Annulment Witness Testimony Process

  • Thread starter Thread starter CPConvert
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ammi said:
We all know it is not infallible. And we also should know that many cases rely on assumptions, since all testimonies would need to be assumed as truth in order to judge some marriages invalid.
Click to expand...
I always thought they began from the assumption that the marriage was valid, and the evidence was to prove that the contrary was true?
 
Me too!

Do you know what “proves” the will was forced by coercion, after a person takes a vow that they are freely giving themselves without reservation?

Is it sympathetic assumption that the circumstance was difficult, pressured, and friends say so? That wouldnt be “proof”, but assumption or trust.

Btw, I’m not making any sort of judgment about CPConvert! Actually the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Out of charity, I’d suggest you open your own thread to discuss your opinions on the Tribunal process.
Ammi said:
Btw, I’m not making any sort of judgment about CPConvert! Actually the opposite.
Click to expand...
If I were the OP, I would read these accusations as judgement. A new thread is the kind thing.
 
Judgement is stating whether or not the OP’s marriage is valid. I have not done so.

I have corrected your first post, which stated that the Church makes a judgment that a marriage is valid. That’s not true. Also, the tribunal’s judgments, in many cases is based on assumptions rather than factual evidence. Thirdly, I’ve asked how does the tribunal “prove” someone’s will was in deed affected by outside pressure. I dont doubt that some cases may have affected the will, but it’s a legitimate question as to what can “prove” such a thing (especially when spouses vowed before Jesus, that they in fact are freely giving themselves without reservation).

CPConvert should be interested in all of those points I’ve raised. It’s for her benefit to know and understand.

You should not encourage animosity for the OP! The OP should not see my posts as judgmental at all!
 
Last edited:
Speculation that Tribunals make assumptions instead of informed judgements in post # 3.

Continuing that speculation in #5, and on and on

Your posts convey a disregard for the Tribunal Process.
In keeping with the forum rules about threads staying on topic, it may be best to begin new threads where your concerns may be discussed.
 
Original poster asks a specific question about her circumstances. An unrelated discussion about the word “assumed” dominates the thread.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Speculation that Tribunals make assumptions instead of informed judgements in post # 3.

Continuing that speculation in #5, and on and on

Your posts convey a disregard for the Tribunal Process.
In keeping with the forum rules about threads staying on topic, it may be best to begin new threads where your concerns may be discussed.
Click to expand...
Of course tribunals need to make assumptions! The OP must rely on that, right?

I say, maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong. How can that be judgment?

How is that disregard? Its reality.

In keeping with the OP, her question about the weight of certain witnesses, will be based on the discernment of the tribunal group. They have the authority, right?

They call the shots.

So speak the Gospel truth, regarding the intentions of a vow, and whether the vow was as witnesses understand. Sincere, or insincere. There are two possibilities, right?
 
Last edited:
runningdude said:
Original poster asks a specific question about her circumstances. An unrelated discussion about the word “assumed” dominates the thread.
Click to expand...
The Church presumes that every marriage is valid until the opposite is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

That’s hardly unrelated.
 
Tribunals are courts of canon law. They make judgement based on the testimony given to them. The parties take an oath to tell the truth. If they do not tell the truth the one who will judge them is God.
 
Last edited:
Hi, CPC, one of the most difficult things about the process is the “hurry up and wait” bit!
Each tribunal has different meeting times so it’s very hard to tell.
The less you dwell on the timeline, the better. Not easy, but better 🙂
Best of luck, the journey is worth it!
 
Ammi said:
Furthermore, the matter which is trying to be discerned, through a testimony, often has to do with the internal intentions and knowledge of a person. Thus making those judgments always an assumption.
Click to expand...
A marriage nullity case usually examines a person’s act of marital consent and so, indeed, it is an attempt to discern a person’s “internal intentions” (or ability to formulate a binding, marital intention). Evidence which illuminates a person’s intentions can be acquired (sometimes, of course, it doesn’t exist) and such evidence will always, eventually, find its source in the person him/herself: the person will say and/or do things which reveal the intention. Thus, a third party can offer pertinent and probative testimony. A judge, with such evidence in hand, can come to a definitive conclusion.

An assumption, on the other hand, is a conclusion not based on evidence.

Dan
 
acanonlawyer said:
40.png
Ammi:
Furthermore, the matter which is trying to be discerned, through a testimony, often has to do with the internal intentions and knowledge of a person. Thus making those judgments always an assumption.
Click to expand...
A marriage nullity case usually examines a person’s act of marital consent and so, indeed, it is an attempt to discern a person’s “internal intentions” (or ability to formulate a binding, marital intention). Evidence which illuminates a person’s intentions can be acquired (sometimes, of course, it doesn’t exist) and such evidence will always, eventually, find its source in the person him/herself: the person will say and/or do things which reveal the intention. Thus, a third party can offer pertinent and probative testimony. A judge, with such evidence in hand, can come to a definitive conclusion.

An assumption, on the other hand, is a conclusion not based on evidence.

Dan
Click to expand...
Is this stated in canon law, or is this lawyer’s interpretation?

Rome had this to say:

“incorrect interpretation of the common canonical laws, and particularly one of these — canon 1095 on psychological immaturity — has allowed judges of American ecclesiastical tribunals to widen jurisprudence enormously.”

Though, I think your statement could be possible in certain circumstances. For example, if there was evidence of deceit.

My comments about assuming/presuming did not have to do with evidence, but testimonies. I didnt say evidence was presumption. Evidence can support intentions. And there is circumstantial and direct evidence.
 
Last edited:
Ammi said:
Is this stated in canon law, or is this lawyer’s interpretation?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you will find it as I said it but the principle behind the statement is what makes a nullity case (that examines a person’s marital consent) possible. If it what I said wasn’t true, there would be no point in any such case. The legal presumption of validity could never be overturned.

That’s not to say that it is easy to overturn that presumption. Nullity cases dealing with defects in consent are, by nature, difficult (due to the fact that, as you said, it deals with internal intentions).

Dan
 
Ok. I didnt mean to sound accusational. Sorry.

Especially because I think direct evidence is not presumption.
 
Last edited:
OP,
If you’re still reading…

Since most priests today would not perform the marriage ceremony until after the baby is born, I would say you had a pretty good chance at getting an annulment.

You should have both a marriage certificate and the baby’s birth certificate. That would prove that the times were correct. That would put an end to most ‘assumptions’.

Mind you, I’m no expert, but I do know that there has been a change of heart, by the church, concerning such marriages. The idea of ‘having to get married’ is no longer supported by most priests. So, if you feel as you did when you began this thread, apply to the tribunal.

i
 
I dont think making speculations on a case over one internet post is the best idea. It may give readers the impression that a pregnancy compelled marriage cannot contain a valid vow before Jesus (or at least that it’s an easy case, so let’s throw in the towel). I realize she probably has more circumstantial evidence (18 yrs, pressure from family) and witnesses. But you seem to hang alot on a baby before marriage. The relationship in general has to be asked about and discerned. Dating the man 1 wk is way different than dating him 1 yr before conceiving. Just saying, there is alot to consider. Or what did the pressure look like? Was it supportive encouragement to marry(which could be bad advice but not to the extent of coercion) or was it heavy guilt trips (which is more threatening and coercive). You dont even know how long they have been married.

I agree that CPConvert should pursue her case to the tribunal, and pray that He guides everything. Beginning with self examination and honestly.
 
Last edited:
I think the question the tribunal judge will ask is Were you planning to get married before you found out you were pregnant?
 
Very good question! And what would define “planning”. Obviously sex is committing one’s self towards the possibility of a pregnancy.
 
I don’t believe they would accept just the sex act as proof. By planning I meant a proposal of marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top