Was wondering if anyone had information regarding convalidation of marriage between two individuals who desire to be married in the Catholic Church- but can't due to reasons outside there control. i will spare the details, but the bottom line is that I'm trying to get my marriage blessed after our wedding by a Catholic priest.

thanks, curtis

-- curtis s cannata (curtiscannata@yahoo.com), January 20, 2002

Answers

Jmj

Hello, Curtis.

As your fellow Catholic, I think that I have a responsibility to advise you to do one of two things:
Either (1) obtain your bishop's dispensation from canonical form, so that you can be married without a ceremony inside a Catholic church ...
Or (2) if you cannot obtain a dispensation, then refrain from attempting marriage at all. Without dispensation, you would be entering an invalid union, leading to acts of adultery or fornication.

You have decided to "spare [us] the details," but without them, I cannot conceive of a situation that would justify my talking about "convalidation" with you.
It would be such a gravely improper thing for you to do what you know is wrong -- with the anticipation of patching things up later. Why deliberately place yourself in a state of mortal sin, leaving yourself on the doorstep of hell (which you would enter if you should die unexpectedly)? Why not do what is right to start with -- wait until you and your fiancee are both free to marry, keeping yourselves in a state of grace?

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 22, 2002.

Curtis,

After the first helpful response you got, I'll bet you're sorry you asked. My fiance and I are in the same situation. His father is very ill and we'd like for him to see us get married, but are waiting for my annulment to come through.

I spoke to my parish priest about it, and he told me that we could get married in a civil service, but I'd be barred from the sacraments until we'd had the marriage blessed. The convalidation is a very simple matter of going to the church on a Saturday afternoon along with two witnesses and having the service performed.

He was very nice about it - didn't leave me under the impression that I was teetering on the brink of the fires of hell, as your first respondent did.

Talk to a priest - I'm sure he'll be very helpful.

Sonya

-- Sonya Bostick (Jakesaw@worldnet.att.net), February 24, 2002.

Jmj

Sorry to have to tell you, Sonya, that your "parish priest" had no right to give you such bad advice. Objectively speaking, it was a mortal sin on his part to recommend to you to get involved in a potentially adulterous relationship. After all, the tribunal may decide not to issue a Decree of Nullity, and you would be left in a very sorry state. PLEASE DO NOT DO IT!

Also, any good Catholic parent (such as I hope your father is) would rather miss his daughter's wedding, because of illness or death, than to see her break the Church's Canon Law and put herself in a state of mortal sin, unable to receive the sacraments. Please do not endanger your immortal soul!

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), February 25, 2002.

We're finally doing our convalidation in December after a 2 and a- half year annulment wait! If you want to have your marriage blessed, then you believe in what the Catholic Church says, and maybe you'd better go through all the steps. Otherwise, just be married civilly, don't take part in communion, but still participate in the mass as much as you can. Are you already married? Have you spoken to your own priest about this?

-- Monica McGarva (mmcgarva@yahoo.com), October 01, 2002.

Dear Curtis

I am sorry your getting such awful advice from John, jfgecik@hotmail.com. This is between you and god and only god can pass judgements. The union of two people goes back to creation before Catholisisim even existed. Jesus died on the cross for us cause god knows how imperfect we are and that our judgement is often clouded with human error. I beleive this John character is confused about what being a christian really is. His comment on commiting a mortal sin and you sitting on the doorstep of hell, well any one claiming to have the devine right to condem some one to hell is actually commiting a mortal sin them selves, his second comment about Sonya's father being a good catholic(again passing judgement) anyone who would insinuate themselves as being a good catholic needs a lesson in humility. I sincerally hope this John person has not made you feel unwelcomed into the house of the lord where everyone and anyone is forgiven loved and welcomed. Sorry if spelling is wrong, I am a herendous speller.

-- Maria Chavez-Ramos (mariar@neilconsultants.com), December 09, 2002.

Dear Maria,

I don't mind that you may be a "herendous" speller.
But I do mind that you are a "herendous" reader. You criticized me for saying two things that I did not say. I neither damned anyone nor canonized anyone.

Please go back and read again, this time slowly and carefully. Maybe you will see how you went wrong. If not, let me know, and I will break it down for you.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), December 10, 2002.

Dear John, I have to agree with Maria, it does sound like you are presuming to know the circumstances which would lead to a person being damned to hell. A direct quote from your response is, "Why deliberately place yourself in a state of mortal sin, leaving yourself on the doorstep of hell (which you would enter if you should die unexpectedly)?" You cannot know for sure that Curtis would go to hell if he married outside the church now and died before his marriage was validated. It's not as simple as, "You have committed a mortal sin, therefore you are going to hell." No one, not a priest, bishop, or the pope himself can make this determination. That is only for God to decide. It does seem you are very concerned for the welfare of our fellow Catholic brothers and sisters, and that is a good thing, but remember there are some things that are not for us ascertain. God bless you.

-- Amy (yankeelady78@attbi.com), December 13, 2002.

Thank you, Amy.

In the sentence that you quoted from me, there are actually some unexpressed concepts that you must "read between the lines." That is, in order to keep my expression concise, I didn't go into all the details, which I thought that Curtis would realize I intended. But since two people (you and Maria) have not understood all of what I intended to say to Curtis, I will revise what I originally wrote for you now.

Here is what you quoted: "Why deliberately place yourself in a state of mortal sin, leaving yourself on the doorstep of hell (which you would enter if you should die unexpectedly)?"

Here is how I could have stated it, in a longer form:
"Why would you deliberately place yourself in a state of mortal sin? Lacking sanctifying grace (lost through mortal sin), you would be putting yourself on the doorstep of hell. That is a dangerous place to be, because you could die suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (accident, heart attack, etc.). There is no guarantee that, in your soul's final moments in your body, you would choose to repent (with perfect contrition) for these mortal sins. There is really only one proper choice -- not to place yourself in this grave danger."

Amy and Maria, that "longer form" is really what I had in mind from the beginning, but I just didn't choose to be that wordy! If you think that there is something wrong even with my "longer form," you are welcome to object -- but I don't think that I will be revising it.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 15, 2002.

Amy, Maria, Monica, et al... look around the forum a bit. I'm not one to be agreeing with John all the time, and you might not like the way he said it, but what he says here is the truth.

Look, there is some confusing kind of relationship with rules you exhibit when you ask questions about meeting guidelines, formulas or rules, but then don't want to hear the reasons for them or the gravity of breaking them.

It is kind of a self-serving thing, as if you aren't really interested in anything more than the meeting of a rule as some sort of insurance, and then getting back to the business of life as usual.

What is the business of life anyways?

Denial only goes so far on this side of life, but on the other side of the veil, denial does not exist. The powers that be each take what is theirs and do not ask permission or explain anything.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2002.

Emerald,

I did not disagree with the reasoning behind John’s answer, or his mention of the possible repercussions of adultery or fornication. Yes, these are sins that could result in damnation. My only issue with John’s response was this comment he made, “Why deliberately place yourself in a state of mortal sin, leaving yourself on the doorstep of hell (which you would enter if you should die unexpectedly)?"

It seemed so very black and white, that John was saying, “If you do this, and something happens to you, you will go to Hell.” I had to take issue with that, because he sounded so sure of his answer. Now, would I be willing to take such a risk, and would I advise anyone else to do so? Absolutely not! But could I say with even a small amount of certainty that this person would go to Hell? No. Would I warn them of the possible, I would even say probable, ramifications of their actions? Yes. I did not “read between the lines” as John said was necessary to understand the meaning of his first post. I appreciate the clarification you made, John, and apologize for the misunderstanding.

I have been a visitor to this forum for quite some time. I enjoy reading the posts, but I usually do not comment. In fact, this is the first time I have chosen to do so. I have found that sometimes, when people disagree on something as intimate as religion and morals, they get very defensive while upholding their own moral code. I will be honest, your comment, “It is kind of a self-serving thing, as if you aren't really interested in anything more than the meeting of a rule as some sort of insurance, and then getting back to the business of life as usual,” hurt my feelings. I do not think you actually read my post, because if you did, you would have realized I did not express any disagreement with John’s post, just his “apparent” condemnation of Curtis.

Do I agree with everything posted on this site? No, but I do enjoy hearing other points of view. And I have learned a great deal, and have developed an even deeper appreciation for beauty and complexity of the Roman Catholic Church. I am returning to my former status of observer, and I do look forward to reading what you all have to say on the topics that present themselves on this forum. God bless us all, and have a Merry Christmas!

-- Amy (yankeelady78@attbi.com), December 15, 2002.

Amy, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I'll try to slip out of it a bit by saying I should have said "people do this..." instead of "you (Amy) does this. I understand what you mean and your probably right.

This is what I'm worried about... on this side of life, things don't seem so concrete; there seems to be a long leash that people can stray around on and still feel safe. Moral things, doctrinal things. What I try to convince others of sometimes, and myself, is that on a deathbed, and passing through to the other side of death, things are in fact all concrete. Of course not everyone agrees with this, because it does not seem so from here, from our earthly existence. But the Faith teaches this. Stemming from that, every now and then I tend to get a little irritated when people seem to be following rules in the minimum as if to satisify God while they pursue 'self'. I wish I could persuade them otherwise, but I do not have the power; only they do, and God.

I'm wierd, Amy. =)

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 15, 2002.

Thank you, Amy. I'm glad that my clarification made sense to you. And I wish you a beautiful Christmas too.

Emerald, I'll have to store that admission ("I'm weird") in my memory banks, for future use against you!

JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 16, 2002.

lol!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 16, 2002.