Vocabulary question: Convalidation

[Gorgias]

It is the sacrament of marriage which exists from the convalidation onward.

Marriage as a purely civil & legal institution under the laws of the state exists first. The Church does not deny that civil-only marriages exist, even if they involve 2 Catholics.

Fr David,

A question on convalidations arose in another thread, and I was directed here to read your response.

My understanding is that an invalid marriage between Catholics that is defective in form may be convalidated. This convalidation remedies the defect(s) that existed in the form at the time of the original attempt at marriage. (In fact, it normatively requires that consent, lack of impediments, and form be present at the time of the convalidation, thus bringing a valid marriage into existence at that time.)

However, it is my understanding that a non-existent marriage (i.e., not defective in form, but rather, completely lacking form) cannot, strictly speaking, be convalidated per se. Instead, when the civilly-married Catholics approach their pastor, he will at that point begin the process of valid marriage in the Church. When you say “(t)hey are later married sacramentally by convalidation”, you mean that they are “later married”, not that their “marriage is convalidated”, don’t you?

After all, convalidation is the process by which an invalid marriage is made valid, not one by which the grafting of civil and canonical validity is achieved, right? (Of course, the Church recognizes that a civil ceremony took place, but “consent … is juridically inefficacious if one or both parties … fail to observe the form required by law in manifesting their consent. In these cases, the parties’ consent may result in a meaningful and enriching human relationship, but it does not result in a valid marriage” (New Commentary on the Code Canon Law, p 1378)).

Thanks!

 

[FAB]

It is the sacrament of marriage which exists from the convalidation onward.

Marriage as a purely civil & legal institution under the laws of the state exists first. The Church does not deny that civil-only marriages exist, even if they involve 2 Catholics.

After just finished this canon law study, in the eyes of the Church, a Catholic not married under our rules, is not considered married. That is why when such a couple comes to a priest or deacon, we may call it a convalidation, but indeed we are going to marry them. It is why they are required, at least in my diocese to go through a formal marrige preparation.
My diocese is going as far to say that if a couple was “married” for 24 years in a civil union, then are married for one year, they cannot take part in our annual celebration for married couples 25 and 50 years, because they have only been married in the eyse of the church for one year.

 

[ValPal]

My diocese is going as far to say that if a couple was “married” for 24 years in a civil union, then are married for one year, they cannot take part in our annual celebration for married couples 25 and 50 years, because they have only been married in the eyse of the church for one year.

It depends on the type of convalidation. A simple convalidation would mean they are married sacramentally for a year. A radical sanation is retroactive.

 

[Phemie]

I’m not Fr. David but I’m trying to figure out how the two marriages you describe differ. What are you seeing as the difference between defect of form and lack of form? If they are in a legal marriage but not a valid one according to the Church, remedying that situation is a convalidation.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr David,

A question on convalidations arose in another thread, and I was directed here to read your response.

My understanding is that an invalid marriage between Catholics that is defective in form may be convalidated. This convalidation remedies the defect(s) that existed in the form at the time of the original attempt at marriage. (In fact, it normatively requires that consent, lack of impediments, and form be present at the time of the convalidation, thus bringing a valid marriage into existence at that time.)

However, it is my understanding that a non-existent marriage (i.e., not defective in form, but rather, completely lacking form) cannot, strictly speaking, be convalidated per se. Instead, when the civilly-married Catholics approach their pastor, he will at that point begin the process of valid marriage in the Church. When you say “(t)hey are later married sacramentally by convalidation”, you mean that they are “later married”, not that their “marriage is convalidated”, don’t you?

After all, convalidation is the process by which an invalid marriage is made valid, not one by which the grafting of civil and canonical validity is achieved, right? (Of course, the Church recognizes that a civil ceremony took place, but “consent … is juridically inefficacious if one or both parties … fail to observe the form required by law in manifesting their consent. In these cases, the parties’ consent may result in a meaningful and enriching human relationship, but it does not result in a valid marriage” (New Commentary on the Code Canon Law, p 1378)).

Thanks!

It is not that the marriage is “non-existant.” We have to keep in mind here that marriage is also a legal reality under civil law. What doesn’t exist is the sacrament of marriage.

Here’s an example. I buy a house. I sign a contract. That contract is a legal document. The sale is a legal reality under the laws of the state. Are you with me so far? Sounds pretty obvious right? Now there’s no such sacrament of buying a home. So the Church would say that my act of buying a home is not a sacrament. It’s all pretty obvious so far, right? The Church, in saying that buying a home is not a sacrament, is not thereby denying the reality that my purchase is a legal contract under the law and the sale is a legal reality.

It’s the same with a marriage. When a marriage is convalidated, the sacrament of marriage begins to exist at the moment of the convalidation. Before that, there is no sacrament. However, there is the legal reality of a marriage: this marriage is a civil-only marriage and it it not a Sacrament.

The Church does not deny that the purely civil and legal institution of marriage exists–but instead says that only some of those marriages are sacraments (ie those that meet the Church’s requirements), some are not.

 

[FrDavid96]

After just finished this canon law study, in the eyes of the Church, a Catholic not married under our rules, is not considered married. That is why when such a couple comes to a priest or deacon, we may call it a convalidation, but indeed we are going to marry them. It is why they are required, at least in my diocese to go through a formal marrige preparation.
My diocese is going as far to say that if a couple was “married” for 24 years in a civil union, then are married for one year, they cannot take part in our annual celebration for married couples 25 and 50 years, because they have only been married in the eyse of the church for one year.

What you’re missing here is that there’s a distinction between marriage as a purely civil institution and marriage as a sacrament.

The sacrament does not exist until the civil-marriage in convalidated (hence the restriction on anniversaries). However, the Church does not deny that the state has a legal institution called “marriage” and that institution/relationship is a reality under civil law–that does not make such marriages sacraments. It is merely a recognition of the legal reality of a civil contract of marriage and nothing more.

 

[FAB]

It depends on the type of convalidation. A simple convalidation would mean they are married sacramentally for a year. A radical sanation is retroactive.

That would be true if the bishop allows a radical sanation. In my diocese the bishop prefers convalidations. Radical Sanation are only done in verylimited circustances.

 

[Phemie]

The Church does not deny that the purely civil and legal institution of marriage exists–but instead says that only some of those marriages are sacraments (ie those that meet the Church’s requirements), some are not.

A convalidation does not always make the marriage a sacrament but it does make it valid under canon law.

 

[Vico]

It depends on the type of convalidation. A simple convalidation would mean they are married sacramentally for a year. A radical sanation is retroactive.

A radical sanation is a retroactive convalidation. A simple convalidation it the other kind. With both the validity of the marriage is from the moment of grant. Only the canonical effects are retroactive. For example, if they are both baptised Christians, then the sacrament begins at the moment of the grant. That means that for a radical sanation the sacrament does not extend retroactively, and also new consent is not given.

 

[Gorgias]

It is not that the marriage is “non-existant.” We have to keep in mind here that marriage is also a legal reality under civil law. What doesn’t exist is the sacrament of marriage.

Father David,

I’m not using the term “non-existent” in its every day sense, but in the strict canonical sense. (That is, I don’t want to say that nothing exists for Catholics who marry before a JP, but I don’t want to say that their state of life is “married”, outside of an exclusively civil law context.)

Your “buying a house” example works to an extent, but there’s an additional complexity in the case of marriage that it doesn’t address: there’s a canonical difference in a marriage involving Catholic(s) and a marriage that does not involve Catholics. If two non-Catholics marry civilly, then the “laws of the state” are trump – there’s no requirement for form. However, where Catholic(s) are involved, there’s the additional requirement that they follow form. That’s where your example – as illustrative as it is in pointing out civil legal realities – falls short; it’s not “the same with a marriage” (at least where Catholics are concerned).

To me, it seems somewhat similar to the discussion of humanity’s opportunities for salvation as discussed in Lumen Gentium #14-16. Catholics, who have been raised in the faith (although, practically speaking, are not all catechized equally well) are held to a higher standard; non-Catholic Christians are recognized to have a bond with the Church that is of a different nature; and “those who have not yet received the Gospel” are still able to be saved, but by a different means.

It seems analogous (although imperfectly) to the question of marriage: Catholics are held to a higher standard (i.e., form) than non-Catholics. All are striving toward the same goal (in LG, “salvation”; in our context here, “marriage”), but in order to reach that goal, we have different standards to meet. If we meet the standard appropriate to our relationship with the Bride of Christ, then we gain the title (“saved” (LG) or “married” (here)). If not, then we don’t. It doesn’t matter whether I, as a Catholic, have completed the same actions as a non-Catholic (and therefore, the typical person on the street recognizes each of us equally as a “nice person”); rather, the standard is what defines whether we’ve objectively reached the goal.

The old way of saying that is to say that the state of life of Catholic(s) married before a JP is “concubine”; today, we nuance that and say “civilly married”. However, that doesn’t imply that these Catholics are “married”, per se, in any way that’s juridically recognized by the Church. Is it more pastoral to say that they’re “married” and that we just need to “bless” their “marriage”? Of course. Does that make it more likely that they might be willing to regularize their situation? Probably. But – does that affect the fact that their state of life, from a juridic perspective, is “not married”? By no means.

Make sense?

 

[ValPal]

The above post was one of the points I was trying to make.

There can be 100 couples lined up, consisting of Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Atheists, etc., and any combination thereof, all except for one Catholic couple, ready to be married by a justice of the peace. Every one of those couples intends to gets married, states there vows, and files the proper paperwork. All couples are from that point forward considered validly married by the Church (assuming no impediments, of course). The ones involving validly baptized Christians are not only valid, but sacramental. There is one sole exception: the Catholic couple. They are not considered validly married (other than the civil sense).

A great many Catholics simply don’t understand this, myself included. The same exact consent is valid and sacramental in some circumstances and not in others. My guess it has to do simply with the Church sets the rules, and that’s that. People find discomfort in that type of discontinuity (or should I say the appearance of discontinuity?).

 

[Vico]

The above post was one of the points I was trying to make.

There can be 100 couples lined up, consisting of Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Atheists, etc., and any combination thereof, all except for one Catholic couple, ready to be married by a justice of the peace. Every one of those couples intends to gets married, states there vows, and files the proper paperwork. All couples are from that point forward considered validly married by the Church (assuming no impediments, of course). The ones involving validly baptized Christians are not only valid, but sacramental. There is one sole exception: the Catholic couple. They are not considered validly married (other than the civil sense).

A great many Catholics simply don’t understand this, myself included. The same exact consent is valid and sacramental in some circumstances and not in others. My guess it has to do simply with the Church sets the rules, and that’s that. People find discomfort in that type of discontinuity (or should I say the appearance of discontinuity?).

The Catholic marriage is either a natural or sacramental marriage. Not every church or ecclesial community holds it to be a sacrament between the baptised however, it may be a contract instead. There is an acceptable form of marriage for every church or ecclesial community so that becomes the norm for them, by which the Catholic Church would judge the form or marriage. Non-Catholics cannot be held to the Catholic form when neither the bride nor groom are Catholic.

 

[Phemie]

The above post was one of the points I was trying to make.

There can be 100 couples lined up, consisting of Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Atheists, etc., and any combination thereof, all except for one Catholic couple, ready to be married by a justice of the peace. Every one of those couples intends to gets married, states there vows, and files the proper paperwork. All couples are from that point forward considered validly married by the Church (assuming no impediments, of course). The ones involving validly baptized Christians are not only valid, but sacramental. There is one sole exception: the Catholic couple. They are not considered validly married (other than the civil sense).

A great many Catholics simply don’t understand this, myself included. The same exact consent is valid and sacramental in some circumstances and not in others. My guess it has to do simply with the Church sets the rules, and that’s that. People find discomfort in that type of discontinuity (or should I say the appearance of discontinuity?).

How is it a discontinuity? Baptized Catholics are bound by the laws of the Catholic Church, including the Church’s laws on the form of marriage, which are not the same for Western and Eastern Rite Catholics. No one else is bound to our form, so they are free to marry in front of the JP if their own religion says it’s OK.

 

[ValPal]

What confuses people is that somehow the bestowal of marriage by the ministers of the sacrament doesn’t occur, even when intended, due to the lack of presence of a designated third party. Granted, the third party is important, as Father David eloquently clarified. The confusion on this issue is ubiquitous; only a small percentage of Catholics actual understand it.

As a side note, I wonder if a similar requirement existed for covenantial marriages; i.e., Jewish marriages prior to Christ. The existence of such a requirement would give basis in Tradition.

The whole marriage issue and the Church fascinates me. It the only sacrament where the minister of the sacrament is a layperson which does not leave an indelible mark on the soul. Marriage is also the only sacrament that is ubiquitous to the human race (though obviously not a sacrament, per se, to those not validly baptized).

 

[Gorgias]

What confuses people is that somehow the bestowal of marriage by the ministers of the sacrament doesn’t occur, even when intended, due to the lack of presence of a designated third party.

To which “third party” are you referring – the minister, or the witnesses?

 

[ValPal]

To which “third party” are you referring – the minister, or the witnesses?

Yes.

I, and zillions of other Catholics, don’t understand how two validly baptized Protestants getting married (no impediments) by a Justice of the Peace are automatically have a valid and sacramental marriage, yet two Catholics doing the same automatically have an invalid and nonsacramental marriage. The bestowal of the sacrament and validity of the marriage doesn’t seem to be dependent on a Church witness, clearly demonstrated by the Protestant example, but for Catholics it absolutely is.

Signed,

Externally Confused

 

[Phemie]

Yes.

I, and zillions of other Catholics, don’t understand how two validly baptized Protestants getting married (no impediments) by a Justice of the Peace are automatically have a valid and sacramental marriage, yet two Catholics doing the same automatically have an invalid and nonsacramental marriage. The bestowal of the sacrament and validity of the marriage doesn’t seem to be dependent on a Church witness, clearly demonstrated by the Protestant example, but for Catholics it absolutely is.

Signed,

Externally Confused

It’s quite simple really, it’s about obedience. The Catholic Church has rules that the Catholic must follow. One of these rules is that they must exchange consent in front of a priest, deacon or layperson appointed by the bishop for their marriage to be valid. That said, in certain cases they may be granted a dispensation from following the rule and then they marry validly in front of a judge. So it’s not about who witnesses the marriage, it’s about obeying the rules that the church has set.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Yes.

I, and zillions of other Catholics, don’t understand how two validly baptized Protestants getting married (no impediments) by a Justice of the Peace are automatically have a valid and sacramental marriage, yet two Catholics doing the same automatically have an invalid and nonsacramental marriage. The bestowal of the sacrament and validity of the marriage doesn’t seem to be dependent on a Church witness, clearly demonstrated by the Protestant example, but for Catholics it absolutely is.

All that’s required by divine law for a marriage is no existing marriage bond and the consent of the couple. Marriage however is not absolute right, it can be regulated by civil and religious authorities. The only people bound by Catholic Church rules are Catholics. So Catholics are bound by divine, civil, and Catholic Church law. Protestants are only bound by divine and civil law.

 

[dans0622]

…
I, and zillions of other Catholics, don’t understand how two validly baptized Protestants getting married (no impediments) by a Justice of the Peace are automatically have a valid and sacramental marriage, yet two Catholics doing the same automatically have an invalid and nonsacramental marriage. The bestowal of the sacrament and validity of the marriage doesn’t seem to be dependent on a Church witness, clearly demonstrated by the Protestant example, but for Catholics it absolutely is. …

Hello ValPal,

In addition to what has been said by others, I will add the following. Any and every couple, Catholic or otherwise, has to properly manifest their marital consent in order for them to be considered “married” (sacramentally or not) by the state, Church, or society. Just as civil law has regulations as to how this consent must be manifested and the citizens of that civil jurisdiction must follow those regulations in order to marry, the Church has regulations as to how her citizens must manifest their marital consent in order for those citizens to be considered “married” by the Church. The Church, as a visible society, has the right and duty to have these laws just as the secular authority does.

The Church can’t bind non-citizens to her form of marriage just as a state in the USA can’t bind Koreans (e.g.) as to how they must marry in their own country.

As usual, what I say makes perfect sense to me. I hope it makes sense to you as well. Thanks for your time.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

… What are you seeing as the difference between defect of form and lack of form? If they are in a legal marriage but not a valid one according to the Church, remedying that situation is a convalidation.

Hello Phemie,

In a “defect of form” the required form was attempted but, for some reason, was actually not observed (for example–a priest, thought to have the faculty to assist, actually did not have the faculty). This would be a putative marriage since it appeared as though the couple properly manifested their marital consent and were in good faith.

In a “lack of form” the required form was not even attempted. This is not even a putative marriage (“Gorgias” correctly used the term “non-existent”) since the couple did not properly manifest their marital consent. The Church does not see “good faith” here as far as that is required for a putative marriage.

In common parlance, “convalidation” is the remedy for both situations. However, that is probably not the best term to use for a “lack of form” case. That’s a wide and deep rabbit hole that is best left for another time.

Since a 2005 decree of the Signatura and a 2007 sentence from the Rota, this (defect/lack of form and convalidation) has been a “hot” topic in canonical circles…

Dan