Annulment reforms already producing unintended consequences, canonist argues [CC]

[Thomas_White]

Well, in a lot of cases, the practical reality is seen to be: the grounds are either canon 1095.2 or nothing. Sometimes in such cases, if there is no expert report, there will not be sufficient proof. If there is insufficient proof, there is no declaration of nullity. The reports, then, were not unnecessary.

Dan

Would a psychologist personally evaluate the petitioner (or either party) in a marriage case? I ask this question because I am curious and do not know the answer.

 

[ProVobis]

Would a psychologist personally evaluate the petitioner (or either party) in a marriage case? I ask this question because I am curious and do not know the answer.

In my case the psychologist’s report did come into play, but it was in no way the only criteria they used to grant me an annulment.

 

[dans0622]

Would a psychologist personally evaluate the petitioner (or either party) in a marriage case? I ask this question because I am curious and do not know the answer.

Yes, that does happen regularly. At other times, the expert writes a report based only on a reading of the testimony. The latter is of less probative value.

Dan

 

[Genesis315]

This is a difficult issue. The article describes real problems. On the one hand, in my experience a lot of people do seem to bitterly view annulments like indulgences at the height of their abuse–just a money-making scheme. I’ve even heard someone say the second review was just another chance to get your money. Combine this with the proliferation of annulments and one can get the following impression: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from matrimony springs.”

Getting rid of the fee at least returns the focus to the spiritual significance and importance.

Anyway, the best way of reducing the strain on tribunals is to actually do a better job of celebrating the sacrament. Maybe these problems will provide some extra motivation in that regard…

 

[JimG]

This is a difficult issue. The article describes real problems. On the one hand, in my experience a lot of people do seem to bitterly view annulments like indulgences at the height of their abuse–just a money-making scheme. I’ve even heard someone say the second review was just another chance to get your money. Combine this with the proliferation of annulments and one can get the following impression: “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings / the soul from matrimony springs.”

Getting rid of the fee at least returns the focus to the spiritual significance and importance.

Anyway, the best way of reducing the strain on tribunals is to actually do a better job of celebrating the sacrament. Maybe these problems will provide some extra motivation in that regard…

How might one do a better job of celebrating the sacrament? I can think of some ways in which the solemnity and permanence of the vows could be emphasized, perhaps bringing back the “Exhortation Before Marriage,” that was formerly used. But essentially, one has to rely on the bride and groom to mean what they say when they recite the wedding vows. If they don’t mean what they say, they might consider beginning the application for nullity immediately following the honeymoon.