Sacrament of Marriage Vs. Convalidation

[Phemie]

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 much as you are trying to be charitable, I’m afraid you are in error.

An illicit marriage would be one where a priest failed to obtain the bishop’s permission for a Catholic to marry a baptized Christian in the Church, a mixed marriage without permission. It would be valid, it would be sacramental but it would be illicit.

A Catholic who marries outside the Church without a dispensation, even if he marries a baptized Christian, is in an invalid marriage and such a marriage cannot be sacramental.

A convalidation will make the marriage both valid and sacramental, from the moment of the convalidation, whether it’s a simple convalidation or a radical sanation. The canonical effects (inheritance rights, etc) of a radical sanation are retroactive, but not the validity of the marriage.

 

[Vico]

… it was a sacramental marriage, as any marriage is between two christians of any demoniation. …

FAB, if one is a Catholic (and not formally defected 1983-2010 only) then they must marry according to the marriage canons of the Catholic Church or it is not matrimony and it is not a sacrament (even when both are validly baptised), it would be a civil marriage. I thought he said he was a baptised Catholic.

 

[1ke]

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.

Yes, this is correct. This is the diocesan policy in most places.

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.

Yes, premarital preparation is required by canon law, but the Bishop does decide how it is implemented.

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.

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?

If it’s already been convalidated, I do not see how it can then be sanated. But, follow the advice of your canon lawyer and I wish you well.

 

[1ke]

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.

I didn’t make an uncharitable remark to you. I truly **don’t understand **what your issue is and I was trying to understand what that issue is so I could continue the discussion with you. So, if you can articulate what the issue is, then we can continue the discussion. If all you can do is state that your feelings are hurt then we won’t get anywhere.

When something hurts it just hurts. Please refrain from your unchariable responses if you can’t answer the question.

I’d be happy to answer your question, if I knew what is was. But I don’t. I have no clue what your issue is. Which is why I asked.

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.

Cover up what? Huh? You’ve totally lost me. I don’t know what your issue is, so if you can somehow articulate it I’ll be happy to talk about 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?

Lying? That implies intent to deceive, malice. Or maybe mistaken? Most parish priests are not canon lawyers, not trained in very complex marriage issues. They should defer to the diocese, but if they don’t I can see how a person could get bad information.

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.

It makes your marriage look like a “sham” to who? I don’t understand. Your marriage isn’t a sham. It’s valid.

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.

I didn’t say any of these things. I said I didn’t understand what your issue was, and I still don’t.

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

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.

I have no idea why you bleieve canon laws were designed to “hurt unsuspecting bystanders.” Can you articulate something on this topic that would explain your view?

 

[1ke]

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.

FAB, this isn’t entirely accurate. The Church did not consider this a valid, illicit marriage. It considers a marriage that lacks form to be invalid until such time as consent is exchanged in valid form (convalidation).

 

[Vico]

Yes, this is correct. This is the diocesan policy in most places.

Yes, premarital preparation is required by canon law, but the Bishop does decide how it is implemented.

If it’s already been convalidated, I do not see how it can then be sanated. But, follow the advice of your canon lawyer and I wish you well.

There is such as thing as an invalid convalidation. See CIC canons 1156-1165.

 

[FAB]

FAB, this isn’t entirely accurate. The Church did not consider this a valid, illicit marriage. It considers a marriage that lacks form to be invalid until such time as consent is exchanged in valid form (convalidation).

Thank you, but the marrage was not invalid.
canon 1617 two baptized Christian the marrige is automaticly sacramental.
Since the marrage lacked canonical form, which could have been resolved at the time of the marrage by asking for permission from the bishop,
Cannons 1633-1637 if a marrige is between a catholic and non catholic and permission has not been secured from the bishop, the marraige is valid but illicet.

bottom line, the man and wife had been living in a valid sacramental marrage based on the fact that they are both baptized Christans.
This assumes that there were no previous marriages that had not been annuled in which case the marrage would be invalid.

 

[1ke]

There is such as thing as an invalid convalidation.

There has been no indication that the convalidation is invalid.

 

[PbloPicasso]

I didn’t make an uncharitable remark to you. I truly **don’t understand **what your issue is and I was trying to understand what that issue is so I could continue the discussion with you. So, if you can articulate what the issue is, then we can continue the discussion. If all you can do is state that your feelings are hurt then we won’t get anywhere.

I’d be happy to answer your question, if I knew what is was. But I don’t. I have no clue what your issue is. Which is why I asked.

Cover up what? Huh? You’ve totally lost me. I don’t know what your issue is, so if you can somehow articulate it I’ll be happy to talk about it.

Lying? That implies intent to deceive, malice. Or maybe mistaken? Most parish priests are not canon lawyers, not trained in very complex marriage issues. They should defer to the diocese, but if they don’t I can see how a person could get bad information.

It makes your marriage look like a “sham” to who? I don’t understand. Your marriage isn’t a sham. It’s valid.

I didn’t say any of these things. I said I didn’t understand what your issue was, and I still don’t.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have no idea why you bleieve canon laws were designed to “hurt unsuspecting bystanders.” Can you articulate something on this topic that would explain your view?

Guess I should have taken you words literally at face value. I thought you were being snippedy. I apologize.

I don’t mean to convey that I believe canon law is designed to hurt people. I simply believe you don’t understand why this hurts the feelings of Protestants that marry Catholics. It only builds up a wall against the Catholic Church and possibly closes the door to conversion when the Catholic spouse goes in for convalidation. My wife’s feelings were hurt pretty bad at first. Now she doesn’t let it bother her. However, she believes the false answers given us after the process. She was convinced that the convalidation made our marriage valid from the very first day we married in her church. I defected back then and joined her church, but it was never done officially per Catholic requirements, changed only in recent years.

What you’ve said actually reaffirms what I already believed. But at the same time it sadly disheartens me that priests feel the need to lie to me about it. I don’t get that.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

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.

I understand where you are coming from. I was married to my husband for 22+ years before I realized that we should have been married in the Catholic Church instead of my husbands Protestant Church. No one ever told us…that along with many other things. It hurt to think that a marriage I started 22+ years ago in a church…before God…would not be valid. But we had our marriage convalidated. I look at it as a completion of our marriage. Not simply starting over.

I hope you can find peace with it.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Guess I should have taken you words literally at face value. I thought you were being snippedy. I apologize.

I don’t mean to convey that I believe canon law is designed to hurt people. I simply believe you don’t understand why this hurts the feelings of Protestants that marry Catholics. It only builds up a wall against the Catholic Church and possibly closes the door to conversion when the Catholic spouse goes in for convalidation. My wife’s feelings were hurt pretty bad at first. Now she doesn’t let it bother her. However, she believes the false answers given us after the process. She was convinced that the convalidation made our marriage valid from the very first day we married in her church. I defected back then and joined her church, but it was never done officially per Catholic requirements, changed only in recent years.

What you’ve said actually reaffirms what I already believed. But at the same time it sadly disheartens me that priests feel the need to lie to me about it. I don’t get that.

I don’t know if they lie…or just don’t know. Canon Law can be messy to wade through. We asked several people including some here at Catholic Answers…and never got a clear answer…I wanted to know what was considered defection from the faith back when I got married. It was after we got our marriage convalidated that I finally thought to ask Jimmy Aiken. Basic answer was that back then…my getting baptized at the Protestant church…was a formal defection from the Church. Therefore our marriage was between two Protestants in that church…and therefore valid. But I’m not going to go back and undue our convalidation. What matters is moving forward…and the fact that God knows what is in our hearts.

But it is confusing so you may get several different answers from different people…I don’t know that they mean to mislead you.

 

[Vico]

There has been no indication that the convalidation is invalid.

The question I respond to is: “If it’s already been convalidated, I do not see how it can then be sanated.”

So, it is was an invalid convalidation, it could be retroactively validated. However, retroactive validation can include dispensations and permissions, and also be used to correct mistakes, such as when the priest or deacon forgets to secure a needed dispensation from disparity of cult, or when the priest or deacon did not receive proper delegation to assist at the marriage.

 

[Phemie]

Thank you, but the marrage was not invalid.
canon 1617 two baptized Christian the marrige is automaticly sacramental.
Since the marrage lacked canonical form, which could have been resolved at the time of the marrage by asking for permission from the bishop,
Cannons 1633-1637 if a marrige is between a catholic and non catholic and permission has not been secured from the bishop, the marraige is valid but illicet.

bottom line, the man and wife had been living in a valid sacramental marrage based on the fact that they are both baptized Christans.
This assumes that there were no previous marriages that had not been annuled in which case the marrage would be invalid.

A marriage between two baptized Christians is at automatically sacramental but the Church says that a Catholic who marries with lack of canonical form is not married.

 

[Phemie]

Thank you, but the marrage was not invalid.
canon 1617 two baptized Christian the marrige is automaticly sacramental.
Since the marrage lacked canonical form, which could have been resolved at the time of the marrage by asking for permission from the bishop,
Cannons 1633-1637 if a marrige is between a catholic and non catholic and permission has not been secured from the bishop, the marraige is valid but illicet.

bottom line, the man and wife had been living in a valid sacramental marrage based on the fact that they are both baptized Christans.
This assumes that there were no previous marriages that had not been annuled in which case the marrage would be invalid.

Sorry to reply twice but I hit submit reply by mistake.

The canons you quote must be read in light of

*Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in

cann. ⇒ 144, (This one is about ‘the Church provides’ in cases of legal errors – doesn’t apply here since the Church wasn’t involved.)
⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, (These deal with cases where the bishop appoints a lay person to officiate at a wedding due to a lack of priest or deacon. Doesn’t apply here.)
and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.* (This one is about dispensation from form – something they didn’t bother to get.)

Since none of the exceptions apply in the case being discussed, the marriage is not valid and thus not sacramental.

 

[FAB]

Sorry to reply twice but I hit submit reply by mistake.

The canons you quote must be read in light of

*Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in

cann. ⇒* 144, (This one is about ‘the Church provides’ in cases of legal errors – doesn’t apply here since the Church wasn’t involved.)
⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, (These deal with cases where the bishop appoints a lay person to officiate at a wedding due to a lack of priest or deacon. Doesn’t apply here.)
and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2. (This one is about dispensation from form – something they didn’t bother to get.)

Since none of the exceptions apply in the case being discussed, the marriage is not valid and thus not sacramental.

The Canons I quote come from a canon layer who works with these issues daily. The marriage was valid. Confusion in these issues is understandable. The section you are quoting, I believe applies to two Catholics who are being married.

 

[Phemie]

The Canons I quote come from a canon layer who works with these issues daily. The marriage was valid. Confusion in these issues is understandable. The section you are quoting, I believe applies to two Catholics who are being married.

No, it applies to any one Catholic getting married. He/She can only contract a valid marriage in the canonical form which canon 1108 defines. A Catholic who marries without canonical form without a dispensation is not in a valid marriage. If the marriage were valid, a convalidation (making a ‘legal’ marriage a ‘valid’ marriage) wouldn’t be necessary.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

If it’s already been convalidated, I do not see how it can then be sanated. But, follow the advice of your canon lawyer and I wish you well.

To clarify-
while discussing with my priest convalidating our marriage, after hearing all of the facts, he decided that what we really needed was a radical sanation.

So our marriage was not convalidated. We are waiting on the “radical sanation” paperwork to go through the Bishop’s office, and hopefully, in the next couple of weeks our marriage will be “sanated”.

 

[FAB]

No, it applies to any one Catholic getting married. He/She can only contract a valid marriage in the canonical form which canon 1108 defines. A Catholic who marries without canonical form without a dispensation is not in a valid marriage. If the marriage were valid, a convalidation (making a ‘legal’ marriage a ‘valid’ marriage) wouldn’t be necessary.

I have double checked and I am going to have to stand by what I indicated previously.

 

[Phemie]

I have double checked and I am going to have to stand by what I indicated previously.

As you wish.

But consider this, a Catholic who marries with lack of canonical form and then divorces does not require a decree of nullity to be married ‘again’ in the Catholic Church. If, in fact, the marriage were valid, that person would require an annulment and such is not the case.

 

[1ke]

Guess I should have taken you words literally at face value. I thought you were being snippedy. I apologize.

I don’t mean to convey that I believe canon law is designed to hurt people. I simply believe you don’t understand why this hurts the feelings of Protestants that marry Catholics. It only builds up a wall against the Catholic Church and possibly closes the door to conversion when the Catholic spouse goes in for convalidation. My wife’s feelings were hurt pretty bad at first. Now she doesn’t let it bother her. However, she believes the false answers given us after the process. She was convinced that the convalidation made our marriage valid from the very first day we married in her church. I defected back then and joined her church, but it was never done officially per Catholic requirements, changed only in recent years.

Ah, I understand now. Thank you.

What you’ve said actually reaffirms what I already believed. But at the same time it sadly disheartens me that priests feel the need to lie to me about it. I don’t get that.

I don’t know the priests involved, so I cannot say, but I would tend towards them being honestly mistaken about convalidation rather than lieing to you. If they are like some other priests I know, they honestly think that is the case, they don’t understand sanation versus convalidation. They don’t deal with this too much.