Would renewal of vows validate an invalid marriage?

[HomeschoolDad]

Let’s say that a couple married, and on the day of the wedding, there was something “wrong” that, unknown to them at the time, would be sufficient to declare the marriage invalid (grave force or fear, psychological immaturity, etc.), could the couple informally renew their vows later on into the marriage, and make the marriage valid?

I say “informally” because I am not referring to convalidation, or sanatio in radice, or what have you. For many reasons, most often sentimentality (wedding anniversaries and so on), people renew their vows all the time, have receptions, invite family and friends, the whole shebang. Personally, I find it kind of “precious”, but everybody’s different.

So let’s say this happens. They have taken vows in public. Just to put the finest point possible on it, let’s say neither party is Catholic. They are not bound by canon law regarding marriage. They have some sort of officiant — or maybe not, maybe they just have the people who are present, as witnesses. They have exchanged consent to be married.

Then, later on down the road, they end up divorcing. One of them has occasion to approach the Catholic Church for a declaration of nullity. The tribunal finds that yes, on the wedding day, there was an impediment serious enough to invalidate the marriage. Nobody mentions that “ah, yes, but five years later, we’d gotten those issues straightened out, life was good, and we thought it would be nice to renew our vows, get a bunch of friends and family together, have a nice little party afterwards”.

In short — would that renewal of vows, five years later, “count for anything”?

And what if it were the same scenario, but both spouses were Catholic, and a priest witnessed the renewal of vows? Would that be sufficient to make the renewal of vows a valid marriage using canonical form?

 

[1ke]

could the couple informally renew their vows later on into the marriage, and make the marriage valid?

I think the word you are looking for is privately, not informally.

Because the convalidation must be a new act of the will:

Can. 1157 The renewal of consent must be a new act of the will concerning a marriage which the renewing party knows or thinks was null from the beginning.

Regarding whether it must be public or can be private:

Can. 1158 §1. If the impediment is public, both parties must renew the consent in canonical form, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

§2. If the impediment cannot be proven, it is sufficient that the party conscious of the impediment renews the consent privately and in secret, provided that the other perseveres in the consent offered; if the impediment is known to both parties, both are to renew the consent.

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.

§3. If the defect of consent can be proven, the consent must be given in canonical form.

Can. 1160 A marriage which is null because of defect of form must be contracted anew in canonical form in order to become valid, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.

because I am not referring to convalidation, or sanatio in radice , or what have you.

Yes, you actually are.

In short — would that renewal of vows, five years later, “count for anything”?

And what if it were the same scenario, but both spouses were Catholic, and a priest witnessed the renewal of vows? Would that be sufficient to make the renewal of vows a valid marriage using canonical form?

See above. It must be a new act of the will.

Also note that as far as Catholic liturgies go, the approved “renewal” texts distinguish that this is NOT an exchange of new consent.

 

[aroosi]

Can I ask you something? Why you keep posting questions about validity of marriages in very different (and sometimes bizarre) scenarios? I am kind of puzzled.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Can I ask you something? Why you keep posting questions about validity of marriages in very different (and sometimes bizarre) scenarios? I am kind of puzzled.

And what are some of these other “different and bizarre scenarios” to which you refer? Please refresh my memory.

It’s just academic interest, coupled with situations that could hypothetically occur. It’s not farfetched, for instance, to think that a spouse, upon being contacted by the tribunal and told that their estranged spouse is seeking an annulment, could come back and say “no, I am going to fight this, our marriage is valid — yes, things were kind of shaky when we got married, I was pregnant, my husband didn’t really want to marry me, but we went ahead and got married, saw that it was indeed the right thing to do, and five years later, we thought it would be nice to have Father to come over to the house, have a few of our friends over, and renew our vows”.

There is a school of thought that goes something like “only think about things that directly affect your own life”. A person who thinks like that could never be a lawyer, could never be a priest, could never be a novelist — the list goes on. I know of people who pride themselves along the lines of “I don’t waste my time thinking or worrying about things that don’t have anything to do with my own life”. I’m not one of those people, and I would not want to be one of those people.

 

[aroosi]

Orthodox validly married outside the Orthodox Church? Non-Catholic Religions

If an Eastern Orthodox Christian marries outside the Orthodox Church, whether to another Orthodox or to a non-Orthodox — such as by a justice of the peace or Protestant minister — is their marriage regarded as valid by the Catholic Church? At first blush, I know this might seem ridiculous — “non-Catholics are not bound by canonical form” — but since the Orthodox Churches are true Churches, would their bishops not have the authority to bind their faithful to their own canons, which (presumably) …

How do Catholic schools deal with same-sex "married" parents? Parenting

Just wondering. Let’s say a gay or lesbian couple, in a same-sex marriage, have children (whether by adoption, surrogacy, or previous relationships — that’s beside the point). They take their children to the local Catholic school to apply for admission. What happens next? And if they are admitted, are the parents made to feel welcome or unwelcome? I do not in the least bit condone “gay marriage”, but should the children have to suffer for their parents’ situation? And wouldn’t having their…

NFP with a non-Catholic spouse - how does that work? Moral Theology

Aside from isolated exceptions and small religious groups, doctrinally orthodox Catholics, faithful to the magisterium, are the only people in the world who see contraception as morally evil, in and of itself. The rest of the world has accepted contraception as an intelligent, progressive, responsible method of customizing the size of one’s family, and relatively few people would be at peace with remaining potentially open to children they haven’t planned to have. (When “accidents happen”, the…

Catholics marry validly before an Orthodox priest - how? Non-Catholic Religions

If I am understanding correctly, a Catholic who marries an Orthodox Christian, in an Orthodox liturgy, by an Orthodox priest, without the permission of his Catholic priest or bishop, is indeed married validly (though illicitly). How is this possible? Does the requirement of canonical form for validity not exist in such cases? I am neither condoning nor recommending this — marrying illicitly but validly — but this has never quite made sense to me. Does it have anything to do with the fact th…

Not caring whether one marries a Catholic or not? Liturgy and Sacraments

Or a better way of putting it might be “shouldn’t a Catholic always have a preference for marrying a fellow Catholic?”. I think so. There is such a thing as disparity of cult, and dispensations are required for a reason. Traditionally, Catholics were strongly urged to marry Catholics, and I believe I read somewhere one time, that having fewer than 2500 potential Catholic partners in one’s locality was a kind of “threshold” for determining whether a dispensation might be granted — it’s not Jon…

How do people who use contraception go to confession? Liturgy and Sacraments

Confess, just not mention it, and hope the priest doesn’t bring it up? Say that they use it, but they do not consider it a mortal sin, or any sin at all? Or just not go? Possibly for several years?

Good advice for engaged couples Liturgy and Sacraments

I found this, quite by accident when looking for something else, in a parish bulletin online: As Catholics, we believe that God has a plan for marriage. Cohabitation before marriage is not part of God’s plan and decreases the chances of success in maintaining a permanent union. Cohabitating couples should separate and live apart before requesting the Sacrament of Matrimony. This is golden. Thank you, Monsignor M.

When do non-Catholics view themselves as "not married anymore"? Non-Catholic Religions

I realize that many non-Catholics, of all persuasions and none, view marriage as able to be dissolved, or as ceasing to be. In other words, there is a point at which they say “we aren’t married anymore”. My question: when does that point take place? When does the marriage dissolve? When one or both decide they don’t want to be married anymore? When love dies? When one or the other does something so outrageous that it makes staying together impossible? When one of them (or, conceivably, both…

Annulment needed for remarriage? Liturgy and Sacraments

Not sure what heading this should go under, but here goes: Is an annulment needed when one partner has remarried (invalidly) and that partner later reconciles with their original spouse? Let me explain. A husband and a wife, validly married in the Church, get divorced. The wife remarries outside the Church. Sometime later, the wife leaves the illicit second husband and reconciles with her original husband. They remarry in a civil ceremony so that they will not be legally regarded as divorc…

Why have "disparity of cult" impediment if dispensation is always granted? Liturgy and Sacraments

It seems as though dispensations from “disparity of cult”, that is, permission for “mixed” or “interfaith” marriages, are always granted these days. Put another way, you never hear of a situation where an engaged couple, one Catholic, one not, goes to the Church for a dispensation, and it is not granted. I knew of one such situation, a friend of mine, but it was in the Philippines several decades ago. I do not know for sure, but if I had to guess, the bishop may have said “no, I’m not going t…

Do divorced non-Catholics ever see themselves as still "married in the Eyes of God"? Non-Catholic Religions

A Catholic who is divorced, without an annulment, and not in a “defect of form” situation, is viewed by the Church to be validly married until and unless the marriage is declared invalid. They may not remarry, and at least in contemporary “dating culture”, may not have a relationship with a member of the opposite sex that is unsuitable for a married person. (I say “dating culture” because “dating” is a socially conditioned construct, not a matter of canon law.) Has anyone ever heard of a divo…

How do faithful Catholics navigate the secular dating world? Moral Theology

It seems to be almost a truism that in modern dating and courtship, there is an expectation (at least among single adults) that there will be sex sooner or later. The norm seems to be between three to six dates, and sometimes sooner than that. In fact, there is a common sentiment that the third date is the “sex date” (or stronger phrases that cannot be repeated here). Absolute sexual continence — not only no sex until marriage, but no passionate, prolonged affectionate activity either — seems…

These are some of your recent posts.It seems you are very interested in couples, especially those in odd situations. At some point I even thought maybe you work for the Sacra Rota.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

because I am not referring to convalidation, or sanatio in radice , or what have you.

Yes, you actually are.

No, not quite. Convalidation or sanatio would mean going to a priest, “laying the cards on the table”, normally because the marriage was invalid in the objective order (lack of form, etc.), and having matters remedied, in the case of sanatio, clandestinely without the consent of the other spouse.

This is a more informal scenario, where what happened on the wedding day is presumed to be valid unless proven otherwise, yet the couple renews vows for the sake of love, piety, sentimentality, what have you — many people do this on key anniversaries. Would this renewal be considered a “valid marriage” even if what happened on the wedding day could be proven invalid? That was my question.

HomeschoolDad:

In short — would that renewal of vows, five years later, “count for anything”?

And what if it were the same scenario, but both spouses were Catholic, and a priest witnessed the renewal of vows? Would that be sufficient to make the renewal of vows a valid marriage using canonical form?

See above. It must be a new act of the will.

Also note that as far as Catholic liturgies go, the approved “renewal” texts distinguish that this is NOT an exchange of new consent.

I’ve got to confess, the passages from canon law that you cite are kind of dense and hard to understand. Or maybe it’s me who is “dense”. I don’t know.

Bottom line, are you saying, and does canon law say, that “renewal of vows doesn’t count, it’s only a pious practice or a concession to sentimentality, and it wouldn’t suffice to make a hitherto invalid marriage valid”?

 

[otjm]

I’ve got to confess, the passages from canon law that you cite are kind of dense and hard to understand.

I suspect that if you were to read the cases explicating those code sections, you might find them even more dense.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

These are some of your recent posts.It seems you are very interested in couples, especially those in odd situations. At some point I even thought maybe you work for the Sacra Rota.

Wow! Thanks for your interest in my poor scribblings. Happy to see that someone reads all of this.

Not all of these questions have to do with validity of marriage, but you are quite right, I do find it interesting. After my son graduates high school, I am mulling the idea of going back to school and getting a degree in theology, counseling, or possibly even canon law. You might think of it as a second career that could be put in the service of God’s Church.

 

[1ke]

Convalidation or sanatio would mean going to a priest, “laying the cards on the table”, normally because the marriage was invalid in the objective order (lack of form, etc.), and having matters remedied, in the case of sanatio , clandestinely without the consent of the other spouse.

Reread the canons: convalidation does NOT always involve going to a priest. I just posted the relevant canons regarding private convalidation .

I’m not talking about sanation.

yet the couple renews vows for the sake of love, piety, sentimentality, what have you — many people do this on key anniversaries. Would this renewal be considered a “valid marriage” even if what happened on the wedding day could be proven invalid? That was my question.

and I answered it.

A renewal of vows is not a new exchange of consent, a new act of the will. And especially not a Catholic one wherein the approved liturgical texts specifically address this.

Bottom line, are you saying, and does canon law say, that “renewal of vows doesn’t count, it’s only a pious practice or a concession to sentimentality, and it wouldn’t suffice to make a hitherto invalid marriage valid”?

Canon law doesn’t say anything about renewal of vows.

What it does say is what makes a convalidation. A new act of the will when the couple has become aware of a defect of consent or impediment (and the impediment has ceased) and think or are certain their marriage is invalid.

And the Church prescribes liturgical texts for renewals that are specifically NOT new acts of consent.

I’ve got to confess, the passages from canon law that you cite are kind of dense and hard to understand.

Then I can only propose that you not post questions whose answers rely on being able to understand very technical aspects of canon law if you don’t want to read canon law.

 

[1ke]

in the case of sanatio , clandestinely without the consent of the other spouse.

Please note radical sanation does not always involve secrecy. It can, under certain circumstances, be without knowledge of one or both parties. But it can also be with knowledge of both parties.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I’ve got to confess, the passages from canon law that you cite are kind of dense and hard to understand.

Then I can only propose that you not post questions whose answers rely on being able to understand very technical aspects of canon law if you don’t want to read canon law.

Thank you for answering my question.

Be assured that I am perfectly capable of reading canon law. I have both the 1983 CIC and the Woywod/Smith commentary on the 1917 CIC. If I find something “dense”, then it is incumbent upon me to sit down, analyze it, and ask questions, if necessary, so that it will no longer be so difficult to understand. Different texts have different levels of difficulty. You get out of it what you put into it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

in the case of sanatio , clandestinely without the consent of the other spouse.

Please note radical sanation does not always involve secrecy. It can, under certain circumstances, be without knowledge of one or both parties. But it can also be with knowledge of both parties.

Quite aware of this.

My heart goes out to those unfortunate people who seek to validate their marriages, but have intransigent spouses who won’t cooperate with the requirements of the Catholic Church regarding marriage. That’s not my idea of the best marriage to be in.

 

[1ke]

Quite aware of this.

Ok. Maybe it was just the way your reply up-thread was worded. It made it sound like you were saying sanation = clandestine.

 

[otjm]

You might want to check on the prerequisites of a canon law degree before you put too much effort and/or hope in that direction.

It may be that you would find the prereq’s easy; I looked into it once and decided I had other fish to fry. Catholic U of A looks like it wants 24 graduate credits in theology (or it may be that this is the first year, as it is referred to as First Cycle). The JCL program after 1st Cycle is 6 semesters, or 2 years full time, 3 years of two semesters, or 4 summers. Additionally, (and this stopped me cold) one must demonstrate an ability to use canonical literature in Latin and in one of the following modern languages: French, German, Italian, or Spanish. My Latin after 2 years of high school and two years of college was mediocre and I had no foreign language other than Homeric Greek and a bit of koinae in high school.

Next! was the result.

Good luck!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

You might want to check on the prerequisites of a canon law degree before you put too much effort and/or hope in that direction.

It may be that you would find the prereq’s easy; I looked into it once and decided I had other fish to fry. Catholic U of A looks like it wants 24 graduate credits in theology (or it may be that this is the first year, as it is referred to as First Cycle). The JCL program after 1st Cycle is 6 semesters, or 2 years full time, 3 years of two semesters, or 4 summers. Additionally, (and this stopped me cold) one must demonstrate an ability to use canonical literature in Latin and in one of the following modern languages: French, German, Italian, or Spanish. My Latin after 2 years of high school and two years of college was mediocre and I had no foreign language other than Homeric Greek and a bit of koinae in high school.

Next! was the result.

Good luck!

“Homeric Greek and a bit of koinae” — you’re a man after my own heart! Quite the Renaissance man.

Anything I ever do will have to be online with low residency. Christendom College offers a master’s in theology this way. That’s at least five years off, possibly more than that. Probably won’t ever happen. Just something I’ve considered.

 

[otjm]

Well, good luck and God bless. Such initiatives are no longer a reality on my end.

 

[acanonlawyer]

I’ve got to confess, the passages from canon law that you cite are kind of dense and hard to understand.

Those canons have been misunderstood and misapplied by canon lawyers (in very important matters, too: tribunal declarations of nullity) so don’t feel bad.

are you saying, and does canon law say, that “renewal of vows doesn’t count, it’s only a pious practice or a concession to sentimentality, and it wouldn’t suffice to make a hitherto invalid marriage valid”?

My answer to that would be: it depends. Since “consent makes marriage”, it depends on what the parties actually intended to do. It depends on what, exactly, they said. Since this act of consent, in order to be binding in law, has to be expressed in accord with legal formalities, it also depends on who witnessed this event.

In general, I would suppose that people who do this are not actually intending to marry. Nevertheless, if this were to happen in real life and then the marriage is eventually subjected to a tribunal investigation, the “renewal” event shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. There may be times when, as unlikely as it might be, all the stars align and, bam, their “renewal” was actually a wedding.

Dan

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I’ve got to confess, the passages from canon law that you cite are kind of dense and hard to understand.

Those canons have been misunderstood and misapplied by canon lawyers (in very important matters, too: tribunal declarations of nullity) so don’t feel bad.

I love finding loopholes, whether in canon law, overbearing HOA ukases, or whatever. I have been told more than once that I missed my calling not becoming an attorney.

In general, I would suppose that people who do this are not actually intending to marry. Nevertheless, if this were to happen in real life and then the marriage is eventually subjected to a tribunal investigation, the “renewal” event shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. There may be times when, as unlikely as it might be, all the stars align and, bam, their “renewal” was actually a wedding.

This was exactly the concept I was looking for. If I were protesting an annulment, and this had happened, at the very least I’d bring it up, and point out that two spouses who have been together for many years, and who go to the trouble to renew their vows, perhaps should not be dismissed as having lived in an invalid marriage all the years since then.

As a side thought, many non-Catholics (and even some Catholics) scorn the entire concept of annulment, most of all when a couple has been together for many years, and a fortiori if they have children. It is as though they have the notion that a marriage, even if invalid on the day of the wedding (due to some grave fault or defect), “burns in” after a period of time and “becomes valid” even if no explicit act takes place to make it so.

 

[acanonlawyer]

My perspective tends to skew toward looking why a marriage is valid or why it might be valid, since most of my canonical work is as a defender of the bond.

That being said, no, the mere passage of time doesn’t “validate” a marriage. It may well make it harder to prove that it was invalid, however.

Dan

 

[HomeschoolDad]

That being said, no, the mere passage of time doesn’t “validate” a marriage.

I know that, and you know that, but many non-Catholics, and even some Catholics, snort and roll their eyes at the entire concept of annulment. If I had to guess, I would say that a lot of them are irritated by the Catholic Church’s teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, and they want us to admit that some marriages, valid at the outset, simply “die” and cease to be the sacrament that they were on the wedding day — which we are not going to do. They also think we are saying that the relationship, even if illicit, invalid, and objectively sinful, is worthless and that there was nothing “good” about the union, and we are not saying that either. Neither are we saying that the children of the marriage were illegitimate — wouldn’t matter if they were, there are no “illegitimate children”, only “illegitimate parents”, but this disturbs a lot of people. By a legal fiction we confirm that they are to be deemed legitimate.

There is just no pleasing some people.