AnnulmentFaq.com - New informative website

[1stFreedom]

July 12, 2005/ New York, NY

Catholics seeking quick and easy annulments are going to have a tougher time thanks to the website www.AnnulmentFaq.com

In general, people seeking annulments are given plenty of assistance by diocesan tribunals, the “court” where “annulments” are granted. Their spouses, on the other hand, are often given relatively little support in defending the validity of their marriage.

The lack of information on how to respond to the tribunal has left many of the faithful unsure of how to defend their marriage. It’s also made obtaining a declaration of nullity a quick and easy process for those wishing to remarry.

But today, that has changed.

“www.AnnulmentFaq.com will equip people with vital information on how to defend their marriage. The days of quick, easy, and baseless annulments are coming to an end.” said Ruben Obregon, founder of the informative website.

“This wealth of information also means that the tribunals will have to follow the rules set forth by the Vatican and the Roman Rota. The days of granting a declaration of nullity for the wrong reasons are also over. Respondents now have a self help guide to fight such widespread practices.” stated Obregon.

X X X

 

[cameron_lansing]

1stFreedom:

July 12, 2005/ New York, NY

Catholics seeking quick and easy annulments are going to have a tougher time thanks to the website www.annulmentfaq.com . . .

“This wealth of information also means that the tribunals will have to follow the rules set forth by the Vatican and the Roman Rota. The days of granting a declaration of nullity for the wrong reasons are also over. Respondents now have a self help guide to fight such widespread practices.” stated Obregon.

X X X

I’m not acquainted with Mr. Ruben Obregon, founder of the website. I cannot identify him as possessing a license to practice canon law (a degree from a Pontifical Faculty called a JCL) or as a member of the Canon Law Society of America. I could be wrong of course.

As you might imagine, I disagree profoundly with the implied assertions in the press release, and do not feel inclined to refute them. As the saying goes, what is freely asserted without proof, is freely denied. Of course, when I read about annulment as “a quick and easy process for those wishing to remarry,” I laughed.

But setting that aside, I would be concerned with the quality of the site, and suggest that those who are the responding parties in “annulment cases” to assert their rights to a competent and licensed canon lawyer to serve as their ecclesiastical representative in those proceedings. This is part of the right of defense that all parties possess under Church law.

Perhaps we do live in a self-help society, and it is true that these processes should be transparent and as understandable as possible. But as the secular saying goes, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

In this case, I have already noticed a number of inaccuracies about the law itself, and I practice Church marriage law on a daily basis as defender of the bond in a diocesan tribunal. This requires me to propose and clarify everything that can be reasonably placed against nullity. A defender of the bond does just that, defends the bond of marriage, and must examine whether the rights of the parties and the processes of the law have been respected.

Here’s the first paragraph I looked at. I found it erroneous, or at least sloppy. If I counselled a respondent like that, I could be subject to Church penalties and removed from office.

"1. You have twenty days from the publication of the acts in which to notify the tribunal of your wish to participate in the automatic appeal or your wish to appeal to the Rota. "

No, actually, from the publication of the sentence (canon 1682, para 1). The publication of the acts takes place during the case, and is a different thing.

There is no automatic appeal. The sentence of a case of nullity of marriage is sent ex officio to the appellate tribunal. It is reviewed to see if that court will confirm it by decree or retry it. Appeals, if any, would accompany the ex officio transmission.

The right to appeal is not just to the Rota, but to the appellate court.

As well, I read elsewhere of a right to “reject witnesses.” No, a person can object to the witnesses the other party names, and must be informed of who those witnesses are, but the judge maintains the power to select those proofs which seem most useful to him. Go ahead, Look up the code on line and read canons 1554 and 1555, 1547 and 1549.

I also read there that intoxication during the wedding ceremony could be a ground for nullity under canon 1095 (no. 1). Here’s a case where a little information is dangerous. Matrimonial jurisprudence (and that comes from the papal court called the Roman Rota) distinguishes between perfect and imperfect drunkeness. They’re a little too obscure to write about here, but one may invalidate consent, and the other merely can.

After I read a little more, the site lost credibility in my mind. It may be inspired by a sincere motivation to help people, but I fear it may not.

So that’s all I’m going to post about this. It just galls me
when I think people will be harmed in the Church for any reason.

(Deacon) John M. Cameron, JCL
Lansing, MI

 

[cameron_lansing]

1stFreedom:

July 12, 2005/ New York, NY

Catholics seeking quick and easy annulments are going to have a tougher time thanks to the website www.annulmentfaq.com . . .

“This wealth of information also means that the tribunals will have to follow the rules set forth by the Vatican and the Roman Rota. The days of granting a declaration of nullity for the wrong reasons are also over. Respondents now have a self help guide to fight such widespread practices.” stated Obregon.

X X X

I’m not acquainted with Mr. Ruben Obregon, founder of the website. I cannot identify him as possessing a license to practice canon law (a degree from a Pontifical Faculty called a JCL) or as a member of the Canon Law Society of America. I could be wrong of course.

As you might imagine, I disagree profoundly with the implied assertions in the press release, and do not feel inclined to refute them. As the saying goes, what is freely asserted without proof, is freely denied. Of course, when I read about annulment as “a quick and easy process for those wishing to remarry,” I laughed.

But setting that aside, I would be concerned with the quality of the site, and suggest that those who are the responding parties in “annulment cases” to assert their rights to a competent and licensed canon lawyer to serve as their ecclesiastical representative in those proceedings. This is part of the right of defense that all parties possess under Church law.

Perhaps we do live in a self-help society, and it is true that these processes should be transparent and as understandable as possible. But as the secular saying goes, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

In this case, I have already noticed a number of inaccuracies about the law itself, and I practice Church marriage law on a daily basis as defender of the bond in a diocesan tribunal. This requires me to propose and clarify everything that can be reasonably placed against nullity. A defender of the bond does just that, defends the bond of marriage, and must examine whether the rights of the parties and the processes of the law have been respected.

Here’s the first paragraph I looked at. I found it erroneous, or at least sloppy. If I counselled a respondent like that, I could be subject to Church penalties and removed from office.

"1. You have twenty days from the publication of the acts in which to notify the tribunal of your wish to participate in the automatic appeal or your wish to appeal to the Rota. "

No, actually, from the publication of the sentence (canon 1682, para 1). The publication of the acts takes place during the case, and is a different thing.

There is no automatic appeal. The sentence of a case of nullity of marriage is sent ex officio to the appellate tribunal. It is reviewed to see if that court will confirm it by decree or retry it. Appeals, if any, would accompany the ex officio transmission.

The right to appeal is not just to the Rota, but to the appellate court.

As well, I read elsewhere of a right to “reject witnesses.” No, a person can object to the witnesses the other party names, and must be informed of who those witnesses are, but the judge maintains the power to select those proofs which seem most useful to him. Go ahead, Look up the code on line and read canons 1554 and 1555, 1547 and 1549.

I also read there that intoxication during the wedding ceremony could be a ground for nullity under canon 1095 (no. 1). Here’s a case where a little information is dangerous. Matrimonial jurisprudence (and that comes from the papal court called the Roman Rota) distinguishes between perfect and imperfect drunkeness. They’re a little too obscure to write about here, but one may invalidate consent, and the other merely can. Canon law is a little more than pick up the book and look at it. That is why the Church requires officials of the tribunal and advocates of the parties to have certain qualifications.

After I read a little more, the site lost credibility in my mind. It may be inspired by a sincere motivation to help people, but I fear it may not.

So that’s all I’m going to post about this. It just galls me
when I think people will be harmed in the Church for any reason.

(Deacon) John M. Cameron, JCL
Lansing, MI

 

[1stFreedom]

Of course, when I read about annulment as “a quick and easy process for those wishing to remarry,” I laughed.

I did not accuse all tribunals of giving out quick and easy declarations of nullity. Yet, there are tribunals which do – I have been through one of them already.

and suggest that those who are the responding parties in “annulment cases” to assert their rights to a competent and licensed canon lawyer to serve as their ecclesiastical representative in those proceedings. This is part of the right of defense that all parties possess under Church law.

This site is a self help guide intended to inform those involved. It is not intended to replace an advisor.

In addition, “competent” and licensed canon lawyers often adhere to Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn’s standards of judging capacity, which are not exactly in accord with Rome. There are very few canon lawyers who actually agree with Rome on 1095.1 - 1095.3.

But as the secular saying goes, the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

I agree. I advise people to find an advisor. Notice I didn’t say canon lawyer – it’s not always necessary. There are advisors out there, who aren’t canon lawyers, who have taken dozens of cases to the Roman Rota – and won them all. (Interesting that lay people can beat competent defenders of the bond and canon lawyers at their own game.)

In this case, I have already noticed a number of inaccuracies about the law itself, and I practice Church marriage law on a daily basis as defender of the bond in a diocesan tribunal.

I always welcome corrections, and am willing to admit where the site is incorrect.

I found it erroneous, or at least sloppy.

It is the latter – sloppy. I will correct.

There is no automatic appeal. … Appeals, if any, would accompany the ex officio transmission.

Well, it may be a matter of semantics, but regardless it looks like an appeal, smells like an appeal, and is handled as an appeal. What’s the difference?

As well, I read elsewhere of a right to “reject witnesses.” No, a person can object to the witnesses the other party names, and must be informed of who those witnesses are, but the judge maintains the power to select those proofs which seem most useful to him. Go ahead, Look up the code on line and read canons 1554 and 1555, 1547 and 1549.

This I will have to research. I do know a judge has the discretion concerning rejection/exclusion of expert testimony, but I’ll have to research witness exclusion. As noted, I will correct any inaccuracies.

I also read there that intoxication during the wedding ceremony could be a ground for nullity under canon 1095 (no. 1). Matrimonial jurisprudence (and that comes from the papal court called the Roman Rota) distinguishes between perfect and imperfect drunkeness.

I agree more info is needed. In my own case, my spouse is claiming she was intoxicated. I’m arguing she was under the influence but in full control of her reason. The site does not claim that intoxication is always a ground for a declaration of nullity.

They’re a little too obscure to write about here, but may invalidate consent, and the other merely can.

Exactly. This site is not for canon lawyers, but for lay people. This is why it’s essential that anyone involved get an advisor who is familiar with the Jurisprudence of the Rota, trained in canon law, and experienced with the tribunals.

After I read a little more, the site lost credibility in my mind. It may be inspired by a sincere motivation to help people, but I fear it may not.

It just galls me when I think people will be harmed in the Church for any reason.

What harm is done? More harm is done by hiding this information from respondents and petitioners than is done by inaccuracies in this website.

More harm is done by imcompetent tribunal staff, canon lawyers, and tribunal staff who do grant quick and easy annulments than is done by correctible problems on the site.

(You don’t want to hear about the problems with my tribunal…)

 

[1stFreedom]

(Deacon) John M. Cameron, JCL
Lansing, MI

Deacon Cameron,

Did you ever consider that the reason this site was put together due to the lack of vital information on the part of Tribunals, including your own? “Why is this website even necessary?” – that is something you should be asking the people you work with at the tribunal.

Respondents are not given adequate information on how to work within the system. How is a respondent to know what their rights are when quite often tribunals do not provide this information?

How is a respondent to defend their bond when quite often tribunals do not inform them of their right to inspect the acts prior to publication of the sentence? Most respondent’s don’t even have a clue that they have this right, and the Tribunals aren’t helping this situation.

The problem with the lack of information on the part of the Tribunals is not new – it’s decades old.

So take me up on my challenge – make this website unecessary by providing this information in printed and electronic form to both petitioners and respondents in your own diocese/tribunal.

(By the way…there are so many problems with the tribunals that the Vatican had to publish “Dignitas connubii”.)

While it is true that one should have an advisor/canon lawyer, not many people can afford one, nor find one that actually agrees with Rome / Rotal Jurisprudence on 1095.1-3. CSLA members are not exactly famous with being in communion with Rome – many are in communion with Fr. Wrenn instead.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I’d not intended to say more, but it is probably just that I do

First, let me clarify one of my statements. " It may be inspired by a sincere motivation to help people, but I fear it may not." To make it clearer, it is not the sincerity of the poster’s motivation I question in any way, but only the possible effects. If I had known the poster were the author, I would have emailed him privately. In fact, I received a private email consisting of his last two posts, and believe our “correspondence”might be more prudently conducted privately since he seems to be a party in a process that is pending or concluded. Continuing to insist that a self-help website be rigorously accurate and that tribunals discharge their duties to justice, I will only touch on these several points publically then.

1. As to the challenge which was issued about publicizing rights and using the example of the right to inspect the acts at the time of publication, we have already this in our website, and information about the other rights. Special additional information about rights is given in correpondence to responding parties, as well as the offer of assistance in obtaining procurators and advocates gratis. We name the witnesses the petitioner offers and let respondents know they can place objection. We name the court personnel and let the parties know they can recuse them in a case. We notify parties of grounds and of their rights to object to the formula of the doubt, to appeal to the appellate tribunal or to the Roman Rota, to name witnesses, to offer documents, to name private experts, to give testimony, etc. We publish or communicate the sentence in accord with canon 1615. In other words, we just follow the law in the canons and the instructions in Dignitas Connubbi.

I am not willing to speculate that all, most, many or a significant number of tribunals fail to discharge those duties. My presumption is that abuse is the exception, as it is in almost anything. The burden of proof of incompetence rests on the one who asserts it.

1. If a respondent is not made aware of the rights of inspection at the time of the publication of acts, his or her right of defense is denied. Canon 1620 provides that a denial of the right of defense gives rise to irremediable nullity of sentence. Further, canon 1621 that “The complaint of nullity mentioned in can. 1620 can always be proposed by way of exception in perpetuity and by way of action before the judge who pronounced the sentence within ten years from the date of publication of the sentence.”

(A complaint of nullity of sentence is different from an appeal against a sentence. And it isn’t semantics since each makes a procedural turn different from the other. Note the different time limits also, the right to appeal is extinguished in 20 canonical days after the publication of sentence.) So respondents have more modes of vindicating rights than the notion of appeal provides alone.

1. The reasons for the issuing of Dignitas connubii are to be found at ewtn.com/library/CURIA/ciltprdc.htm . They can be read there apart from any interpretation which either I or the poster may provide. Readers should form their own conclusions.
2. The parties are not in on trial in a nullity case. Expressly, canon 1400 §1. provides in part: “The object of a trial is: (1) the pursuit or vindication of the rights of physical or juridic persons, or the declaration of juridic facts; . . . "

Now, in the end, as Canon 221 provides in part: §1. The Christian faithful can legitimately vindicate and defend the rights which they possess in the Church in the competent ecclesiastical forum according to the norm of law. §2. If they are summoned to a trial by competent authority, the Christian faithful also have the right to be judged according to the prescripts of the law applied with equity.

In regard to a sincere intention to provide knowledge and accurate information about the procedures so that people can exercise the rights they have, I wish the poster every blessing and success though. As he is involved in a marriage case as the responding party, and believes in the validity of that marriage, he will also certainly be in my prayers. And everyone in a marriage case or a fractured marriage should be in everyone’s prayers.

Deacon John M. Cameron,
Lansing MI

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

This is just opinion, but from somebody who has been through the nullity process, as a petitioner. I also have provided moral (prayer, venting and hugs) and administrative (paperwork) support to those who approach nullity, on both sides, petitioner and respondent. I am not a canon lawyer (and I don’t play one on TV).

I have found very few respondents care about the process. Period. Too often, the respondents are the ones who left the marriage in the first place; sadly, that leaving has included leaving the Church if they were a part of it. They just don’t care.

In my case, my ex-husband had made his Profession of Faith, only to commit mortal sin, then to abandon the Church entirely. His first reaction to the nullity process was to ask if it involved a “real” civil court. When assured it did not involve our state and county courts, but a tribunal, and he did not have to pay any money, he simply opted out of the process. This is not unusual from what I have seen.

 

[1stFreedom]

More often than not the respondents could indeed care less. Some are cynical, others want out.

Typically, the person who is involved in an adulterous affair starts the petition. Their primary goal is to marry their new partner.

However, I wouldn’t say these are hard and fast rules, but merely subjective observations.

 

[Aesq]

1stFreedom:

More often than not the respondents could indeed care less. Some are cynical, others want out.

Typically, the person who is involved in an adulterous affair starts the petition. Their primary goal is to marry their new partner.

However, I wouldn’t say these are hard and fast rules, but merely subjective observations.

Where do you get your information about who “typically” starts the petition. There are many, many petitions filed by people who are divorced and remarried outside of the Church and are now converting, but are already remarried. Without some statistics on who files I do not think you sould be making such claims here.

 

[1stFreedom]

Where do you get your information about who “typically” starts the petition.

If you notice I indicated these were subjective observations, which means they are merely based upon my own observations. I did not claim that my observations were grounded in hard facts.