Vocabulary question: Convalidation

[ValPal]

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.

Okay, I think I’m learning something here.

Is it proper to say the Catholic Church Law can restrict Divine Law, or is it that Catholic Church Law can add to Divine Law?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Okay, I think I’m learning something here.

Is it proper to say the Catholic Church Law can restrict Divine Law, or is it that Catholic Church Law can add to Divine Law?

Well, I wouldn’t say “restrict” since Divine Law is pretty basic. However, the Catholic Church (much like civil authorities) can regulate.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Back in the day, (think “hundreds of years ago”, not “decades ago”), there was no requirement for Catholics to get married before a priest. All they needed to do was manifest their consent from one spouse to another. So, John Doe and Jane Smith could have an amazingly romantic ceremony in a field of daisies, without anyone else around, in which they pledged their lives to each other until death do they part. If, a week later, Joe Rockefeller showed up and expressed his undying love for Jane, then Joe and Jane could have an amazingly romantic (and expensive) ceremony in a field of long-stem roses in a “destination wedding” in the California wine country, complete with a full orchestra, a sushi buffet, and a wedding makeover by whoever that guy is on cable TV.

What was John Doe to do? After all, he had the prior bond with Jane, but now, Jane said he was making it all up, and she was really in love with Joe (not to mention his trust fund).

The Church had to decide what the best course of action was. After all, if people were relying on them to certify and validate their marriages, didn’t the Church have a responsbility here, to make sure that the wedding was valid?

So, the decision was, that the Church would send a representative to a wedding, when a Catholic wanted the Church to certify and validate the marriage. No representative, no validation. If you wanted to demonstrate that you wished to have a wedding in the way that the Catholic Church understood it – and understood marriage – you had to follow the Catholic Church’s form.

It’s not all that difficult to understand, right? If you want to get married in the U.S. and have the U.S. government recognize your marriage, you have to follow the rules: blood test, marriage license (and all its requirements), and signature of a person deputized by the government to witness a valid American wedding. Get married without a marriage license? Not a valid marriage in the U.S. Get married by someone who didn’t have the permission of the U.S. to witness weddings? Not a valid marriage in the U.S.

Same thing for the Church. Somehow, though, people think that the requirements of the government trump the requirements of the Church. Why is that?

Anyway, the Church has her requirements. If you don’t get them right, even though you tried, the Church has a procedure to help you get things fixed. If you don’t even try to get them right, the Church is still accommodating – just come to the Church and work with her, and you can have your marriage recognized by the Church.

If you aren’t a Catholic, and aren’t trying to get your marriage recognized by the Church, though, you don’t have to follow her rules. Instead, she realizes that a valid marriage is something that is governed by your own rules. Do you, as a non-Catholic, want the Catholic Church to recognize your marriage? OK… just show that you followed the rules of your community, and you’re good to go!

Seems simple, doesn’t it? Except for the fact that we’re talking about people’s lives here. When someone feels that they haven’t gotten a fair shake, then the authority gets a bum rap. “They’re unfair!” “They’re oppressing me!” “Come see the oppression inherent in the system!”

It stinks to be on the wrong side of the law. It stinks to find out that you’ve messed up, especially when you weren’t consciously trying to skirt the law. Still… does that make the problem into an issue of injustice on the part of the system?

 

[Vico]

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

Adding a text from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles: The radical sanation of an invalid marriage – i.e., its convalidation by competent authority without the giving of new matrimonial consent (c. 1161, §1) – may be a pastorally beneficial service to a couple when the following circumstances come together:

    1. A simple convalidation is impossible because:[INDENT]         a. one party refuses to give new consent; or 
    b. there is a strong possibility that a convalidation would be defective – that         is, the          consent manifested by one or both parties would be defective or lacking;         and/or          c. scandal might be caused to a community, or the consciences of the         couple would be          seriously disturbed, were an invalidating impediment revealed and new         consent asked          for.

AND

    2. Their marriage is found to be invalid by reason of:         a. lack of canonical form; or 
    b. lack of proper delegation of the minister’s faculties; and/or
    c. an undispensed impediment (e.g., disparity of worship, consanguinity,         etc.).

archdiocese.la/prayer/sacraments/tribunal/canonical/sanatio.html

[/INDENT]

 

[Vico]

Also, the canon law (CIC) pertaining to marriage bind not only all Catholics, but also anyone outside the Church who marries a Catholic:

Can. 1059 The marriage of catholics, even if only one party is baptised, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of the civil authority in respect of the merely civil effects of the marriage.

 

[ValPal]

Seems simple, doesn’t it?

In and of itself, yes. But when looking at the other sacraments, a person can get easily confused. Take for example baptism. Say that couple out in a field has a child, and baptizes that child with a Church representative present. The child is validly baptized. Period. Or say a Bishop comes along and decides to ordained that man out in the field with Rome’s permission. That ordination is valid. Period. They would be illicit, but valid.

I’d take a stab in the dark and guess that the baptism and ordination would fall under divine law. Obviously, like marriage, bestowing these sacraments can be problematic with the Church’s permission or knowledge, but I’d speculate that if these actions fall under divine law, the Church cannot call them invalid.