Should I need to convalidate my marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Baho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You do not need to convalidate. Talk to your pastor or give a call to your local Catholic chancery (tribunal office) and have them talk with the deacon.

Mother Therese, OCV, JCL
Specializing in theology and law of consecrated life.
This communication does not establish a canon lawyer-client relationship.
 
I liked the way the priest treated me in accordance to my own will and forgave me my trespasses of marrying without sacrament in the church and let me move forward in full participation of the church. It was not my priest that disappointed me but my husband.
 
Hahaha… I was thinking the same thing. One of my supervising deacons admitted that they did not receive 1/10th the training we did in canon law (which wasn’t a ton).
 
I had a long discussion with my deacon (who I actually like and respect, I’m not griping about him) and he is going to elevate it to a tribunal vicar.
 
1ke said:
40.png
mary77:
He pardoned me from not being married in the church and that was it.
Click to expand...
Ok, given your explanation of both being Catholics when you married civilly, then this is a problem. If you did not convalidate your marriage by exchanging vows in the Catholic form or ask for a radical sanation (which means making your marriage valid without a new exchange of consent) then you are not validly married.

Your priest gave you terrible guidance.

Please go talk to your current pastor.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that the priest sought radical sanation without telling her because she wanted to be married in the Church?
 
I know it’s possible for a sanation to take place without the couples’ knowledge in some cases. Not sure if this is one of those cases.
 
You can contact the Chancery office at the Diocese, arrange a meeting with your pastor and someone from the Diocese. Help clear up the Deacon’s confusion.
 
edward_george1 said:
No. Both parties at least have to sign some paperwork.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I know that it can be done without either party knowing but I assume that would be if the priest failed to obtain the proper dispensation for disparity of cult or violated the local laws in effect (like celebrating a wedding at a time not legally allowed in England).
 
Your marriage was valid even when you were not Catholic. However it was a natural and not a sacramental marriage. Convalidating it would be just making it a sacramental marriage
 
I just got a response from my Deacon. He raised the issue to the Tribunal Vicar who has a PhD in Canon Law and the final verdict is that since my wife was baptized (protestant) at the time of the wedding but I was not and the wedding was outside of even my wife’s church, convalidation will be necessary. So that’s that.
 
Baho said:
I just got a response from my Deacon. He raised the issue to the Tribunal Vicar who has a PhD in Canon Law and the final verdict is that since my wife was baptized (protestant) at the time of the wedding but I was not and the wedding was outside of even my wife’s church, convalidation will be necessary. So that’s that.
Click to expand...
That is SO frustrating because it simply isn’t true.

From Dignitas Connubii:

1o in regard to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the celebration of the marriage, art. 2, § 2 is to be observed;

2o in regard to the form of celebration of marriage, the Church recognizes any form prescribed or accepted in the Church or ecclesial community to which the parties belonged at the time of the marriage, provided that, if at least one party is a member of a non-Catholic Eastern Church, the marriage was celebrated with a sacred rite.

§ 2. Whenever an ecclesiastical judge must decide about the nullity of a marriage contracted by two unbaptized persons:

1o the cause of nullity is heard according to canonical procedural law;

2o however, the question of the nullity of the marriage is decided, without prejudice to divine law, according to the law by which the parties were bound at the time of the marriage.

There isn’t a single Protestant Church that doesn’t accept civil marriage.
 
Last edited:
The judicial vicar??? I’m flabbergasted.

Surely he didn’t get his degree in canon law out of a Cracker Jack box?
 
Last edited:
Baho said:
I just got a response from my Deacon. He raised the issue to the Tribunal Vicar who has a PhD in Canon Law and the final verdict is that since my wife was baptized (protestant) at the time of the wedding but I was not and the wedding was outside of even my wife’s church, convalidation will be necessary. So that’s that.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt a canon lawyer would give this advice. As a canon lawyer myself I wouldn’t believe it without seeing the canon he is using to justify this. (It doesn’t exist)
 
No, the vicar of a tribunal would be a judicial vicar. Presumably he’d have a degree in canon law, but there’s no way a responsible canonist would say that this situation was invalid unless the vows were looney, in which case a formal case would have to be opened to investigate.
 
Last edited:
SerraSemper said:
I seriously doubt a canon lawyer would give this advice. As a canon lawyer myself I wouldn’t believe it without seeing the canon he is using to justify this. (It doesn’t exist)
Click to expand...
Exactly. Something is VERY wrong in this situation.

I personally wouldn’t let it go, because if my marriage was valid I would not stand up and say it wasn’t by doing a new exchange of consent.

Might be time to get help from someone like https://stjosephcanonlaw.com/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top