Article I: On Simple Convalidation

— Principle concerning the necessity of new consent. One must proceed from this principle. Although consent which would of itself suffice may have been given before, nevertheless by the removal alone of the cause of nullity (different from deficient consent) the matrimony is not convalidated, but new consent to matrimony is required, given by the person who is conscious of the nullity (cc. 1133, 1134).

And this is required for validity by ecclesiastical law (c. 1133, §2).

— Who must renew consent and in what manner. 1. If the impediment is public, the consent must be renewed in the form prescribed by law (c. 1135, §1) for the first celebration of matrimony.

What if the impediment is public by its nature, but occult in fact?

Since no exception of this kind can be gathered from the Code, even then the same form of renewal seems to have to be observed. But, with the permission of the Ordinary added, if the case requires it, the form of a marriage of conscience can be employed. If the matter must be hidden from the pastor, the confessor can be delegated by the Ordinary so that he himself, with two witnesses, may assist at the marriage. Of itself, however, the very reason of avoiding scandal demands that at least from publication the celebration become known. But per accidens it can happen that the publication itself becomes more scandalous (cf. De Smet, 729).

2. If the impediment is occult and known to both parties, it is enough that the consent be renewed privately and secretly by both parties (c. 1135, §2).

We understand occult both by its nature and in fact. Wherefore the marriage is supposed to have been celebrated in due form. But if otherwise, it must again be contracted in the legitimate form (c. 1137).

3. If the occult impediment is unknown to one party, it suffices that the party alone conscious of the impediment renew consent privately and secretly, which will be joined with the persevering consent of the other.

It is indeed necessary that the other party have persevered in consent. But, when contrary arguments are lacking, that perseverance is sufficiently demonstrated by the presumption itself from c. 1093. Therefore, if the other party had consented fictitiously, it is enough that he or she renew consent internally, c. 1136, §2. If the defect of consent was also external, as for example if it was vitiated by fear, an external manifestation of consent will be necessary, whether occult or even public, according as the defect was occult or became public.

What if both parties are ignorant of the nullity? From c. 1133 we gather that it does not suffice that the impediment have ceased or have been removed by dispensation, but consent must be renewed at least by one party who is made more certain concerning the impediment, unless recourse is had to sanation in the root. This has been authentically declared concerning impediments removed by the Code (cf. declaration of June 2-3, 1918, IV, 7, Periodica, IX, 150).

N.B. Before matrimony is convalidated, the parties must be warned, if it can be done, that they procure for themselves or carefully preserve the state of grace, in order to receive the sacrament worthily and fruitfully.