Sacrament of Marriage Vs. Convalidation

[MercyMomma87]

Ok. So I would love (name removed by moderator)ut and advice on what to do about a friend of mine. I have friend who both she and her husband are Catholic but decided to get married civilly out of convenience to live together. From what I understood, since their marriage is not blessed by the Church they are living in sin until it is convalidated by the Church. Is this correct? If so, how would you recommend approaching them about this? Also, they plan on convalidating their marriage in a few months, however the wife who is planning the specifics of the event claims that it is a “wedding” to others, posts this on facebook, makes a wedding website, will having a wedding party, etc. I do not think this is a true “wedding” since they are already married. I am a bit frustrated that she is proclaiming that she is getting married and having a “wedding” since to my understanding she already is married and is now trying to make the marriage valid in the eyes of the Church by retroactivating it. I know this is a matter of semantics, but I feel that her proclaimed “wedding” belittles couples who waited until their wedding day to live together and get married in the Church. What also irks me is that the wife is a RE teacher and partakes in the sacraments while knowingly lives in sin.

SO, that being said, my question is: Am I correct in my understanding of Church teaching? If so, what should I do? I don’t want to sit idle while they make a mockery of the Marriage Vocation by manipulating the sacrament, but I also want to be charitable in how I approach them. Any insight and advice, catechism quotes, etc would be GREATLY appreciated!

Pax+,
MercyMomma

 

[1ke]

From what I understood, since their marriage is not blessed by the Church they are living in sin until it is convalidated by the Church. Is this correct?

Yes. They are in an invalid marriage and committing a grave sin against the sixth commandment.

If so, how would you recommend approaching them about this? Also, they plan on convalidating their marriage in a few months, however the wife who is planning the specifics of the event claims that it is a “wedding” to others, posts this on facebook, makes a wedding website, will having a wedding party, etc. I do not think this is a true “wedding” since they are already married.

Well, it is a true wedding because she is not currently married.

I am a bit frustrated that she is proclaiming that she is getting married and having a “wedding” since to my understanding she already is married and is now trying to make the marriage valid in the eyes of the Church by retroactivating it.

Convalidation is the exchange of consent. It creates a valid marriage. Radical sanation is retroactive. Convalidation is not.

I know this is a matter of semantics, but I feel that her proclaimed “wedding” belittles couples who waited until their wedding day to live together and get married in the Church. What also irks me is that the wife is a RE teacher and partakes in the sacraments while knowingly lives in sin.

Her pastor has been very remiss in his dealings with her. And, yes, typically a convalidation is a much lower key event than a wedding between those who did not choose to disregard Church teaching and law on marriage, but there isn’t anything that prohibits a full-on Knot-style wedding-- except the pastor.

SO, that being said, my question is: Am I correct in my understanding of Church teaching?

Not really.

If so, what should I do?

Decide whether or not you will attend the gift-grab.

I don’t want to sit idle while they make a mockery of the Marriage Vocation by manipulating the sacrament, but I also want to be charitable in how I approach them. Any insight and advice, catechism quotes, etc would be GREATLY appreciated!

That’s really for their priest to do. Just be thankful they plan to rectify the situation at all.

Pray for them.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Based on the information given to me regarding my own marriage,
this couple is not sacramentally married, although the state says they are, the Church does not.
I was in the same situation, and was told that because we married in a civil ceremony, without the proprer dispensation from the Chrurch, we would indeed have to be “married”, using the Rite of Marriage (with or without the Celebration of the Eucharist), and that a “simple convalidation” was not the remedy to our situation.

So in that regard, the person you are referring to is correct- she is having a wedding. I do agree that it seems a little odd to be making the ceremony into a big event, but that, I guess is up to the couple, and the priest who is going to perform the ceremony.

 

[FAB]

A convalidation will make the civil marriage sacramental.
Support you friends in proceeding with it. Usually a convalidation is not the extavagansa of a first time marrage, but certainly a time for celebration.

 

[MercyMomma87]

I guess my frustration is that, while I am grateful that they are convaildating their marriage, they intentionally got married legally this way. Both were practicing/educated members of the Church prior to getting married legally, and fully consented to diminish Christ in their lives by consenting to a civil marriage. They knowingly, willfully, and intentionally decided to not participate in sacramental living out of convenience. I guess you could say I’m frustrated, but more so I am saddened that they would cheapen their relationship with God because their couldn’t wait. And to some extent I feel that since they were poorly guided by their parish priest to do so, they will continue the poor catechisis by educating others in RE.

 

[FAB]

I guess my frustration is that, while I am grateful that they are convaildating their marriage, they intentionally got married legally this way. Both were practicing/educated members of the Church prior to getting married legally, and fully consented to diminish Christ in their lives by consenting to a civil marriage. They knowingly, willfully, and intentionally decided to not participate in sacramental living out of convenience. I guess you could say I’m frustrated, but more so I am saddened that they would cheapen their relationship with God because their couldn’t wait. And to some extent I feel that since they were poorly guided by their parish priest to do so, they will continue the poor catechisis by educating others in RE.

Relationships with God are a personal. It is better to look at this as God calling them to do waht is right. God forgives, we are called to do the same, not to be judgemental, They may had made a decision for persaonal convience, but it should be celbrated that thay want things to be made right.

 

[Phemie]

I was in the same situation, and was told that because we married in a civil ceremony, without the proprer dispensation from the Chrurch, we would indeed have to be “married”, using the Rite of Marriage (with or without the Celebration of the Eucharist), and that a “simple convalidation” was not the remedy to our situation.

If you spoke your vows again in the Church, that was a “simple convalidation”, as opposed to a “radical sanation” which doesn’t involve repeating the vows.

 

[1ke]

I was in the same situation, and was told that because we married in a civil ceremony, without the proprer dispensation from the Chrurch, we would indeed have to be “married”, using the Rite of Marriage (with or without the Celebration of the Eucharist), and that a “simple convalidation” was not the remedy to our situation.

I don’t know who told you this, because it isn’t accurate.

What you had was a simple convalidation. The Rite of Marriage is used in a simple convalidation.

The other way an invalid marriage becomes valid is through a radical sanation. Sanation is a convalidation that does not include a new exchange of consent.

 

[Vico]

… I am a bit frustrated that she is proclaiming that she is getting married and having a “wedding” since to my understanding she already is married and is now trying to make the marriage valid in the eyes of the Church by retroactivating it…

There are two kinds of validation, simple (with new consent) and retroactive (using perduing consent), both are sacramental only from the moment they are granted; retroactivity is only in canonical effects, not sacramental effect.

Can. 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.

Can. 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. §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.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Ike, Why is a radical senation retroactive and a convalidation not?

There must be a reason. I wanted to do a radical sanation before being manipulated into a convalidation. I was told that a convalidation was better. If this is the case, then why isn’t it also retroactive?

 

[1ke]

Ike, Why is a radical senation retroactive and a convalidation not?

Simple convalidation involves a new exchange of consent and that is the point at which the marriage becomes valid.

Radical sanation is a convalidation in which the bishop accepts the original exchange of consent as valid.

I was told that a convalidation was better.

It isn’t a matter of one being better than the other. Which is appropriate depends upon the particular facts of the situation. Sanation is not an option in every case.

If this is the case, then why isn’t it also retroactive?

Because by definition it is the giving of new consent making the marriage valid at the time of the consent.

 

[Vico]

Ike, Why is a radical senation retroactive and a convalidation not?

There must be a reason. I wanted to do a radical sanation before being manipulated into a convalidation. I was told that a convalidation was better. If this is the case, then why isn’t it also retroactive?

Retroactive is used when 1) the priest has not obtained proper dispensations or approvals (and so the couple does not need to be informed of it) or 2) one party will not cooperate in having the marriage convalidated through a ceremony, or 3) it is not agreed to that the marriage is a new marriage.

It is better to have the ceremony with new consent. It is not retroactive because that extends to the moment of the consent that is used, so new consent is “now” and retroactive consent is “then”.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Simple convalidation involves a new exchange of consent and that is the point at which the marriage becomes valid.

Radical sanation is a convalidation in which the bishop accepts the original exchange of consent as valid.

It isn’t a matter of one being better than the other. Which is appropriate depends upon the particular facts of the situation. Sanation is not an option in every case.

Because by definition it is the giving of new consent making the marriage valid at the time of the consent.

I understand the terms now, yet, it seems to be a blow below the belt because my wife was not Catholic and now her marriage is only recognized by the Church since the convalidation. It also feels sleazy (dirty) in that we had children before this point. My reasons were actually just in that I had no safe place to turn during my time and I also received bad advice from a priest. I feel sick about the whole thing and the priest that did the convalidation told me that "he felt we needed a sacramental blessing. My wife’s family is anti-Catholic. Getting married to her according to Catholic rites would not have been possible back then. Her daddy was an elder and would never have approved. Her mom believes we are pagans now.

 

[1ke]

I understand the terms now, yet, it seems to be a blow below the belt because my wife was not Catholic and now her marriage is only recognized by the Church since the convalidation. It also feels sleazy (dirty) in that we had children before this point. My reasons were actually just in that I had no safe place to turn during my time and I also received bad advice from a priest. I feel sick about the whole thing and the priest that did the convalidation told me that "he felt we needed a sacramental blessing. My wife’s family is anti-Catholic. Getting married to her according to Catholic rites would not have been possible back then. Her daddy was an elder and would never have approved. Her mom believes we are pagans now.

I don’t really understand what your issue is.

Your marriage is valid. Be at peace.

 

[Vico]

PbloPicasso,

The sacramental marriage would begin at your validation date regardless of which type of validation, but the children are legitimate with both types!

Either type of validation would result in the marriage beginning at the grant of the validation by the Church, not in the past.

Retro:

For retroactive canonical effects which could be referred back to the moment the marriage was celebrated are, e.g., filiation, financial regime, the right of inheritance, unless it is otherwise expressly provided. An example is that children conceived or born before the retroactive validation are considered legitimate (Can.1137). *

Simple:

Those conceived or born before a simple validation are considered illegitimate before the simple validation but are legitimated by it (Can.1139). *

Yet canonically, legitimated children are equivalent to legitimate children in all ways, unless it is otherwise expressly provided by law (Can.1140). *

• intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P42.HTM

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I don’t know who told you this, because it isn’t accurate.

What you had was a simple convalidation. The Rite of Marriage is used in a simple convalidation.

The other way an invalid marriage becomes valid is through a radical sanation. Sanation is a convalidation that does not include a new exchange of consent.

I was told by the priest who is helping me with this, who is a Canon lawyer, that in my diocese, in order to have our marriage “convalidated”, we would have to go through the same process as any other couple who wants to be married in the Church, including all pre-Cana requirements, even though husband & I have been married over 20 years.
I know of others who were married outside the Church, but still in some type of Christian ceremony (mainly “fallen-away Catholics” & mixed religion couples), who did not have to do this, and had their marriages “convalidated” with little or no preperataion at all.
So maybe this is something that it left to the local Ordinary to decide.

In talking with said Priest about this, the reason why my husband & I were not married in the Church, especially since we were both Catholic at the time, has shed much new light on the situation and we are now in the process of “radical sanation”. To make a long story very short, our rights, according to canon law were violated at the time of our marriage, and we were not given prudent or pastoral advice from either of the parishes we were attached to at the time.

Retroactive is used when 1) the priest has not obtained proper dispensations or approvals (and so the couple does not need to be informed of it) or 2) one party will not cooperate in having the marriage convalidated through a ceremony, or 3) it is not agreed to that the marriage is a new marriage.

It is better to have the ceremony with new consent. It is not retroactive because that extends to the moment of the consent that is used, so new consent is “now” and retroactive consent is “then”.

I must disagree with you regarding my bolded portion, as I do not believe it is “better”. In my case, as I see it, “radical sanation” is the better option because my husband & I believed that our marriage was sacramental, it was the Church that denied us.
Why should we be penalized for the sins of others who should have known better?

 

[Vico]

…
I must disagree with you regarding my bolded portion, as I do not believe it is “better”. In my case, as I see it, “radical sanation” is the better option because my husband & I believed that our marriage was sacramental, it was the Church that denied us.
Why should we be penalized for the sins of others who should have known better?

Of course there are different situations indicating simple and retroactive validations. I meant that it was better for PbloPicasso, for when new consent is given it is generally less likely to be an invalid convalidation.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I don’t really understand what your issue is.

Your marriage is valid. Be at peace.

This is a very uncharitable thing to say in my opinion and it lacks sensitivity. Catholics do not understand how scandalous this looks to Protestants. Not having a better way of doing things just hurts people’s reputations that are trying. Killing the messenger doesn’t help the matter, yet historically its happened throughout history.

You obviously don’t have a positive response/defense of such a canon law and therefore resorted to an uncharitable remark to me. That’s like telling a woman who’s child just died that didn’t get baptized and saying to her after you’ve explained that the teaching about “limbo” isn’t necessarily true and that they should be at peace.

When something hurts it just hurts. Please refrain from your unchariable responses if you can’t answer the question. It solves nothing and comes across as if you’re trying to cover up something that is obviously bazaar to those of us who do have issues with it. I’ve been lied about this so many times I don’t know who to trust anymore. The lying has been done by priests that have told me my marriage was valid but not sacramental. I was told that convalidation also recognizes the marriage to the beginning. When will they stop lying? So you darn tooten I’m upset and I have every right to be upset about this just for that reason. I was not given an option. It makes my marriage look like a joke and that insults me and my wife. She spent months crying over it. So you better get on your taco and get out of town… I’m tired of my messing around with my burrito.

To say it doesn’t hurt or shouldn’t hurt is way over the top insensitive when you’ve walked in my shoes and was raised the way I was raised. Just because you can’t relate doesn’t make my issue any less important to me. it’s not like I’m supporting homosexuality and stuff like that. Yet if I said something against that you’d probably defend it like most Catholics have in my past and present. Why do you think I left the seminary in the first place? It wasn’t because I didn’t feel called to the priesthood. It was because practicing homosexuals were trying to convert me to their way and the administration consisting of religious monks and priests did nothing to stop it until after I left - and that only many years later.

So be off with your snotty remarks and deal with the outfall of uncharitable or unwise canon laws that seem to be designed to hurt unsuspecting bystanders. It’s an issue to me, so deal with it.

 

[FAB]

I understand the terms now, yet, it seems to be a blow below the belt because my wife was not Catholic and now her marriage is only recognized by the Church since the convalidation. It also feels sleazy (dirty) in that we had children before this point. My reasons were actually just in that I had no safe place to turn during my time and I also received bad advice from a priest. I feel sick about the whole thing and the priest that did the convalidation told me that "he felt we needed a sacramental blessing. My wife’s family is anti-Catholic. Getting married to her according to Catholic rites would not have been possible back then. Her daddy was an elder and would never have approved. Her mom believes we are pagans now.

I’m with Ike, a bit confused about your post.
When you were were married originally. it was a sacramental marriage, as any marriage is between two christians of any demoniation. The issue comes from not being married within the Church for you as a Catholic. Even thought the marrage is considered sacramental it is was also considered illicit for you, not your wife, since you did not follow the norms of the Church, as a Catholic to be married. It was still considered a valid marrage. the convalidation made things right with you and the Church.

As far as your wifes family, that’s always difficult to hear. The attitude normally comes from deep seeded misuderstanding of scripture, the Church and what it means to be a follower of Christ. It will no doubt take generations to eliminate these fellings. The best way is for each of to lead a Christ centered life.

 

[puzzleannie]

? Also, they plan on convalidating their marriage in a few months, however the wife who is planning the specifics of the event claims that it is a “wedding” to others, posts this on facebook, makes a wedding website, will having a wedding party, etc. I do not think this is a true “wedding” since they are already married. I MercyMomma

you can’t have it both ways
you understand correctly that when a Catholic attempts civil marriage without following Church laws on marriage, he is not validly married. The step taken to rectify that situation with the Church is called convalidation, so yes this will be the first time they celebrate the sacrament of matrimony. There may be questions of good taste involved in how elaborate this new ceremony will be, but there is no doubt in the mind of the Church. This will be the actual wedding.

sorry I did not realize we were already off topic

returning to the original topic

I guess my frustration is that, while I am grateful that they are convaildating their marriage, they intentionally got married legally this way. Both were practicing/educated members of the Church prior to getting married legally, and fully consented to diminish Christ in their lives by consenting to a civil marriage. They knowingly, willfully, and intentionally decided to not participate in sacramental living out of convenience. I guess you could say I’m frustrated, but more so I am saddened that they would cheapen their relationship with God because their couldn’t wait. And to some extent I feel that since they were poorly guided by their parish priest to do so, they will continue the poor catechisis by educating others in RE.

yes such situations may appear this way, but here is rule no. 1 when considering the marriage of other people–we do not know what their attitude was at the time, what was in their minds, hearts and souls. That is why the canon law status of a marriage in question has to be investigated, because appearances do not tell the whole story.

You asked what should we do, that is the friends and family. My suggestion is to rejoice that whatever they did wrong in the past, based on willful ignorance, or bad catechesis or whatever, they are now taking positive steps to make things right, and moreover, celebrating a sacrament of the Church. Focus on the positive and encouraging them to do what it takes to make it happen.

Trust the priest overseeing their marriage preparation to remedy gaps in their religious education on the topic. Unless they ask for your (name removed by moderator)ut, it will probably be unwelcome, and not particularly helpful because of the negativity they may perceive.