Vow renewal or convalidation? Help please!

[bacamp09]

Hi, DH and I are coming up on our 35th anniversary, We are planning on renewing our vows, but some friends have told me that due to the circumstances of the marriage, we need a convalidation.
I was 17 and DH was 21 when we became engaged. He was a baptized Protestant, I was not, but went to the same church with my parents. Due to certain circumstances, we had to change the date of the wedding according to the rules of the church. We were not allowed to be married in the church (minister looked me in the eyes and said because we had sinned we could not be married in the church), but at my parents house. I/We had no choice at all, it was a case of “you will do this”.
In 2006 DH and I became Catholic.
What I need to know is, is our marriage a natural marriage or a sacramental one? Do we need to have it convalidated, or are we ok just renewing our vows? We have a good marriage, but it has always felt like something was missing. Thanks for your advice.

 

[1ke]

but some friends have told me that due to the circumstances of the marriage, we need a convalidation.

These friends are well meaning, but do not know what they are talking about. You are validly married.

What I need to know is, is our marriage a natural marriage or a sacramental one?

You are both baptized. Your marriage is a sacrament.

Do we need to have it convalidated

No.

A convalidation is for an invalid marriage to make it valid.

You have a VALID marriage.

or are we ok just renewing our vows?

The Church does not renew vows, although there are some various blessings on the occasion of anniversaries, etc. You can ask your pastor about them.

We have a good marriage, but it has always felt like something was missing. Thanks for your advice.

Since you were not Catholic when you got married, you have never received the Nuptial Blessing, which is part of the Catholic marriage rite. It would be totally appropriate to ask your pastor to give you the Nuptial Blessing on your anniversary.

 

[tawny]

These friends are well meaning, but do not know what they are talking about. You are validly married.

You are both baptized. Your marriage is a sacrament.

No.

A convalidation is for an invalid marriage to make it valid.

You have a VALID marriage.

The Church does not renew vows, although there are some various blessings on the occasion of anniversaries, etc. You can ask your pastor about them.

Since you were not Catholic when you got married, you have never received the Nuptial Blessing, which is part of the Catholic marriage rite. It would be totally appropriate to ask your pastor to give you the Nuptial Blessing on your anniversary.

Well stated.

 

[Phemie]

The Church does not renew vows, although there are some various blessings on the occasion of anniversaries, etc. You can ask your pastor about them.

There is indeed a Renewal of Vows in the Catholic Church. In the US the vows are slightly different from the original vows to indicate a renewal.

In Canada the vows spoken are exactly the same as the original and are introduced thus:

My dear friends Mary & John
you have come here with your family and friends
to celebrate your faithfulness to each other
and to thank God for the years he has given you to live in mutual love.
Through the joys and sorrows, the triumphs and trials of life,
God has been with you.

The Church shares your joy today
and is thankful to you
for being such a powerful sign of God’s loyal and faithful love for the world.
(God has enriched and strengthened you over the years by the sacrament of marriage.)
In renewing your vows today, you give witness once again to God’s love.

You have proven your devotion to each other by your life together.
Now join your right hands and renew your consent before God and his Church.

(Here we are referred back to the vows in the marriage ceremony.)

In receiving their consent the priest says:
You have declared your consent once again before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness fill you both with his blessing. Amen.

 

[1ke]

There is indeed a Renewal of Vows in the Catholic Church. In the US the vows are slightly different from the original vows to indicate a renewal.

There actually is no such thing as the renewal of vows, because the exchange of consent is irrevocable and perpetual. Therefore it cannot actually be repeated.

The universal Church has no such ritual. What the US and Canada do cannot **actually **be a renewal of vows, because that isn’t possible, although I know they call it that.

The Book of Blessings has appropriate blessings and I would suggest going in that direction, plus the Nuptial Blessing since it hasn’t been conferred.

 

[bacamp09]

Thank you for the information so far. The question came about because my friend said that because the vows were exchanged between a baptized and unbaptized person, and that they were not exactly freely given, that while legal, they were not sacramental.

 

[1ke]

Thank you for the information so far. The question came about because my friend said that because the vows were exchanged between a baptized and unbaptized person, and that they were not exactly freely given, that while legal, they were not sacramental.

The marriage was a natural marriage when contracted. But you are both now baptized. Therefore, it is a sacrament. It became a sacrament when the unbaptized party became baptized.

I do not understand what you mean by “not exactly freely given”.

 

[bacamp09]

While we were engaged, when I became pregnant, the families and the church we attended gave us no choice, we were married as soon as was possible. I know it sounds a bit barbaric, but a lot of fundamental protestant churches were / are like that.

 

[Vico]

While we were engaged, when I became pregnant, the families and the church we attended gave us no choice, we were married as soon as was possible. I know it sounds a bit barbaric, but a lot of fundamental protestant churches were / are like that.

Was it grave fear and did you have an escape?

Latin Canon Law
Canon 1103 A marriage is invalid which was entered into by reason of force or of grave fear imposed from outside, even if not purposely, from which the person has no escape other than by choosing marriage.

 

[bacamp09]

I don’t know what you mean by grave fear. Back then, we were taught that children living at home obey their parents, period. That when you make a mistake, you must own up to it and make it right. If we had not married, I would have been thrown out of the house with nothing. Family would not have helped. To a 17 year old girl, the thought of losing your families love and acceptance back then was pretty frightening, especially when that was the only world you knew.

 

[1ke]

I don’t know what you mean by grave fear. Back then, we were taught that children living at home obey their parents, period. That when you make a mistake, you must own up to it and make it right. If we had not married, I would have been thrown out of the house with nothing. Family would not have helped. To a 17 year old girl, the thought of losing your families love and acceptance back then was pretty frightening, especially when that was the only world you knew.

The Church views marriages as having the favor of the law, meaning that it takes at face value the words you said when you made your vows, the Church believes you meant them unless you can **prove **otherwise.

You and your husband are happily married 35 years later, and are wanting to celebrate your anniversary with a special vow renewal/blessing. Clearly, at some point you and your husband fixed your wills to live a lifelong marriage, even if you started out feeling afraid or coerced.

If not, or if you are really worried about this, you can always make such an affirmation privately:

Can. 1159 §1. A marriage which is invalid because of a defect of consent is convalidated if the party who did not consent now consents, provided that the consent given by the other party perseveres.

§2. If the defect of consent cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party who did not consent gives consent privately and in secret.

Put out of your mind these things your friends have said, you are validly married.

 

[bacamp09]

Thank you.

 

[Vico]

I don’t know what you mean by grave fear. Back then, we were taught that children living at home obey their parents, period. That when you make a mistake, you must own up to it and make it right. If we had not married, I would have been thrown out of the house with nothing. Family would not have helped. To a 17 year old girl, the thought of losing your families love and acceptance back then was pretty frightening, especially when that was the only world you knew.

More to the point, what does the canon law mean by grave fear (external)?

Archdiocese of Denver has:Canon 1103 — Force and Fear

This  canon questions whether an individual entered marriage with a grave force or  fear imposed from without, from which the person had no escape but to enter  marriage.  Force refers to the external  physical or moral impulse which cannot be resisted, while fear refers to the  trepidation of the mind which is the result of an impending danger or  evil.  The fear must be considered  grave, imposed from without, and it must be the cause of the marriage.

archden.org/tribunal/documents/nullity.htm Lake Charles diocese has:**Force and Fear (Canon 1103) **

Force and fear are two conditions that adversely influence a person’s ability to freely make decisions and thus the ability to give consent in the marital contract. This force and fear may either be internal or external. A young lady becomes pregnant. She fears what her parents will say and how they will react. She fears her grandmother will die of a heart attack when she finds out about the pregnancy. These are examples of internal fear. External force and fear is when she tells her father and her father forces her or her boyfriend to marry. Or, the young man may actually be threatened by violence from the state boxing champion brother of the pregnant girl.
Diocese of Saint Augustine has:***Force or Fear (Canon 1103)

---

A person must freely choose to enter marriage or the marriage is invalid. unintentionally, even by a well-meaning person. Fear is the internal result of the external force. It must be both grave and compelling, so that the person chooses to marry to escape from the force and fear. This ground may be considered if one or both spouses entered marriage in order to be free of some external force or some internal fear which was related to the marriage decision. The choice, then, was not so much to enter marriage, but to be free of the external force or the internal fear of the moment.

Were either you or your former spouse forced or pressured in any way to enter this marriage? Was the marriage someone else’s idea, and not yours or your former spouse’s? Did either of you feel that you had no real choice whether to marry the other? Were either you or your former spouse deeply afraid that NOT marrying would bring about a serious harm or threat? Was there, in fact, a threat in not marrying? Was there someone or something threatening harm or punishment if you did not marry one another? (Force or threats could come from parents, family, employer, church, cultural expectations, etc.)

http://www.dosafl.com/navSubLanding.asp?HorizSubNavID=28

Archdiocese of SanteFe has:Force and Fear

   **Canon 1103 -- A marriage is invalid which is entered into by reason of force or of grave         fear imposed from without, even if not purposely, from which the person has no escape other         than by choosing marriage.

**
Grave fear proceeding from an external cause and inflicted unjustly to extort matrimonial consent renders marriage null and void, as indicated in Canon 1103, §1. The reasons for this norm of law are given by St. Thomas to be the following: the matrimonial bond is perpetual; wherefore, whatever is in opposition to this perpetuity does away with marriage. Unjustly inflicted fear of such a nature as to overcome a steady and firm character destroys the perpetuity of the contract, as restitutio in integrum can be invoked against this according to the principle that those things done by force and fear must be revoked as null and ought to be devoid of the binding force of validity. Furthermore, marriage signifies the union of Christ and His Church, which has been effected according to the liberty of love. Fear as described above is absolutely and unalterably opposed to such liberty. Therefore, the sacrament cannot proceed from such a source. In view of this, Pope Alexander stated that since consent could not be present where fear and constraint interfered, it is necessary that where one’s consent is required the force of constraint be excluded. If such constraint were employed, the marriage would be null.
archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Tribunal/ExplanationGr.html

 

[Vico]

I don’t know what you mean by grave fear. Back then, we were taught that children living at home obey their parents, period. That when you make a mistake, you must own up to it and make it right. If we had not married, I would have been thrown out of the house with nothing. Family would not have helped. To a 17 year old girl, the thought of losing your families love and acceptance back then was pretty frightening, especially when that was the only world you knew.

Also from EWTN:
**Force or Grave Fear **

   Canon 1103. A marriage is invalid if it is entered into due  to  force or grave fear inflicted from outside the person, even when   inflicted unintentionally, which is of such a type that the person is   compelled to choose matrimony in order to be free from it.
    
  The necessity of determining the will is present in this canon as  in so        many others already discussed. To avoid physical or  psychological force or        coercion, a person chooses marriage. Such  force would necessarily be        grave, since it takes away the freedom  to think and will rationally. This        gravity could be objective  (the threat of death) or subjective (emotional        disturbance  created by psychological manipulation). The threat must come        from  outside, as opposed to one's own conscience, and it must be the  principal        cause of consent. In the case of the reverential fear  which children ought        to have for their parents or a subordinate  for a superior of another kind,        to invalidate the consent there  must be actual coercion of the person by        the parent or superior  which is experienced as such, the well-founded fear        of earning  their grave and lasting displeasure if marriage is refused and         the grave fear must actually be the cause of the consent. An example  would        be the coerced marriage of an unwed mother by her parents,  if the other conditions        are met.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm

 

[bacamp09]

ok, now I am back to being confused. The conditions you describe as grave fear existed on my part, as my parents did use psychological pressure, as I was told that if I did not marry, I would be kicked out of the house, never be able to speak to my brothers and sisters again, and would be dead to the family. That is quite a bit of pressure for a 17 year old girl. I did what I was told to do.

DH and I came to love each other very much as the years passed. We left our old religion, and practiced nothing for many years, until 1997 when I decided to become Catholic. I guess my next question is, when I was baptized, is that when our marriage became valid to the Church?

 

[Phemie]

ok, now I am back to being confused. The conditions you describe as grave fear existed on my part, as my parents did use psychological pressure, as I was told that if I did not marry, I would be kicked out of the house, never be able to speak to my brothers and sisters again, and would be dead to the family. That is quite a bit of pressure for a 17 year old girl. I did what I was told to do.

DH and I came to love each other very much as the years passed. We left our old religion, and practiced nothing for many years, until 1997 when I decided to become Catholic. I guess my next question is, when I was baptized, is that when our marriage became valid to the Church?

Even if you didn’t want to get married at the start, and did so ‘unwillingly’ shall we say, the Church would still presume your marriage valid until such time as you were able to prove that fact.

Since nobody but the two of you, or maybe only you, were aware of the lack of willing consent all that was required was that you consented internally. You’ve been married 35 years and you say you love each other. If your marriage was not valid at the time you originally spoke your vows, your actions since show nothing but consent. Put your mind at ease. You are validly married.

When you were baptized your marriage became sacramental since it is the baptism of both parties that makes a marriage sacramental. Before that you were in a ‘natural’ marriage (a valid marriage where at least one of the spouses is unbaptized).

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

Perhaps this hasn’t been made clear to you yet, but only CATHOLICS are required to be married in the Church to have a valid marriage. So two non-Catholics can get married any other way, and the Church would recognize their marriage as valid. As the other posters have said, a marriage that includes at least one non-baptized spouse would not be sacramental, but it would still be a valid (real) marriage.

 

[bacamp09]

Ok, thank you very much. My mind is now at ease.