Request for radical sanation denied

[Phemie]

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

It seems that Dr. Peters doesn’t translate that canon in the same way as commentators of the day.

From the July 1918 “THE NEW CANON LAW – A Commentary and Summary of the New Code of Canon Law by Rev. STANISLAUS WOYWOD, O.F.M. With a Preface by Right Rev. Mgr. PHILIP BERNARDINI, J.U.D. Professor of Canon Law at the Catholic University, Washington”

§ 2. Matrimonium vero contractum cum impedimento iuris naturalis vel divini, etiamsi postea impedimentum cessaverit, Ecclesia non sanat in radice, ne a momento quidem cessationis impedimenti. 982. (…)Marriage contracted under an impediment of the natural or the Divine law is not validated by the Church by means of the sanatio in radice, though the impediment should have ceased afterwards, not even from the moment of the cessation of the impediment. (Canon 1139.).

 

[dans0622]

It seems that Dr. Peters doesn’t translate that canon in the same way as commentators of the day.

…

Well, I am not competent to critically examine one translation compared to another: the meaning of “etiamsi” seems to be the point of contention. The Church *did *grant a sanation in such a circumstance (impediment of prior bond, now ceased). So, perhaps that is why Dr. Peters translated it the way he did. That’s about all I can say about that.

The important point, though, is that the 1983 Code is perfectly clear about this question. Actually, I re-read the Hawaii policy and it is not as wrong as I thought. It is correct that the *Bishop *cannot grant a sanation in this circumstance–it can only come from the Apostolic See (c. 1165.2). Someday, I’ll learn to read.

Dan

 

[Vico]

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?

It can be retroactive from the moment the consent became valid. A divine impediment includes lack of consent: lifelong, exclusive, and granting or proper conjugal relations. If a person marries and it is then annulled due to lack of consent, then retroactive is not applicable. If the original consent was good, then there was some other reason of the annulment and that condition would have to cease. The second marriage could have some bearing on consent also and there would be two consents given. Were either of them valid?

CICCan. 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.

§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.

Can. 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.

§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.

 

[BettyBoop416]

Gotta watch out for anyone displaying kindness and warmheartedness.

Wow what horrible things to say about Mormons. I don’t agree with their theology but I can’t imagine being Mormon and reading this. No wonder our faith is going down in numbers.

Huh?

 

[Irishgal49]

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.

I married a Jewish man thinking “Love conquers all” well it didn’t. I lost my faith and she’s wrong, it’s not worth it at all. Five years after getting married in a civil ceremony and keeping a kosher home (and totally losing my faith) I ended up divorced and alone and out of the Church. Thankfully I could come back and my annulment was approved. I will never ever marry outside the Church again. When God isn’t the center of the marriage there is no marriage.

 

[m1dsummoner]

I have to say, IrishGal & BettyBoop, you two are my favs.
I had no idea my question would glean so many responses! And canonical arguments!
I also have to say, the Episcopalians have been very welcoming to me. I love the windows that God opens when a door slams in your face…and sometimes…they have cookies.
peace