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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Catholic_Press

Guest
Edward Condon, an English canon lawyer, reports that the annulment reforms introduced by Pope Francis are already having unintended effects.The Pope called for free access to marriage …

More…
 
You could draw a number of different conclusions from that though. It has been well known that the cost of annulment has been a factor in people staying away from the Church processes and defaulting to live their lives with secular philosophies. There’s also been an awareness of modern marriages being done in the Church solely in the spirit of tradition rather than as an expression of their Catholic faith. It’s not unreasonable to believe that there are many Catholics whose first marriages were null but that basic ignorance of the Sacrament of marriage also makes them ambivalent towards an expensive Catholic annulment process.

Those applying for annulment because the cost is reduced are at least encouraged to make a step towards a better understanding of Gods plan for marriage, by going through that process.
 
LongingSoul said:
You could draw a number of different conclusions from that though. It has been well known that the cost of annulment has been a factor in people staying away from the Church processes and defaulting to live their lives with secular philosophies. There’s also been an awareness of modern marriages being done in the Church solely in the spirit of tradition rather than as an expression of their Catholic faith. It’s not unreasonable to believe that there are many Catholics whose first marriages were null but that basic ignorance of the Sacrament of marriage also makes them ambivalent towards an expensive Catholic annulment process.

Those applying for annulment because the cost is reduced are at least encouraged to make a step towards a better understanding of Gods plan for marriage, by going through that process.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Maybe “unintended” for the folks who expected some reimbursement for their professional skills? Just observing…
 
In government policy this same problem is seen over and over. I’d like to believe that folks haven’t thought about it but I’m afraid they actually have.
 
I filed for my annulment in June, 2013. I got an affirmative decision in first instance in February, 2014. I received a negative decision in second instance in July 2015.

Out of a sense of compassion for the overworked staff at Catholic dioceses, I’ve decided to “take one for the team.” Instead of re-filing on different grounds as both the first instance and second instance diocese’ are encouraging me to do, I’ve decided to take my first instance affirmative decision granted in 2014 and self declare my marriage invalid. After all, a first instance affirmative decision is all that is necessary now- and I have that.
I’m sure on judgment day the Almighty will look at my actions as compassionate toward the diocese’ staff, and applaud my resourcefulness and enterprising way of handling the situation.
Who knows, maybe it will garner me an nicer mansion or extra wide street of gold out front.
 
Worth knowing/remembering that the aspect according to the Diocese of Madison, the ‘shorter process’ for annulment is for ‘rare cases’:
Who qualifies for the shorter process?
Answer: The shorter process is designed only for those rare cases when it can be employed without injustice. Three strict qualifications have to be met. (1) Both spouses have to petition for it together, or if not, then the other party must at least consent to it. (2) The nullity of the marriage must be manifest. Most marriage nullity cases deal with a defect in marital consent, i.e., with an invisible, internal act of the will placed by the spouses, often several years prior. Clearly, it would be exceptional for such a defect to be patently obvious today. (3) All the facts that make the marriage manifestly null have to be readily available. Unlike the documentary process, the shorter process can involve the questioning of both parties and knowledgeable witnesses, but this is to be done all in one session when possible. In general, the first criterion is not uncommon, but the second and third are both rare, especially in conjunction. The fact that the diocesan bishop has to oversee the process personally is an indication of just how rare and exceptional Pope Francis envisions the shorter process to be.
Click to expand...
madisondiocese.org/DioceseofMadison/FAQaboutrevisedmarriagenullityprocess.aspx
 
It seems to me that the commentary is not really about the number of cases or what lowering/removing fees might do to as far as numbers of cases…and I think it is unfair to think that the author thinks an increase in the number of cases was an “unintended consequence.”

The only unintended consequence, as far as I can tell, is the move away from one ground to others, due to the cost of employing psychological experts. That’s not something I had considered or predicted nor had I heard others predict/consider it.

Dan
 
Minion_w_a_drum said:
I filed for my annulment in June, 2013. I got an affirmative decision in first instance in February, 2014. I received a negative decision in second instance in July 2015.

Out of a sense of compassion for the overworked staff at Catholic dioceses, I’ve decided to “take one for the team.” Instead of re-filing on different grounds as both the first instance and second instance diocese’ are encouraging me to do, I’ve decided to take my first instance affirmative decision granted in 2014 and self declare my marriage invalid. After all, a first instance affirmative decision is all that is necessary now- and I have that.
I’m sure on judgment day the Almighty will look at my actions as compassionate toward the diocese’ staff, and applaud my resourcefulness and enterprising way of handling the situation.
Who knows, maybe it will garner me an nicer mansion or extra wide street of gold out front.
Click to expand...
I would encourage you to take the advice of the diocesan tribunal offices.
 
dans0622 said:
It seems to me that the commentary is not really about the number of cases or what lowering/removing fees might do to as far as numbers of cases…and I think it is unfair to think that the author thinks an increase in the number of cases was an “unintended consequence.”

The only unintended consequence, as far as I can tell, is the move away from one ground to others, due to the cost of employing psychological experts. That’s not something I had considered or predicted nor had I heard others predict/consider it.

Dan
Click to expand...
That was my take on it also. I don’t know the percentage of cases were filed with can 1095 as their basis and if all routinely have some type of psychological review. If there are no longer funds to pay for psychological reviews what options are there for those cases? Will it be left to the court to make an educated guess?

Based on John Paul II’s 1987 address to the Roman Rota about difficulty not being enought to invalidate a marriage then one must ask if the tribunals should err on the side of caution and without expert opinions answer in the negative in all but the most patently obvious of these cases?

I wonder if making it easier/free will simply mean that we will have more cases with a greater percentage answered in the negative because of lack of resources to dig deep enough. That or other ministries will have to have reduced funding. Perhaps we will simply have to gut religious education to pay for the increased tribunal demand. Although this would just offset the probelm as it would result in causing more work 20 years down the road as more people enter marriages without any clue of what marriage means.
 
"A strong case can be made that the “due discretion” criterion has been invoked too readily, Condon concedes. But if the standards for granting annulments have changed, it shouldn’t be because of financial constraints. "

This feels a bit like a bureaucrat answer to me. There’s the concession that ‘due discretion’ relying on psychological reports were probably invoked too readily but it shouldn’t be changed just because there’s no money for psychologists. Doesn’t it stand to reason that the unnecessary psychological reports in the first instance *created *an unwarranted expense?? :whacky:
 
LongingSoul said:
"A strong case can be made that the “due discretion” criterion has been invoked too readily, Condon concedes. But if the standards for granting annulments have changed, it shouldn’t be because of financial constraints. "

This feels a bit like a bureaucrat answer to me. There’s the concession that ‘due discretion’ relying on psychological reports were probably invoked too readily but it shouldn’t be changed just because there’s no money for psychologists. Doesn’t it stand to reason that the unnecessary psychological reports in the first instance *created *an unwarranted expense?? :whacky:
Click to expand...
What “unnecessary psychological reports”?

Dan
 
Usige said:
That was my take on it also. I don’t know the percentage of cases were filed with can 1095 as their basis and if all routinely have some type of psychological review. If there are no longer funds to pay for psychological reviews what options are there for those cases? Will it be left to the court to make an educated guess?
…
Click to expand...
The vast majority of cases (at least in the USA) are heard on c. 1095 grounds. Many have some sort of “expert” contribution but I will not hazard a guess as to a percentage. In these cases, an expert should be consulted unless doing so is evidently useless (see Dignitas connubii, art. 203).

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
What “unnecessary psychological reports”?

Dan
Click to expand...
One consequence of the ensuing budget crunch, the canon lawyer observes, is that tribunals are less likely to seek testimony from psychologists who could help to establish whether one party to a union lacked “due discretion.” As a result there has been a noteworthy drop in the number of annulment cases centered on an alleged lack of “due discretion”—once the most common grounds for a finding of nullity.

**A strong case can be made that the “due discretion” criterion has been invoked too readily, Condon concedes. **But if the standards for granting annulments have changed, it shouldn’t be because of financial constraints.

‘Due discretion’ criterion was what warranted the psychological assessment but if ‘due discretion’ was conceded to have been invoked too readily, the burden of psychological bills was an unnecessary expense in the first place wasn’t it?
 
It is curious that the rules for determining the validity of a marriage are apparently flexible and likely variously applied.
 
LongingSoul said:
One consequence of the ensuing budget crunch, the canon lawyer observes, is that tribunals are less likely to seek testimony from psychologists who could help to establish whether one party to a union lacked “due discretion.” As a result there has been a noteworthy drop in the number of annulment cases centered on an alleged lack of “due discretion”—once the most common grounds for a finding of nullity.

**A strong case can be made that the “due discretion” criterion has been invoked too readily, Condon concedes. **But if the standards for granting annulments have changed, it shouldn’t be because of financial constraints.

‘Due discretion’ criterion was what warranted the psychological assessment but if ‘due discretion’ was conceded to have been invoked too readily, the burden of psychological bills was an unnecessary expense in the first place wasn’t it?
Click to expand...
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top