Should I need to convalidate my marriage?

[JulianN]

The Coming Home Network is not an authoritative source – and in this case, they are completely wrong in their statement. The actual teaching of the Church is that a valid marriage where one or both of the parties is not baptized becomes sacramental when baptism occurs. And it does not need to be Catholic baptism.

It’s great that you had a good experience going through convalidation – but it does imply that your marriage was not valid in the Church until that time. In this case, there is no indication at all that this is not a valid marriage. Going through convalidation is akin to being rebaptized – it’s giving lie to the validity of the actual marriage or actual baptism.

 

[edward_george1]

If the decision of Church authority becomes that your marriage does need a convalidation, then I would go through those steps and do it.

The problem is that the authorities in this case are wrong, as has been pointed out by basically everyone on the thread, including a priest (me) and two canonists. It would be an affront to the sacrament of marriage to make them repeat it via a convalidation.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[stoplooklisten]

There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. You may be right according to the letter of the law but sometimes it is better to follow the spirit of the law.

When in doubt about eating meat, don’t eat meat (Romans 14)

When there are multiple doubts among multiple people about the valid status of a Catholic marriage, it may be better to resolve the doubts and convalidate. Yes, opinions may vary but you will need to follow the guidance of your local church authorities (deacons, priests, diocese).

 

[Irishmom2]

No, because what you are saying then is the spirit is more important than the law.

 

[1ke]

In itself, a convalidation says nothing about the prior validity of the marriage…

Uh, yes it does.

In a marriage where one or both parties are not validly baptized Christians, if one or both of the parties become Catholic, convalidation will be required.

This is 100% false.

Source: Coming Home Network

This entire article is full of completely inaccurate information.

It is not true that couple convalidate their marriage “just in case”. It is not true that unbaptized married people must convalidate their marriage. It is not true that non-Catholics with prior marriages that are declared null must convalidate their current marriage.

There couldn’t be MORE inaccurate statements in this one article if they tried.

The only thing actually true in that article: Catholics are bound by Catholic form.

UGH.

 

[JulianN]

There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. You may be right according to the letter of the law but sometimes it is better to follow the spirit of the law.

Yes, but this is asking someone to have a spirit of believing a lie.

 

[Horton]

There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. You may be right according to the letter of the law but sometimes it is better to follow the spirit of the law.

No No No No…… This is like saying a divorced and remarried Catholic can receive the Eucharist even if they didn’t bother to get the first marriage annulled because even though the letter of the law states they must, they’ve decided to follow the “spirit” of the law.

When there are multiple doubts among multiple people about the valid status of a Catholic marriage, it may be better to resolve the doubts and convalidate.

There are not “multiple” doubts. There is a uninformed deacon with an ego issue who has somehow convinced a new judicial vicar the OP needs to convalidate his marriage.

This is not a matter of “opinion”. In my Advocate paperwork somewhere I have a cheat sheet that has a long list of circumstances, an If this, Then type list. This is already a valid marriage.

 

[stoplooklisten]

To take the analogy one step further, when I have eaten with someone who is a vegetarian or vegan, I have also eaten vegetarian or vegan with them because of their doubts about the validity of eating meat (not my doubts).

 

[Horton]

The sacrament of marriage is objective, not subjective. The OP has a valid marriage objectively. There is nothing subjective about the validity of his marriage. There is zero grey area here, no fuzziness, zero lack of clarity.

You can choose to eat whatever you like when you are with friends. That is a completely subjective issue. The sacrament of marriage is not.

 

[JulianN]

To take the analogy one step further, when I have eaten with someone who is a vegetarian or vegan, I have also eaten vegetarian or vegan with them because of their doubts about the validity of eating meat (not my doubts).

Well, first of all, a vegetarian doesn’t have doubts about the validity of eating meat – but the morality or health of it.

Secondly, that’s a choice. This isn’t a situation about which multiple opinions can be posited, and all have potential truth. The marriage is valid – that’s simply a fact. To convalidate it would be to participate in fraud.

 

[edward_george1]

We shouldn’t commit sacrilege against the sacrament of marriage because it’s a nice experience and the spirit of the law is more important than the letter.

A few weeks ago, I was called to anoint someone in the ICU. The family wasn’t practicing, but they requested Last Rites for their mother since she would’ve wanted it. They asked to FaceTime the Anointing since they couldn’t be there due to hospital visitor restrictions. I got back to my car, and the chaplain called and asked if I could come back and do it again, since they forgot to hit record during the FaceTime session. I told her that I couldn’t do that, since it wouldn’t be respectful of the sacrament. We can’t just repeat it because it would be a nice thing to do.

This is why conditional baptism and confirmation and even ordination exist. If there is a possibility that someone has already received these sacraments, it would be sacrilegious to repeat them. So we say “if you are not already baptized, then I baptize you…” That’s if there is a doubt about validity.

In this case, there is no doubt about validity. Given the facts of the case, the OP is in a valid marriage. It would certainly be wrong to do a convalidation, as it would be an empty gesture that is an affront to a marriage already contracted. If there were a doubt, there are remedies for this, but in this case there is not. This is a textbook case, as several people have pointed out, one which everyone who has ever had more than about 45 minutes of Canon Law training would know how to navigate.

We can’t dismiss law. Law exists for our good. The Code closes with the words “the salvation of souls [is] the supreme law of the Church.” All of our law is directed toward this, and we can’t somehow put law in opposition to that supreme good. They are not opposed, one serves the other.

 

[acanonlawyer]

There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. You may be right according to the letter of the law but sometimes it is better to follow the spirit of the law.

That can be a good and helpful “interpretive key.”

In this case, in your view, what is the letter of the law? What is the spirit of the law?

Dan

 

[TC3033]

If the decision of Church authority becomes that your marriage does need a convalidation, then I would go through those steps and do it.

Hard pass. Why would I go through a process that I don’t need to do and says my prior marriage wasn’t valid (when it 100% was).

In itself, a convalidation says nothing about the prior validity of the marriage…

That’s literally what the word convalidation means. A convalidation means to get married “with validity” Why would I do that when already validly married.

In a marriage where one or both parties are not validly baptized Christians, if one or both of the parties become Catholic, convalidation will be required.

Not true.

 

[Irishmom2]

I find it a bit unsettling that the family even thought this was a life moment that needed to recorded.

“Hey! Who wants to watch grandma receive her Last Rites again? Come on, I have the popcorn ready!”

 

[Baho]

Update: Saint Joseph’s Foundation upon further review is positive that my wife and I need only to be confirmed and to receive first communion. Nothing with regard to our marriage needs to be done (they italicized that part, that’s how you know they really mean it haha). I’m being lighthearted about it right now but honestly this experience has been really bad so far. I’m so grateful for this community, you’ve done a great thing for me and my family by encouraging us not to give up and let this sacrament be misused with regard to our marriage.

SJF will be preparing a letter that will be sent to the Bishop of the diocese with copies also sent to the JV, my pastor and my deacon. They say that if the Bishop does not resolve the issue that I will have “the full support of Rome.” My sponsor and RCIA coordinator is also preparing letter to the Bishop about the way that the JV treated us and the names he called us as new Catholics simply trying to resolve an issue. So I feel pretty good right now.

 

[Usige]

There is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. You may be right according to the letter of the law but sometimes it is better to follow the spirit of the law.

The spirit of the law is recognizing the reality if a marriage took place.

A convalidation is not a “just in case” type situation. When we have doubts about a valid baptism we have a conditional baptism, but convalidation is implicitly saying that the Church does not recognize the validity of the marriage and it must be done to make the spiritual reality match the temporal/human reality. To “redo” the marriage just in case borders on simulating a sacrament given that it sounds like only a handful of confused individuals are in doubt of the validity of the marriage.

 

[Elf01]

Update: Saint Joseph’s Foundation upon further review is positive that my wife and I need only to be confirmed and to receive first communion. Nothing with regard to our baptism needs to be done (they italicized that part, that’s how you know they really mean it haha). I’m being lighthearted about it right now but honestly this experience has been really bad so far. I’m so grateful for this community, you’ve done a great thing for me and my family by encouraging us not to give up and let this sacrament be misused with regard to our marriage.

SJF will be preparing a letter that will be sent to the Bishop of the diocese with copies also sent to the JV, my pastor and my deacon. They say that if the Bishop does not resolve the issue that I will have “the full support of Rome.” My sponsor and RCIA coordinator is also preparing letter to the Bishop about the way that the JV treated us and the names he called us as new Catholics simply trying to resolve an issue. So I feel pretty good right now.

I’m glad to hear that.

 

[Baho]

sorry, I didn’t recognize that I said baptism and not marriage until you quoted me. I fixed it in the original now. Oops.

 

[puer.dei]

sorry, I didn’t recognize that I said baptism and not marriage until you quoted me. I fixed it in the original now. Oops.

You’ve been through way too much. Nobody’s going to hold a little typo against you.

 

[porthos11]

Update: Saint Joseph’s Foundation upon further review is positive that my wife and I need only to be confirmed and to receive first communion. Nothing with regard to our marriage needs to be done (they italicized that part, that’s how you know they really mean it haha). I’m being lighthearted about it right now but honestly this experience has been really bad so far. I’m so grateful for this community, you’ve done a great thing for me and my family by encouraging us not to give up and let this sacrament be misused with regard to our marriage.

SJF will be preparing a letter that will be sent to the Bishop of the diocese with copies also sent to the JV, my pastor and my deacon. They say that if the Bishop does not resolve the issue that I will have “the full support of Rome.” My sponsor and RCIA coordinator is also preparing letter to the Bishop about the way that the JV treated us and the names he called us as new Catholics simply trying to resolve an issue. So I feel pretty good right now.

I haven’t commented on this thread but all I’d like to say is I have said prayers for you and for a happy resolution to this issue.

Also, God bless you for persevering in your entrance to the Catholic Church.