Annulments - Giving Evidence

[Rose71]

I suspect I will soon be asked to supply evidence for an annulment.

The marriage is between a Catholic and a non-Catholic (the Catholic is my relative and friend, but I have always tried to be supportive of the non-Catholic too and on several occasions she has confided in me )

The Non-Catholic told me some years ago, in anger, that she only started to date my relative because one of her coworkers was interested in him and “I wasn’t going to let that snotty b****h get him!” She also said she only married him because she’s been let down in relationships before and thought that by marrying a Catholic, he wouldn’t be able to divorce her so he’d stick around. Both these things were said in anger and I suspect, to hurt me too because she’s never really hidden her disdain for our family very well.

She has allowed their child to attend a Catholic school and go to Mass, but the child has told me that she tells him how much she dislikes Catholics and how they are prone to drinking and gambling addiction!

My gut feeling is that this lady was already mentally ill when she met my relative and I don’t ***believe *** based on what she’s told me, that she ever really appreciated or respected what the Sacrament of Marriage means for a Catholic.

If I am asked to provide evidence, do I disclose the things she’s told me, believing them to be in confidence and said in anger? Do I have any duty either to disclose or not disclose them? Would they in any case prove defect of consent?

Thanks

 

[MikeWest]

U need to tell the Tribunal everything.

I went to the seminary after law school. A pal who went to law school
with me was ordained a priest and sat on the annulment tribunal.

To sum things up:

Perceived confidences from days gone by are irrelevant now.

This is a very important decision for the Tribunal to make and they
need EVERYTHING.

 

[Catholic1954]

I suspect I will soon be asked to supply evidence for an annulment.

The marriage is between a Catholic and a non-Catholic (the Catholic is my relative and friend, but I have always tried to be supportive of the non-Catholic too and on several occasions she has confided in me )

The Non-Catholic told me some years ago, in anger, that she only started to date my relative because one of her coworkers was interested in him and “I wasn’t going to let that snotty b****h get him!” She also said she only married him because she’s been let down in relationships before and thought that by marrying a Catholic, he wouldn’t be able to divorce her so he’d stick around. Both these things were said in anger and I suspect, to hurt me too because she’s never really hidden her disdain for our family very well.

She has allowed their child to attend a Catholic school and go to Mass, but the child has told me that she tells him how much she dislikes Catholics and how they are prone to drinking and gambling addiction!

My gut feeling is that this lady was already mentally ill when she met my relative and I don’t ***believe *** based on what she’s told me, that she ever really appreciated or respected what the Sacrament of Marriage means for a Catholic.

If I am asked to provide evidence, do I disclose the things she’s told me, believing them to be in confidence and said in anger? Do I have any duty either to disclose or not disclose them? Would they in any case prove defect of consent?

Thanks

Answer the questions, honestly, to the best of your recollection; if you need help or have a question call the marriage tribunal or your priest for help. If the point is to discover the state of mind of each party during the time of the wedding, I would expect you will be asked to reveal statements made to you in confidence.

 

[felsguy]

I believe this statement taken from guidelines provided by the Diocese of Fall River addresses your basic question:

"Therefore, it is vital for you to furnish as much first-hand information as you are truthfully able regarding the Petitioner, the Respondent, and their relationship."

Be as open, complete, and as unbiased as you can. You are not expected decide whether or not the marriage is valid but rather to provide information on which the tribunal can base its decision.

Below is a link to the entire page of information from Fall River which may be helpful. The particular diocese involved will provide you with similar instructions if in fact you are named as a witness…

diocese-tribunal.org/annulhowtowitness.php

 

[WilliamE]

Perceived confidences from days gone by are irrelevant now.

I would expect you will be asked to reveal statements made to you in confidence.

I’d be pretty upset if I things I told someone in confidence were shared with anyone else. Expect a bit of fallout and the possibility of some very negative consequences.

 

[IrishAm]

I’d be pretty upset if I things I told someone in confidence were shared with anyone else. Expect a bit of fallout and the possibility of some very negative consequences.

Answer the questions as honestly, fully and completely as you can, but do not speculate on what they may mean (i.e., “My gut feeling is that this lady was already mentally ill when she met my relative and I don’t believe based on what she’s told me, that she ever really appreciated or respected what the Sacrament of Marriage means for a Catholic.”) The answers remain confidential in the same way something an individual tells you about, say, a crime, would be shared with the police detective who asks about the conversation. I do not believe she would even know how you responded to the Tribunal questions unless you share it. I have been a “witness” in the past and was able to indicate my responses were only for the Tribunal, not to be shared with either party in the marriage. The Tribunal understands that honest answers may not be what one (or both) or the parties want and may have repercussions.

 

[Gorgias]

I’d be pretty upset if I things I told someone in confidence were shared with anyone else. Expect a bit of fallout and the possibility of some very negative consequences.

Let’s suppose you said something “in confidence”, and later, in the middle of a trial in court, when a lawyer asked the person what you said, he revealed it. Would that upset you, or would you expect the person to perjure himself for you?

Same idea here. It’s a legal proceeding – a ‘trial’, in fact! – and those who are called to provide evidence should do so to the best of their ability, and not withhold any relevant facts.

 

[Gorgias]

If I am asked to provide evidence, do I disclose the things she’s told me, believing them to be in confidence and said in anger? Do I have any duty either to disclose or not disclose them? Would they in any case prove defect of consent?

“In confidence” or not, you’re entering into a trial proceeding, so you have a moral obligation to tell the truth. Would you perjure yourself in a court of law, if they asked you what she disclosed to you?

The “in anger” question is a good one. I think I would identify the point in time that she disclosed it to you (e.g., “during the marriage”, “in a time at which they were arguing”, “after they’d separated”, “following the divorce”). If you think there’s the possibility that it might have been said to cause pain, then perhaps you might add that observation. (If you mention that, though, I think it would be fair game for you to give your assessment of whether it was “truth told in anger” or “lies told in anger”.)

 

[WilliamE]

Let’s suppose you said something “in confidence”, and later, in the middle of a trial in court, when a lawyer asked the person what you said, he revealed it. Would that upset you, or would you expect the person to perjure himself for you?

I’d expect opposing counsel to jump up and say, “Objection. Hearsay.”

Same idea here. It’s a legal proceeding – a ‘trial’, in fact! – and those who are called to provide evidence should do so to the best of their ability, and not withhold any relevant facts.

Good grief. It’s not a “legal proceeding.” It’s just a church-y thing.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I’d expect opposing counsel to jump up and say, “Objection. Hearsay.”

Good grief. It’s not a “legal proceeding.” It’s just a church-y thing.

It is indeed a legal proceeding. That it’s ecclesiastical (church) law, and not civil law, does not make it less serious and binding.

 

[JanetF]

You have the duty to disclose everything you know. I’ve been through this, I wrote down everything I remembered even things that seemed insignificant to me. The questions are asked in a way that will help you answer honestly and completely, i.e., there are no trick questions.

 

[Gorgias]

I’d expect opposing counsel to jump up and say, “Objection. Hearsay.”

You misunderstand hearsay, then. In court, if I said, “Pope Francis told me that he heard WilliamE say that he committed the murder,” **that **would be hearsay. On the other hand, if I said, “WilliamE told me that he committed the murder,” that’s not hearsay. It’s my testimony of what I witnessed. It’s this latter type of statement that we’re discussing.

Good grief. It’s not a “legal proceeding.” It’s just a church-y thing.

Yeah, it really is an ecclesiastical legal proceeding.