Request for radical sanation denied

[Phemie]

Vico – are you certain that lack of form can be remedied by a radical sanation? As Usige mentions, defects of form can be addressed by sanation. However, in a lack of form case, there isn’t an invalid marriage, per se, but rather, a ‘non-existant’ marriage. This, to the best of my knowledge, cannot be addressed by a sanation. This, as I understand it, is the situation of the OP – in her present situation, there isn’t an (invalid) sacramental marriage to which a sanation might apply.

You’re putting a distinction here that I’ve never heard of.

A marriage is either valid (may or may not be sacramental) thus it exists or it is invalid and so doesn’t exist.

By definition, a sacramental marriage is a valid marriage between two baptized persons. There is no such thing as an invalid sacramental marriage.

 

[HonoraDominum]

Wow, ladies and gents, I haven’t been on for a few days, and it looks like you didn’t need me to carry on the discussion.

Yes, I’ve been annuled twice. They don’t let you marry in the church without that.

Yes, my son is baptized in two churches. My ex-husband insisted on it, knowing my son was being raised Mormon. For peace, I let him.

Sorry, I don’t think the Mormons are going to hell. Nicely enough, they don’t think I am either, which is good.

Yes, I miss the sacraments. No, I don’t think I’ll be going back to my faith. I think it’s time I look for another. I did make a pretty big decision when I decided my soulmate was worth losing my church. I can’t explain what finding him means to me…and loving him as he is…and he loves me as I am…means everything to me.

Thank you all for your time. And some of your prayers. I pray for you as well.

peace
m1dsummoner

Wow. Just …

You will be in my prayers. The Mormons don’t think that you will go to Hell because Mormons don’t believe in Hell, they believe in Outer Darkness, and the only ones that end up there are people who commit sins against the Holy Ghost. But they do not think you will be with your husband in the Celestial Kingdom.

Secondly, I have been Mormon, and I have been Catholic. I remember that feeling of being lost when I was searching for God when I was Mormon, and I remember that feeling when I had that conversion moment during the consecration of communion when I realized that I had finally found Him. While I have fallen and lost sanctifying grace through mortal sin since becoming Catholic, I have found that the closer that I draw to God, the more I rely on this grace to work through me. I cannot imagine giving up this grace for anything in this world, because this world is not our home. Our home is with God and with Christ.

To dwell continually in the presence of God with sanctifying grace has transformed my soul and my life more than I can put into words. My husband does not go to church with me, and is an agnostic. But when God called me home to the Catholic church, I found that I needed to be there more than anything, and there wasn’t a whole lot my husband could do about it. Luckily for me, he was accepting of my decision to convert and was supportive of me, or at least let me do what I wanted to do. I love my husband so very much, but if I had to choose, I don’t think I would be able to turn away the call of God.

You are so blessed to have the freedom to be Catholic. If you truly were not feeling the call, you would not be here asking us what to do. Pray to Mary, and she will help you through this crisis of faith. God has given you a great cross to bear because He knows that he will give you the strength to bear it if you do all for love of Him. Turn to him as a little child, trusting in his divine providence that He will take care of you if you let Him.

 

[Vico]

Vico – are you certain that lack of form can be remedied by a radical sanation? As Usige mentions, defects of form can be addressed by sanation. However, in a lack of form case, there isn’t an invalid marriage, per se, but rather, a ‘non-existant’ marriage. This, to the best of my knowledge, cannot be addressed by a sanation. This, as I understand it, is the situation of the OP – in her present situation, there isn’t an (invalid) sacramental marriage to which a sanation might apply.

Yes. The Canon law recognizes that a true and valid marriage does not exist in a previous union where there was:
1) a lack or defect of canonical form.
2) an impediment to the marriage.
3) a defect in the consent exchanged between the partners.

When a radical sanation is granted, it covers a lack or defect of canonical form. The radical sanation utilizes the prior consent, because one cannot give new consent, although it still exists.

Here is an example of a Sanation Petition from the Diocese of Davenport, IA.

• Lack of Form: A Catholic married without following canonical form. It is a first marriage for both parties. The Catholic desires to receive the sacraments but the other party refuses to renew consent.
• Defect of Form: Two Catholics are married in the Catholic Church but the minister of marriage fails to get the proper delegation. A sanation can be requested and granted without the couple’s knowledge, involvement and/or permission.
• Existence of an Impediment:
• PRIOR BOND – A Catholic is involved in a marriage where a prior bond of marriage exists for one of the parties. The previous spouse dies or the prior marriage has been declared invalid by an ecclesiastical Tribunal. The Catholic would like to receive the sacraments but the other party refuses to renew consent.
• DISPARITY OF CULT – A Catholic marries a non-baptized person in a Catholic ceremony but the minister of marriage failed to secure the proper dispensation.
• OTHER: _________________________________
• The Catholic is concerned about the validity of the marriage but the other party refuses to renew consent.

davenportdiocese.org/trib/tribunallibrary/Sanation%20Petition%20Form%20June%202011.pdf

Diocese of San Diego, CA has this in their petition for radical sanation petition:

Reason for Invalidity of the Marriage:

• Lack of Canonical Form
• Lack of proper delegation
• Undispensed impediment (e.g., disparity of worship, consanguinity):

Reason for Impossibility of Convalidation:

• Refusal of spouse to give new consent
• Strong possibility of Defective Convalidation
• Danger of scandal or disturbance of conscience

Most Reverend Archbishop:I hereby request, on behalf of the above-named Catholic party(ies), the radical sanation of this marriage in accordance with Canons 1161-1165 for the reason(s) noted above. All necessary conditions for the granting of a sanation appear to be in order.
la-archdiocese.org/org/vcs/Documents/Radical%20Sanation%20%28Form%29.pdf

 

[iloveangels]

Wow, ladies and gents, I haven’t been on for a few days, and it looks like you didn’t need me to carry on the discussion.
Yes, I’ve been annuled twice. They don’t let you marry in the church without that.
Yes, my son is baptized in two churches. My ex-husband insisted on it, knowing my son was being raised Mormon. For peace, I let him.
Sorry, I don’t think the Mormons are going to hell. Nicely enough, they don’t think I am either, which is good.
Yes, I miss the sacraments. No, I don’t think I’ll be going back to my faith. I think it’s time I look for another. I did make a pretty big decision when I decided my soulmate was worth losing my church. I can’t explain what finding him means to me…and loving him as he is…and he loves me as I am…means everything to me.
Thank you all for your time. And some of your prayers. I pray for you as well.
peace
m1dsummoner

It looks as if the original OP is signalling that she’s made up her mind what she wants to do, and that decision should be respected.

It’s interesting looking at the nuts and bolts of canon law though…

 

[maltmom]

It looks as if the original OP is signalling that she’s made up her mind what she wants to do, and that decision should be respected.

It’s interesting looking at the nuts and bolts of canon law though…

I noticed that. I doubt she’d be back, but you never know.

I’m learning a lot in this thread.

 

[Usige]

Usige,
Sanation doesn’t ‘fix’ a defect of consent, but as long as the defect is no longer present, a sanation has effects that reach back to the point that proper consent was present.

Correct, that is why I had said “The sanation retroactively dispenses impediments, but it does not “fix” defects of consent.” (emphasis added). In other words a radical sanation is a gift that retroactively dispenses those impediments that might have receive a dispensation when valid consent was originally exchanged. It is meant to heal impediments and hence the meaning of sanatio in radice, healing the root.

 

[iloveangels]

I noticed that. I doubt she’d be back, but you never know.

I’m learning a lot in this thread.

I notice you’re a convert. I’m also a convert but have been Catholic now for more than 25 years. It’s a whole different world, as you’re probably aware of by now. It’s a good world, nevertheless, it’s a different one.

And you’re right. She may be back but you never know, as you say. She’s the one that will have to decide that. You can’t make a person believe against their will. I hope there are people who know her personally who are respectfully and quietly praying for her.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I understand what OP is struggling with. I dated a devout Baptist for a while and tried to convince myself that maybe I really could be a Baptist (I never actually left the Catholic Church while thinking this). Ultimately, it became clear that if we ever got married and had kids, he would want them Baptist. No way were they going to the Catholic Church. I realized how much the thought of this upset me and the relationship ended.

 

[maltmom]

I notice you’re a convert. I’m also a convert but have been Catholic now for more than 25 years. It’s a whole different world, as you’re probably aware of by now. It’s a good world, nevertheless, it’s a different one.

And you’re right. She may be back but you never know, as you say. She’s the one that will have to decide that. You can’t make a person believe against their will. I hope there are people who know her personally who are respectfully and quietly praying for her.

It is a different world. Yes, it is a good world. I’ve only been Catholic several months. Fortunately I didn’t come to the forums until after I joined the Church. There have been a number of threads and posts that may have sent me right back to my Baptist church.

I understand what OP is struggling with. I dated a devout Baptist for a while and tried to convince myself that maybe I really could be a Baptist (I never actually left the Catholic Church while thinking this). Ultimately, it became clear that if we ever got married and had kids, he would want them Baptist. No way were they going to the Catholic Church. I realized how much the thought of this upset me and the relationship ended.

As a Protestant in my 20’s and 30’s I would never date a Catholic man. If we had married and had children there was no way I’d raise them Catholic. I also don’t believe in being unequally yoked. Now that I’m Catholic I will only date Catholic men. I can’t have children any longer, but I still don’t want to be unequally yoked. I want to share my faith with my husband. I would want us to be one in all things.

 

[iloveangels]

It is a different world. Yes, it is a good world. I’ve only been Catholic several months. Fortunately I didn’t come to the forums until after I joined the Church. There have been a number of threads and posts that may have sent me right back to my Baptist church.

LOL. I don’t doubt that. There are scary people all over, every group has them.

The weird thing is that Catholics are often scary in a distinctive Catholic way that’s hard to describe. It still blows my mind every now and then. And sometimes my ethical gaskets too. But I love the Church too much to leave. I’ll be Catholic always.

PS, it helps if you can see the humor in being Catholic. Some of the things that Catholics do are riotously funny. It’s the funkiest religion ever in addition to being true.

As a Protestant in my 20’s and 30’s I would never date a Catholic man. If we had married and had children there was no way I’d raise them Catholic. I also don’t believe in being unequally yoked. Now that I’m Catholic I will only date Catholic men. I can’t have children any longer, but I still don’t want to be unequally yoked. I want to share my faith with my husband. I would want us to be one in all things.

This is very wise of you. Unequal yoking can be very difficult. I converted and my husband did not. We’ve managed because we love each other and he’s a very tolerant, very gentle man. That’s why I married him. But it’s still been difficult.

 

[maltmom]

LOL. I don’t doubt that. Some people are scary all over.

This is very wise of you. Unequal yoking can be very difficult. I converted and my husband did not. We’ve managed because we love each other and he’s a very tolerant, very gentle man. That’s why I married him. But it’s still been difficult.

Thank you. I’m sure it’s been difficult at times. I’ll pray that one day he’ll feel called to join you.

 

[iloveangels]

Thank you. I’m sure it’s been difficult at times. I’ll pray that one day he’ll feel called to join you.

Thank you.

 

[maltmom]

Thank you.

You’re welcome

 

[iloveangels]

Exhibit A.

wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/thecrescat/files/2011/09/crescat2.jpg

 

[Gorgias]

Yes.

When a radical sanation is granted, it covers a lack or defect of canonical form. The radical sanation utilizes the prior consent, because one cannot give new consent, although it still exists.

Interesting! I went back to old notes of mine, and discovered that I had forgotten this (and worse, misremembered it)! Thanks!

 

[Phemie]

I’m a little confused by the “Prior Bond” impediment.

Interesting that the information is different depending on the diocese. VICO posted the information from the Davenport diocese. Here’s what the Diocese of Hawaii website says:

Are there situations when it is not possible for the bishop (or his delegate) to grant a radical sanation?
Yes. The most common situation is if one party had a prior valid marriage which overlaps the time of the second marriage.
For example, Paulo marries Jane in 1985, but they divorce in 1990. (Both are Catholic and the marriage took place in the Catholic Church, so the marriage is presumed valid until death.) Then Paulo marries Elizabeth in 1995 in a civil ceremony. (This marriage is not recognized by the Catholic Church because of the lack of canonical form and because of his prior bond to Jane.) Then Jane dies in 2000. At this point, Paulo is free to get his current marriage to Elizabeth validated. However, he cannot get a radical sanation from the bishop because there were five years when the second marriage to Elizabeth overlaped the time when his first spouse, Jane, was still alive.

From reading the Beals commentary on Canon Law it appears that this was the understanding under the 1917 Code but not necessarily under the 1983 code.

 

[Vico]

Interesting! I went back to old notes of mine, and discovered that I had forgotten this (and worse, misremembered it)! Thanks!

I have one like that too, and I think Phemie straightened me out on the terminology in the past, it is that there is a dispensation for disparity of cult (a.k.a. disparity of worship, Catholic with non Christian or invalid baptism) and also a permission for mixed religion (Catholic with baptised non-Catholic).

 

[dans0622]

I’m a little confused by the “Prior Bond” impediment.

Interesting that the information is different depending on the diocese. VICO posted the information from the Davenport diocese. Here’s what the Diocese of Hawaii website says:
From reading the Beals commentary on Canon Law it appears that this was the understanding under the 1917 Code but not necessarily under the 1983 code.

Hello,

I am not sure what your confusion is exactly, or what part of that commentary you are referring to, but one has to remember that if a marriage is declared invalid, there was no prior bond and a sanation can be granted with the canonical effects applying to the time of the exchange of consent in the sanated marriage.

If a first spouse dies, the sanation is “retroactive” only to the point of that person’s death. I am not sure why the diocese of Hawaii would say a sanation cannot be granted. It can be granted after the impediment of divine law (prior bond) ceases (c. 1163.2).

Dan

 

[Phemie]

Hello,

I am not sure what your confusion is exactly, or what part of that commentary you are referring to, but one has to remember that if a marriage is declared invalid, there was no prior bond and a sanation can be granted with the canonical effects applying to the time of the exchange of consent in the sanated marriage.

If a first spouse dies, the sanation is “retroactive” only to the point of that person’s death. I am not sure why the diocese of Hawaii would say a sanation cannot be granted. It can be granted after the impediment of divine law (prior bond) ceases (c. 1163.2).

Dan

I was confused because two dioceses give completely opposed information. Davenport says that a sanation can be given after the spouse dies, Hawaii says it can’t happen and a simple convalidation would have to be done.

Apparently the prior code also said it couldn’t be done because it involved divine law.

My question, how can it be ‘healing at the root’ if the sanation only is retroactive to the death, even if the death occurred 10-15 years into the marriage?

 

[dans0622]

I was confused because two dioceses give completely opposed information. Davenport says that a sanation can be given after the spouse dies, Hawaii says it can’t happen and a simple convalidation would have to be done.

Apparently the prior code also said it couldn’t be done because it involved divine law.

My question, how can it be ‘healing at the root’ if the sanation only is retroactive to the death, even if the death occurred 10-15 years into the marriage?

Hello,

Dioceses with opposite policies–it happens. In this case, I think Hawaii is clearly wrong. The 1917 Code, on this topic, said the following: “The Church does not radically sanate a marriage contracted with an impediment of divine or natural law, even if the impediment later ceases, except from the moment at which the impediment ceases” (c. 1139.2, Dr. Peters translation).

So, that’s the same content as the 1983 Code, c. 1163.2, just worded differently and less clearly.

How can it be granted? As with any sanation, the consent of the Parties is presumed to have been naturally sufficient and to exist from the moment of the wedding, to the present. That consent was not effective due to the impediment. At the moment the impediment ceased, the consent can be canonically recognized and binding.

The “healing” of a sanation is the same, no matter the timing. Don’t read too much into the “retroactivity,” as many people (even canon lawyers) do. The marriage is valid only from the moment the sanation is granted. It is not made valid all the way back to the time of consent. The “referral back” is only in regard to the “canonical effects” of the valid marriage (see c. 1161.1-2 in the 83 Code).

Dan