Validity of marriage after "revertion"

  • Thread starter Thread starter revertmom
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

revertmom

Guest
I “reverted” back to the church after being away for 15 years ++ and now am slightly freaking out over the validity of my marriage. I have a kind of weird backgroud because I was married “outside the church” but by an ordained catholic priest who nows does only weddings (so I assumed he left the church but I don’t know why and I didn’t ask years ago) - read about him here: allfaithsweddings.net/about.htm

so because my understanding is a priest is always a priest and we did have a pretty traditional religious ceremony… are we valid?!
 
The details matter. Talk to your pastor. Once he has been given the relevant details he will be ale to guide you.
 
revertmom said:
I “reverted” back to the church after being away for 15 years ++ and now am slightly freaking out over the validity of my marriage. I have a kind of weird backgroud because I was married “outside the church” but by an ordained catholic priest who nows does only weddings (so I assumed he left the church but I don’t know why and I didn’t ask years ago) - read about him here: allfaithsweddings.net/about.htm

so because my understanding is a priest is always a priest and we did have a pretty traditional religious ceremony… are we valid?!
Click to expand...
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, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.
 
revertmom said:
I “reverted” back to the church after being away for 15 years ++ and now am slightly freaking out over the validity of my marriage. I have a kind of weird backgroud because I was married “outside the church” but by an ordained catholic priest who nows does only weddings (so I assumed he left the church but I don’t know why and I didn’t ask years ago) - read about him here: allfaithsweddings.net/about.htm

so because my understanding is a priest is always a priest and we did have a pretty traditional religious ceremony… are we valid?!
Click to expand...
It is likely that this priest did not have proper authority and therefore, no, it would not be valid. But, without further details, we are only speculating.

Simply go talk to your pastor. If it is indeed the case that you are not in a valid marriage, you can convalidate it either by simple convalidation (exchange of vows in the Catholic form) or by radical sanation (no new exchange of consent).

Talk to your pastor, make an appointment.
 
Given how he describes his ministry I would question if he is a priest in good standing with faculties to witness marriages. Simply being an ordained priest does not make it a licit wedding. He must also have faculties in the location the marriage was performed. I notice that in all his list of associations that there is no mention of a diocesan affiliation. He also lists himself as a licensed nondenominational minister and not a Catholic priest. That raises red flags, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t have faculties if you married 10 years ago.

As other have said simply go ask your pastor. He will likely request your sacramental records. If Rev. Dan was able to witness Catholic marriages then he would have notified your baptismal parish to update the records. If it is not recorded then a convalidation or radical sanation would be the most likely outcome.
 
revertmom, I was curious and looked up Rev. Dan Kane. The only “diocese” I could find him associated with is called “the Catholic Diocese of One Spirit”. This is obviously not a Church in communion with Rome. The members page said he left the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1993. If that is the case then any marriages he performed for Catholics without dispensation since that would be considered invalid due to lack of form.

You can read more about his background in his “new diocese” here.
 
Usige said:
revertmom, I was curious and looked up Rev. Dan Kane. The only “diocese” I could find him associated with is called “the Catholic Diocese of One Spirit”. This is obviously not a Church in communion with Rome. The members page said he left the Roman Catholic priesthood in 1993. If that is the case then any marriages he performed for Catholics without dispensation since that would be considered invalid due to lack of form.

You can read more about his background in his “new diocese” here.
Click to expand...
Thank you Usige. I have already emailed my parish priest and I have approached my husband (reacted pretty poorly so I’m pretty sure we are going to end up doing radical sanation). I also contacted the church that I was baptized at to obtain records just in case. Thanks for that link!!
 
If you don’t mind me asking, what faith does your husband practice?
 
1ke said:
Radican sanation is likely your best course of action.
Click to expand...
In this case a radical sanation would retroactively provide both the dispensation from both canonical form and disparity of cult, correct?

revertmom, one thing to keep in mind for a radical sanation is that you both must have agreed to all those things that Catholics define as essential to marriage at the time you originally exchanged vows (life long, indissoluble union that is open to life). I only mention it because I know of a sanation that wasn’t granted because the bride had told her priest they originally didn’t marry in the Church because they did not want children. A sanation cannot be granted if there was defect of consent when vows were originally exchanged. You priest will walk you through all of that, but wanted you to be aware that there are conditions for a radical sanation to be granted.
 
revertmom said:
Non believer
Click to expand...
Proceed carefully with regards to how you present your desire for convalidation to your husband. It is a bit bizarre and rather hurtful to some of us non believers that a third party (from our pov) needs to sign off on vows made to the one we love. It is just shy of implying that the promises made and kept don’t count unless a third party approves.

In that way it can easily build hostility and resistance. If you want him on board, the best advice I can give is not to ask him to understand or agree with it but to go along because it is important to you.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
It is just shy of implying that the promises made and kept don’t count unless a third party approves.
.
Click to expand...
One already assents to this when they get legally married. There is a process to go through and rules to follow, and a 3rd party approval when one gets legally married. It must be witnessed as it is a public act. All the same goes for one’s faith.
 
agapewolf said:
One already assents to this when they get legally married. There is a process to go through and rules to follow, and a 3rd party approval when one gets legally married. It must be witnessed as it is a public act. All the same goes for one’s faith.
Click to expand...
Depends on pov. The process for legal marriage is more akin to simply registering, given the pretty lax requirements. The state does not need to approve my marriage and has limited involvement. But the Church adds conditions both explicit and greatly implied about children and duties to each other.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
Depends on pov. The process for legal marriage is more akin to simply registering, given the pretty lax requirements. The state does not need to approve my marriage and has limited involvement. But the Church adds conditions both explicit and greatly implied about children and duties to each other.
Click to expand...
True, but that wasn’t your point. Your point was a 3rd party involvement. There still needs to be a witness, and there are civil annulments
 
agapewolf said:
True, but that wasn’t your point. Your point was a 3rd party involvement. There still needs to be a witness, and there are civil annulments
Click to expand...
Ok. Fair enough. I guess it is hard to explain.
 
HerCrazierHalf said:
Depends on pov. The process for legal marriage is more akin to simply registering, given the pretty lax requirements. The state does not need to approve my marriage and has limited involvement. But the Church adds conditions both explicit and greatly implied about children and duties to each other.
Click to expand...
The state does have to approve your marriage. The state won’t allow you to marry if you are already married or if you’re too closely related or under a certain age, for example. And the state is heavily involved in marriage as evidenced by the reams and reams of family law. In practice, the state is more involved than the Church!

The state does not add conditions related to being open to life or espouse the idea of a marital debt, but law does cover some marital duties and govern how spouses should treat each other in the form of domestic violence law.

The Church teaches marriage is a total giving of self including legally. A marriage is not legally binding without being properly registered with the state. Without that registration the couple is not truly giving of their entire selves. I’d argue that “Three to get Married” should really be “Four to get Married”. God, man, woman, and State.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top