We had some bad news on Wed re: my spouse’s health, and this was also one of the reasons for the delay in calling the judge. We discussed continuing if we received bad news, to which he replied yes. I assure everyone that his condition is treatable and early. Do keep him in your prayers. Quite frankly, I almost feel like dropping the whole thing.
I would like to know though, Chevalier mentioned that “some convalidations can take place that way”. Is that possible?..
I’m sorry to hear about your husband.
My remark about “internal forum” for convalidation served illustration what internal forum was (fixing an impediment one party knows about) and what it was not for (doubling a tribunal process). It did not mean that your situation could be addressed this way, but the exact opposite. I’m sorry.
As for presumptions, they are, “probable conjecture about uncertain matter,” (can. 1584) and, “[t]he judge is not to formulate presumptions which are not established by law unless they are directly based on a certain and determined fact connected with the matter in dispute” (can. 1586). In plain terms, this means the logic needs to be strong and conclusions can’t be shaky. If you find a place where the judge can’t root his statements in facts, you need to point it out.
If you feel they don’t read what you write… well, I would write that, but you’d need to show what gives you that impression, e.g. the written grounds say that no one said anything about X, while you actually wrote about X in one of your submissions.
As for the “immature” remark, well, it’s often believed that such remarks by judges should not be quoted and used (it’s seen as bad style), but I believe this is no reason to omit a potentially important detail. Clearly, everyone is
not immature and the judge was bitter and dismissive. I wouldn’t rule out that it reflected on the case. So I would quote that remark and say it’s clearly not true and it shows a questionable attitude, plus, while “immaturity” is not a specifically named impediment, the defects of consent listed in can. 1095 are this:
1/ those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
2/ those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted;
3/ those who are not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychic nature.
“Immaturity” can cover any of the three, especially when used by a party who is not a professional and does not express himself in a professionaly correct way.
However, please remember that these are not superhuman requirements, they are minimum requirements and the defects described in #1-3 must be serious. “Sufficient use of reason,” should be read as sufficient for marriage, not sufficient in general in the opinion of people who interact with that person, “grave defect” is grave (extremely serious) and “essential rights and duties” or “essential obligations” are essential (base, core). Here’s some reading, which mentions Pope John Paul II saying to the Roman Rota (the highest tribunal for marriages) that it was “incapacity, not difficulty” which caused a marriage to be invalid:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/marital_consent.htm
(You can google for more, but don’t waste time on unprofessional opinions - look for something signed by someone competent.)
As of the written grounds, I may be saying the obvious, but you’ll need to show them to the canon lawyer who will be helping you. You will want to show it to him (take pictures or scan it and prepare a .zip file for easy sending, same goes for your application and whatever other important documents you have - doing this will save hours after contacting him and you may be time-pressed) and tell him all you know and/or answer his questions. If he isn’t asking you questions, make him ask. And ask him to write that appeal, not just tell you what to put there (unless he tells you to write it on your own, but stating X, Y and Z - but in that case, do ask him all questions you can think about and keep his phone number or e-mail).
If you don’t find a canon lawyer, you will need to do it alone, which means writing down all problems you have with the verdict (better too much than too few) and clearly pointing out what shows the judge didn’t read something you wrote, ignored a witness statement or some other piece of evidence or refused to admit or conduct some evidence (such as psychiatric examination), jumped to a conclusion from shaky facts, showed bias (includes being rude to parties, but you must understand this - of itself - is a minor clue; judges can be perfectly fair while bordering on verbally abusive), said something troubling from the point of view of what’s written in canon law (something that doesn’t seem to agree with the rules, e.g. an unqualified statement that immaturity is relevant). Then, write whatever you said about not getting assistance of a lawyer, not getting assistance in looking for a lawyer - but having to look one up on your own as your time-limit for appeal was running and any other details which suggest that you were not able to defend your position and/or there was bias. Don’t omit anything you think might be relevant but aren’t sure. Think what else can be relevant. You don’t need to (and won’t be able to) write like a neat and professional canon lawyer, but you want everything to be there.
