denied due to the number of times I was married, my age (no future children), the grounds my annulment was granted under, yadda yadda. The Bishop gave no reason. My heart needs one.
Thanks for your time.
You were Catholic and married at least once without the approval of the Church, the first marriage. The second marriage is immaterial since it was annulled. So you want to be married to the first husband now. So there are two possible ways to create a new marriage in this situation, the simple convalidation and the retroactive convalidation.
In either case it requires that proper consent perdues (freely given, lifelong, exclusive, granting gift of proper conjugal relations) and no impediments that cannot be dispensed with. Per Canon 1157 if one of the couple does not believe or know that consent was invalid, then new consent cannot be given, so simple convalidation will not apply, but retroactive may be possible. If defect of consent does not exist now then retroactive could not apply per Canon 1162.1.
The canon law:
CIC
CHAPTER X: THE VALIDATION OF MARRIAGE
ARTICLE 1: SIMPLE VALIDATION Canon 1156.1 To validate a marriage which is invalid because of a diriment impediment, it is required that the impediment cease or be dispensed, and that at least the party aware of the impediment renews consent.
Canon 1156.2 This renewal is required by ecclesiastical law for the validity of the validation, even if at the beginning both parties had given consent and had not afterwards withdrawn it.
Canon 1157 The renewal of consent must be a new act of will consenting to a marriage which the renewing party knows or thinks was invalid from the beginning.
Canon 1158.1 If the impediment is public, consent is to be renewed by both parties in the canonical form, without prejudice to the provision of Canon 1127.3.
Canon 1158.2 If the impediment cannot be proved, it is sufficient that consent be renewed privately and in secret, specifically by the party who is aware of the impediment provided the other party persists in the consent given, or by both parties if the impediment is known to both.
Canon 1159.1 A marriage invalid because of a defect of consent is validated if the party who did not consent, now does consent, provided the consent given by the other party persists.
Canon 1159.2 If the defect of the consent cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party who did not consent, gives consent privately and in secret.
Canon 1159.3 If the defect of consent can be proven, it is necessary that consent be given in the canonical form.
Canon 1160 For a marriage which is invalid because of defect of form to become valid, it must be contracted anew in the canonical form, without prejudice to the provisions of Canon 1127.3 [4].
Article 2: Retroactive Validation Canon 1161.1 The retroactive validation of an invalid marriage is its validation without the renewal of consent, granted by the competent authority. It involves a dispensation from an impediment if there is one and from the canonical form if it had not been observed, as well as a referral back to the past of the canonical effects.
Canon 1161.2 The validation takes place from the moment the favour is granted; the referral back, however, is understood to have been made to the moment the marriage was celebrated, unless it is otherwise expressly provided.
Canon 1161.3 A retroactive validation is not to be granted unless it is probable that the parties intend to persevere in conjugal life.
Canon 1162.1 If consent is lacking in either or both of the parties, a marriage cannot be rectified by a retroactive validation, whether consent was absent from the beginning or, though given at the beginning, was subsequently revoked.
Canon 1162.2 If the consent was indeed absent from the beginning but was subsequently given, a retroactive validation can be granted from the moment the consent was given.
Canon 1163.1 A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment or because of defect of the legal form, can be validated retroactively, provided the consent of both parties persists.
Canon 1163.2 A marriage which is invalid because of an impediment of the natural law or of the divine positive law, can be validated retroactively only after the impediment has ceased.
Canon 1164 A retroactive validation may validly be granted even if one or both of the parties is unaware of it; it is not, however, to be granted except for a grave reason.
Canon 1165.1 Retroactive validation can be granted by the Apostolic See.
Canon 1165.2 It can be granted by the diocesan Bishop in individual cases, even if a number of reasons for nullity occur together in the same marriage, assuming that for a retroactive validation of a mixed marriage the conditions of Canon 1125 will have been fulfilled. It cannot, however, be granted by him if there is an impediment whose dispensation is reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with Canon 1078.2, or if there is question of an impediment of the natural law or of the divine positive law which has now ceased.
sadly - I know what it is to turn away 
and then make my way back 
trust me -
… I am 
for you!
