Valid Marriage

[z_0101]

Here’s a question that I haven’t found a good explanation…

Neither my wife nor I are baptized.
We have been married for almost twenty years.
We have a daughter.
We are both attending RCIA and we will be baptized at Easter Vigil.

The Pastor has said, that the Vicar-General said, that we currently have a valid marriage and that he believes that upon our mutual baptism that our marriage will be both valid and Sacramental in the Catholic Church; convalidation is not necessary.

I can find nothing in Canon Law covering such a situation and almost everything I’ve found deals with at least one of parties being baptized in some way or another or dealing with inter-faith marriage.

SO - do we need a convalidation or not, and why or why not?

 

[quiet52]

You and your wife are in a “natural” marriage. It’s a valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic church, just not a sacramental one, because you’re not baptized. When the two of you become baptized, you’ll be Christian and your marriage will be considered a sacramental one! Couples married invalidly work toward regularizing their marriages within the Church – that’s convalidating. No convalidating necessary for you and your wife!

Perhaps you can ask your priest for a special blessing.

 

[passus]

Welcome to CAF!

Here is a bit from Canon Law:For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament (1055 §2*CIC *).
Right now you have a valid, non-sacramental marriage on account of your not being baptized. However, upon the baptisms of you and your wife, your marriage will be, “by that fact,” a sacrament.

That means that not only will you receive the graces of Baptism, Holy Communion, and Confirmation at the Easter Vigil, but you will receive the grace of the sacrament of Matrimony.

A convalidation is used for regulating marriages that are not in conformity with the law or are invalid. Since your marriage is perfectly valid, you don’t need a convalidation.

I hope this helps.

God bless.

 

[1ke]

SO - do we need a convalidation or not, and why or why not?

A convalidation is the giving of consent and vows to make an invalid marriage valid.

Your marriage is valid. It is a natural marriage because you are both unbaptized. Natural marriages are valid.

When you are baptized, your marriage is elevated to a Sacrament by virtue of your baptisms.

There is no other action needed on your part or that of the Church.

 

[puzzleannie]

Here’s a question that I haven’t found a good explanation…

Neither my wife nor I are baptized.
We have been married for almost twenty years.
We have a daughter.
We are both attending RCIA and we will be baptized at Easter Vigil.

The Pastor has said, that the Vicar-General said, that we currently have a valid marriage and that he believes that upon our mutual baptism that our marriage will be both valid and Sacramental in the Catholic Church; convalidation is not necessary.

I can find nothing in Canon Law covering such a situation and almost everything I’ve found deals with at least one of parties being baptized in some way or another or dealing with inter-faith marriage.

SO - do we need a convalidation or not, and why or why not?

assuming there are no other factors not detailed here, what you were told is true. Two unbaptized persons who are otherwise free to marry contract a valid natural marriage. When they both become baptized, the marriage automatically becomes sacramental as well. It is not your responsibility to research this. You have done your part by giving the priest who is preparing you full and complete account of your marriage and family situation, and he has done his job in giving you the proper information.

Welcome Home! woo woo do I love Easter.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Here’s a question that I haven’t found a good explanation…

Neither my wife nor I are baptized.
We have been married for almost twenty years.
We have a daughter.
We are both attending RCIA and we will be baptized at Easter Vigil.

The Pastor has said, that the Vicar-General said, that we currently have a valid marriage and that he believes that upon our mutual baptism that our marriage will be both valid and Sacramental in the Catholic Church; convalidation is not necessary.

I can find nothing in Canon Law covering such a situation and almost everything I’ve found deals with at least one of parties being baptized in some way or another or dealing with inter-faith marriage.

SO - do we need a convalidation or not, and why or why not?

No, no Convalidation is necessary. At the moment both of you are Baptized (technically at the moment the second one is, since you are not going to be Baptized at exactly the same time), your Marriage becomes Sacramental.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I can find nothing in Canon Law covering such a situation and almost everything I’ve found deals with at least one of parties being baptized in some way or another or dealing with inter-faith marriage.

You are fortunate then, that your pastor and vicar are familiar with canon law, as we should presume them to be.

For the sake of peace of mind though, the proper canon to consult is canon 1057. It applies to all marriages, including those of the non baptized: “§1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent. §2. Matrimonial consent is an act of the will by which a man and a woman mutually give and accept each other, through an irrevocable covenant in order to establish marriage.”

As non baptized persons, presumably not married previously and validly to others, not related in a direct blood relationship and not known to be antecedently and perpetually impotent (the three impediments of divine law), you were considered qualified by law.

As non baptized persons, you were bound only to the form of marital consent required by the state as the means of giving legitimate manifestation of consent.

Your giving and receiving of consent then established a valid marriage.

Nothing more is to be or can be done to make it any more valid than that. But you could have a nice blessing from the Book of Blessings. Let the pastor look that one up though.

The “sacramentalization” of your marriage upon the completion of your baptisms has been addressed.

May God continue to richly bless you in faith and marriage. We look forward to your entry into the Body of Christ, his Church.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

A few years back I had a Jewish couple in RCIA, who had been married many years. Their marriage was valid and became sacramental upon their baptism. However, they wanted a ceremony; so we had a mass and renewal of their marriage promises on their next anniversary.

 

[passus]

You are fortunate then, that your pastor and vicar are familiar with canon law, as we should presume them to be.

That really is a grand presumption, at least in my experience.

 

[z_0101]

Thank You Everyone!

You have all confirmed what I had thought I understood behind the information Father and the Vicar-General said.

As for there being no need to research this myself and to trust in The Father and the Vicar… Though I have faith in their understanding of the Canon, I am an inquiring soul and have a deep need to understand that which can be understood. My Mother has said upon many occasion that my first word was, “Why?”

This just makes Easter Vigil a tad brighter than it already was going to be…

Peace be with you

 

[KoinoniaScott]

My wife and a co-worker have been debating whether or not a particular marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church. Here’s the situation:

A couple, neither of which were ever baptized, are civilly married by a justice of the peace. Ten years later, one of them converts to Catholicism and is baptized, confirmed, and receives the Eucharist.

My wife’s co-worker insists that this is now a valid marriage, whereas we contend that outside of an extreme sanation, there must be a convalidation before this will become valid.

I have failed to find this exact scenario in anything that I have available to me, so I’m looking for some help.

Thank you,

Scott

 

[Thomas63116]

I believe it is considered to still be a valid natural marriage, although if the non-Catholic party was unwilling to continue living with the Catholic party following their baptism it could be disolved by the Pauline priveledge.

 

[porthos11]

My wife and a co-worker have been debating whether or not a particular marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church. Here’s the situation:

A couple, neither of which were ever baptized, are civilly married by a justice of the peace. Ten years later, one of them converts to Catholicism and is baptized, confirmed, and receives the Eucharist.

My wife’s co-worker insists that this is now a valid marriage, whereas we contend that outside of an extreme sanation, there must be a convalidation before this will become valid.

I have failed to find this exact scenario in anything that I have available to me, so I’m looking for some help.

Thank you,

Scott

It has been a valid marriage from the beginning. It is, however, not sacramental and can be dissolved under the Pauline Privilege.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

My wife and a co-worker have been debating whether or not a particular marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church. Here’s the situation:

A couple, neither of which were ever baptized, are civilly married by a justice of the peace. Ten years later, one of them converts to Catholicism and is baptized, confirmed, and receives the Eucharist.

My wife’s co-worker insists that this is now a valid marriage, whereas we contend that outside of an extreme sanation, there must be a convalidation before this will become valid.

I have failed to find this exact scenario in anything that I have available to me, so I’m looking for some help.

Thank you,

Scott

Based on what was posted assuming both were free to Marry, etc. It was and is a valid Mariage and nothing else needs to be done. EXCEPT of course evangelizing the other spouse, in hopes that they also become Christian and the Marriage becomes also a Sacrament.

 

[1ke]

My wife and a co-worker have been debating whether or not a particular marriage is valid in the eyes of the Church. Here’s the situation:

A couple, neither of which were ever baptized, are civilly married by a justice of the peace. Ten years later, one of them converts to Catholicism and is baptized, confirmed, and receives the Eucharist.

My wife’s co-worker insists that this is now a valid marriage, whereas we contend that outside of an extreme sanation, there must be a convalidation before this will become valid.

I have failed to find this exact scenario in anything that I have available to me, so I’m looking for some help.

Thank you,

Scott

Assumption: The couple in question were free to marry and had no divine law impediments.

You and your wife are wrong.

They are validly married, and have been from the day they exchanged vows.

They remain in a valid marriage should one or both become Catholic, or baptized in any denomination with valid baptism. If they both become baptized, their natural marriage becomes a Sacrament.

Convalidation is a process whereby persons in an invalid marriage give consent anew after the cesation of an impediment or defect in order to make their marriage valid.

See this thread containing an almost identical question (but regarding a real situation, not a hypothetical one) and the responses, most notably post #7 by Deacon Cameron (who is a canon lawyer).

 

[puzzleannie]

A couple, neither of which were ever baptized, are civilly married by a justice of the peace. Ten years later, one of them converts to Catholicism and is baptized, confirmed, and receives the Eucharist.

this was a valid natural marriage when it was contracted, assuming the parties were otherwise free to marry. nothing has changed, no action needs to be taken. Should at some point the other spouse also be baptized, the marriage will then be both valid and sacramental.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.
Presuming that none of you, your wife, nor her co-worker is a member of the diocesan tribunal, none of you is competent to say the marriage is anything other than valid.

:twocents:
tee