Should I need to convalidate my marriage?

[SerraSemper]

I wonder if the deacon actually consulted the JV or just pretended to. I’ve been lied to by church people who didn’t want to “bother” the “higher ups”… so this wouldn’t be a first time. Again, no responsible JV would presume a marriage invalid from the get go when it is between a protestant and an unbaptized person, recognized legally in their country…

 

[1ke]

I wonder if the deacon actually consulted the JV or just pretended to. Again, no responsible JV would presume a marriage invalid from the get go when it is between a protestant and an unbaptized person, recognized legally in their country…

That would be pretty terrible, but it did cross my mind too.

People make mistakes, but this— it’s a real puzzler.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The marriage needs no con validation. The natural marriage becomes Sacramental as soon as both are validly baptized.

 

[SerraSemper]

In response to the OP: there is no reason for you to “convalidate” without proof that your marriage was invalid, which you have given no reason to suspect to be the case. Nor are your children illegitimate.

 

[Baho]

What should I do? At this point my deacon has appealed to a higher authority and has been backed. I don’t want to ruin our relationship with our church before we’re even in it. His justification is that my wife was baptized so it should have been in a church. Frankly at this point my deacon seems frustrated. Its hard to argue “well I read online…”

 

[otjm]

The judicial vicar??? I’m flabbergasted.

Surely he didn’t get his degree in canon law out of a Cracker Jack box?

I can’t speak for Canon lawyers, but as to civil attorneys, put three in a room and you are likely to have 4 opinions on a matter.

Then, again, in the age of internet sales, maybe Cracker Jack has upped their “surprise”.

 

[otjm]

I wonder if the deacon actually consulted the JV or just pretended to.

Or another alternative, the deacon did not get the facts right to begin with.

 

[otjm]

Post 36 lays out the Canon law (I am going to presume - but 1ke knows far, far more than I do).

You can print off the text of post 36, and post 21 and suggest politely to the Deacon that perhaps something was mis-conveyed in his discussion with the judicial vicar.

Or you can celebrate a convalidation.

Once in a while, something can be wrong, people can be mistaken, in good faith. I can understand your feelings and do not suggest they are “wrong” - but it is your call as to which route you wish to take. You can take the matter up with the deacon as I note, and you may find that you might be wanting to be involved in another parish - or he may concede. People don’t like being told they are wrong, but some concede better than others.

You also could call the tribunal (and for heaven’s sake, don’t go in with “My deacon says”), and ask for their opinion, noting the Canon law sections as set out. If they give a different opinion than your deacon, you are walking into a battle.

Your call.

 

[Baho]

I’m at a point where I think my options are to shut up and get my marriage convalidated or to just not join the church at this time and join another. I will not entertain the idea that my kids were not born to validly married parents. Its probably the most offensive thing someone could assert to me.

 

[edward_george1]

Its probably the most offensive thing someone could assert to me.

It’s also an affront to the sacrament of marriage to make you repeat it when it’s not necessary.

 

[jlc2k2]

The RCIA coordinator cannot dictate how you celebrate and think of your original wedding date. I agree with everyone saying your original wedding was valid and requires no convalidation but this is to assure you that even if you proceed with a convalidation, you can continue to celebrate your original wedding date just the same now as you did before. If you were to receive a convalidation, you could also celebrate that day, make a small remark about it on the anniversary, or ignore it entirely. The Church does not dictate which dates we celebrate from our personal lives or how we do so.

I’m so sorry that you are getting such misinformation from the deacon and RCIA coordinator!

 

[otjm]

I understand your feelings - I have worked in RCIA for about 25 years, and marriage issues tend to be one of the likeliest to arouse anger.

When you refer to “join another” I would hope that you are referring to another parish, not some non-Catholic church.

No one - and I mean no one - can say your children are not legitimate; the Church does not say that and neither does the State (at least, in the US). The people who are working with you are not saying you were not legitimately married - or if they are, they are beyond ignorant on the matter.

They are saying your marriage is not sacramental. Major difference.

And as noted in the thread above, your baptism makes the marriage sacramental.

I understand your anger, but you are getting matters mixed up between a sacramental marriage, and a legal marriage.

Your RCIA coordinator is trying to explain that your marriage is now a sacrament - and may not be doing it very well, or may be running into your anger - and the anger is very understandable.

As your wife is joining the Church also, if I understand correctly, what does she want to do? And I am asking, not if she is willing to go along with whatever you decide - but what does she actually want to do? She, too, is part of this process.

 

[Baho]

Im find with the assertion that our marriage isn’t yet sacramental, but shouldn’t our confirmations make it so? It seems that my church doesn’t understand the difference between valid and sacramental. A convalidation validates, right? Its not necessary in our case, I don’t think. My wife does not want to do the convalidation as it asserts that our current marriage isn’t valid. We are fine with blessings, vow renewal, whatever else. Its just the assertion that our marriage isn’t valid that we can’t accept.

 

[1ke]

The people who are working with you are not saying you were not legitimately married - or if they are, they are beyond ignorant on the matter.

They are saying your marriage is not sacramental. Major difference.

No. That is exactly what they are saying: not valid. Requiring convalidation.

Convalidation has nothing to do with sacramentality.

I understand your anger, but you are getting matters mixed up between a sacramental marriage, and a legal marriage.

No he isnt. The OP is perfectly clear: his marriage is valid, and will become a sacrament when he is baptized (or already is a sacrament if he is now baptized).

Your RCIA coordinator is trying to explain that your marriage is now a sacrament - and may not be doing it very well, or may be running into your anger - and the anger is very understandable.

? Don’t know where you are getting that? The RCIA coordinator is wrongly asserting the OP must convalidate his marriage.

 

[1ke]

Im find with the assertion that our marriage isn’t yet sacramental, but shouldn’t our confirmations make it so?

Your baptism made it so.

If you are both baptized your marriage is a valid sacramental marriage. Joining the Church, getting confirmed, none of that changes the status of your marriage.

It seems that my church doesn’t understand the difference between valid and sacramental. A convalidation validates, right?

Yes. A convalidation is the exchange of consent (simple convalidation) Or the retroactive validation by an act of the bishop (radical sanation).

Not the case where you are concerned. Your marriage is already valid. It literally cannot be convalidated.

 

[otjm]

Confirmation is the gift of the Holy Spirit, and one of the three sacraments of initiation; and this Sunday is the feast of Pentecost, the first visible sign of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

No - baptism would be the sacrament which would make your marriage sacramental.

I understand the feelings, of both your wife and of you. I get it.

If neither of you wish to go through the convalidation, then it appears there are two alternatives.

One is to pursue the issue of Canon law - either through the use of the information in the posts above, or by finding a Canon lawyer (there should be more than one in the diocese; and the chancery can let you know who has the degree(s). You should not have to make a long explanation with the chancery as to why you are trying to contact a Canon lawyer.

The alternate to that is to show the deacon the posts above which set out the law.

The other alternative is to find another parish and approach the priest; you should not have to go through RCIA all over again.

God bless. If there is more you wish to discuss, you can PM me. Click on my icon and you can send me a message.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Maybe I should convalidate?

You cannot convalidate what is already valid.

Unless there is some big fact that is missing from these posts, the deacon and RCIA director need to be re-trained.

Why are you not speaking directly with your Priest? Also, do not be afraid to call the Diocese. They are not going to swoop in and give your Deacon grief. They are going to set things straight.

Heck, I once taught the Diocese’s head liturgist something about the ordination litergy he did not know. He thanked me for pointing it out to him.

 

[otjm]

No. That is exactly what they are saying: not valid. Requiring convalidation.

He directly spoke to the issue of the legitimacy of his children. I answered that; perhaps that was not clear.

No he isnt. The OP is perfectly clear: his marriage is valid, and will become a sacrament when he is baptized (or already is a sacrament if he is now baptized).

Again, perhaps I am not as adroit as you - but he is focused on the legitimacy of his marriage/children.

? Don’t know where you are getting that? The RCIA coordinator is wrongly asserting the OP must convalidate his marriage.

I was taking the deacon as the point of reference, presuming (unartfully) that the RCIA coordinator generally is less likely to know Canon law than I would presume a deacon should.

I suspect that you have forgotten more Canon law than I have known; I am not trying to question you or imply you are wrong. What I am trying to do is get matters calmed down; after 25 years +/- of being a team member in RCIA and having been a sponsor ten or more times, I have had the opportunity to work with angry people. I was sponsor to a man, previous member of a “bible” church, this year who also was more than a bit heated concerning his need for a convalidation. I spent something in the range of 1 1/2 to 2 hours working with him on the matter; I did not want to see him walk off. We got it resolved; their convalidation was 2 months ago and he was confirmed and made his first Communion Wednesday.

From the original post, it is not clear to me if Baho is baptized in a Protestant church or not yet baptized. In either case I agree with your assessment as stated in the law you laid out. The marriage is either already sacramental, or will be upon his baptism.

What would you propose he do next?

 

[Baho]

I’ve stated in the thread that I’ve been baptized. My wife was baptized as a teenager, we were married in '11 and I was baptized in '17. Both baptisms were in protestant churches. Im fine having my marriage blessed, but I don’t want it convalidated unnecessarily.

 

[1ke]

I answered that; perhaps that was not clear.

If a person is actually in an invalid marriage, the Church does not consider the children to be legitimate (but they become legitimate when the marriage becomes valid):

Can. 1137 The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.

Can. 1139 Illegitimate children are legitimated by the subsequent valid or putative marriage of their parents or by a rescript of the Holy See.

But the OP is in a valid marriage, so it’s moot.

What would you propose he do next?

Call the pastor and/or diocese himself.