Annulments/support group

[Huiou_Theou]

Hello,

What they mean is a recently made copy, which would be up to date with all the notations made through the years (confirmation, marriage). So, they look in the baptismal register and then fill in a new certificate.

Yes. So when I got my own baptismal certificate, there was a note saying that I had been married; although, strangely enough, the part saying “confirmed” was blank. I find that rather ironic; for I went through confirmation. However, , I did not believe in God (at the time) and only agreed to be confirmed to stop my mother from pestering me. My atheism obviously changed, as anyone reading my posts on CAF would know; but I find it odd that the certificate wasn’t accurate at least superficially…

That brings up a question (which probably doesn’t affect my case because confirmation is held to be “ex opere oparato”) ; But Marriage between two baptized Catholics is held to be always a sacrament by virtue of their baptism; yet if someone was not truly confirmed, they have not received the fullness of baptism. eg: haven’t been sealed fully with the Holy Spirit.

Is a marriage between a baptized and non-confirmed spouse, and a fully baptized spouse automatically a sacrament as well?

My understanding is that you, a Catholic, married another Catholic, in the Church? And, you are pursuing a declaration of nullity based on some defect in consent? If so, I don’t see any real need for the certificate.

I think in legal terms what you are saying is probably correct – we were both Catholic, yes.

There eventually was a Catholic wedding in a church, although my mindset was wrong.
eg: Based on some really horrible CCD classes as a child, and lack of clergy & nuns due to the fallout of Vatican II ; I thought I was already married before the church wedding (no civil wedding prior, just the belief that a couple could contract marriage even on a desert island… without need for a desert island… ); eg: read as the genres of “naive/ignorant”, “seduced”, “manipulated”, “feelings of guilt”, “major depression”, and “scruples”. I think deception is a definite possibility…

My ex-wife has tendencies towards psychological abuse and/or mental instability (possibly not culpable) relating to having all the symptoms of a particular personality disorder.

I didn’t think I could walk away from the wedding without upsetting Jesus. So, I suppose you might say I didn’t feel “free” NOT to marry. Although, from speaking with a priest about filing the petition for a declaration of nullity – the same event might be construed as validating the marriage. It’s a really fuzzy issue to me…

The priest whom is helping me file sort of assumed my mindset was: “so you were just trying to do what the church wanted you to do?”; but that really doesn’t quite capture my mindset: eg: “I didn’t know I had to marry in the church, but my ex-wife wanted a wedding for the families to see and I had given in.”

My wrong concepts about the necessity of the church wedding is something that ought to have been easy to dispel; but the (?well intentioned?) priest whom officiated at our wedding insisted we not to attend the marriage prep classes for the archdiocese… etc. It’s a really weird and extremely ironic situation. But then, with God, sometimes ironic reality is stranger than fiction.

You can refer to canons 1504-1505 as well as Dignitas connubii, article 116. Those passages address what a petition must include. You might not even be at the stage of presenting a petition but… Anyway, in those passages, you won’t see anything about the need for a baptismal certificate.

More basically, you can request that a Judge or the Judicial Vicar look at the documents and say whether or not there is enough to proceed. Unfortunately, there may be a few “firewalls” between you and a Judge…

Dan

Thanks, Dan. I appreciate the pointers. They give me an idea of how I might tactfully write to the tribunal about my predicament, without setting off any ego bombs.

 

[dans0622]

Yes. So when I got my own baptismal certificate, there was a note saying that I had been married; although, strangely enough, the part saying “confirmed” was blank. I find that rather ironic; for I went through confirmation. …; but I find it odd that the certificate wasn’t accurate at least superficially…

…

Is a marriage between a baptized and non-confirmed spouse, and a fully baptized spouse automatically a sacrament as well?

I think in legal terms what you are saying is probably correct – we were both Catholic, yes.

There eventually was a Catholic wedding in a church, although my mindset was wrong.
…
I appreciate the pointers. They give me an idea of how I might tactfully write to the tribunal about my predicament, without setting off any ego bombs.

Taking the above comments as they appear:

Yes, I am always disturbed when I see inaccurate information on baptismal certificates. It doesn’t happen a lot but it still happens way too many times.

Sacramentality of marriage depends on baptism, not confirmation. Every Catholic should be Confirmed before marriage but even for Catholics, lack of Confirmation is not an impediment of any kind.

Since the wedding was “in the Church” and there is already evidence that both parties were baptized, and the nullity case really has nothing to do with baptism (or not), I see no need whatsoever for a recent copy of a baptismal certificate.

Use canon law at your own risk…is there not a “real-life” canon lawyer who can help you?

Dan

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Use canon law at your own risk…is there not a “real-life” canon lawyer who can help you?

Dan

I live out in the country. I’m not really kidding when I say “within sight of Mt. St Helens” as my location. I can see the huge volcano from my front window. … Although, ironically, there is a not so visible dormant volcano in the nearest large metropolitan/city. That volcano could easily take out over a quarter million people if it erupted. Thankfully it has been dormant for longer than the United States has existed. But If I were to look for a canon lawyer, that’s the most likely place nearby that I might be able to find them.
Risk is … relative.

I drafted a letter, and asked my priest-contact for the tribunal to review it because I didn’t want to “tick anyone off”; and asked him if it was too harsh, or if there was a better way. He’s pretty familiar with canon law, and said that I ought to send the letter as is.

I figure there’s a variety of responses possible, so I tried to write the letter in such a way that didn’t blame the tribunal secretary, and had a clear way to save face.

I hope the tribunal secretary will contact the parish in California directly to obtain my ex’s baptismal certificate, because I gave the phone number while explaining my own failure to obtain the document; eg: How I ,being civilly divorced, made that same CA secretary suspicious I was asking them to do something illegal (even though I ought to be presumed married according to the church, I don’t have a clear and obvious “right” to the document.)

In reality, though, I see two possibilities: either the tribunal secretary will sit on the document, because of an ego issue/fear of giving an “incomplete” packet to a judge; or the secretary will see the reasoning in the hint that I phrased this way, even if it makes me look a little stupid about the legal standing of baptism of desire … so they can save face:

Edited to remove actual names:

Note: Although I followed tribunal instructions, I am confused as to the reason for the request especially given the basis of my petition.  My understanding of  Canon law CIC 1504-1505 as well as *Dignitas connubii*, article 116, is that only lack of two documents are automatic grounds for rejection; eg: A missing marriage certificate or civil divorce decree if requested.

(vatican.va/roman_curia//pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20050125_dignitas-connubii_en.html ) Other missing documents are expected to stop the process only if they form the basis for an allegation supporting nullity. However, I did not make allegations based on [XXX] having (or not having) a sacramental water baptism.

If [parish YYY] does not provide the certificate; I ask that you include this missive in my petition packet, and then please send my petition on for formal acceptance or rejection by a tribunal judge. I see no value in contesting the marriage certificate; [XXX] was Catholic at the time of marriage. She also demonstrates, at very least, a baptism of desire by attending a Roman Catholic church and receiving the Eucharist regularly, even including times predating our marriage.

If the secretary opts to do nothing with the document, then seeking out a canon lawyer – even if I have to drive to the next state – is probably justified.

Also, because my situation is so weird, (eg: the local three priests were definitely not good choices for working with me) the head of the tribunal has already spoken to me; eg: he was the one who specifically asked the priest who is helping me to file, to do so.

I don’t wish to use a sledge-hammer on a poor secretary… but it’s comforting to know that it’s possible if absolutely necessary. For now, I am content to see if I can finish the process myself, first; failing that, using a canon lawyer; and only as a last resort – talking to the head of the tribunal.

 

[Convert1]

Hey Dan:
Just curious, what is your opinion on the Bishop’s vote at the Synod (published today) regarding divorced and remarried folks consulting their priest in order to enter into communion with the Church? It seems this would bypass traditional annulment in some cases. Just wondering what you think about it.

See the link below:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-announces-wide-indulgences-mercy-year-grants-lefebvrites-faculties

 

[Peebo]

Hey Dan:
Just curious, what is your opinion on the Bishop’s vote at the Synod (published today) regarding divorced and remarried folks consulting their priest in order to enter into communion with the Church? It seems this would bypass traditional annulment in some cases. Just wondering what you think about it.

See the link below:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-announces-wide-indulgences-mercy-year-grants-lefebvrites-faculties

I just read the link…it doesn’t say anything about divorced and remarried folks receiving communion?

 

[dans0622]

Hey Dan:
Just curious, what is your opinion on the Bishop’s vote at the Synod (published today) regarding divorced and remarried folks consulting their priest in order to enter into communion with the Church? It seems this would bypass traditional annulment in some cases. Just wondering what you think about it.

See the link below:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/francis-announces-wide-indulgences-mercy-year-grants-lefebvrites-faculties

Hello,

It seems the link is to a different story. That’s fine…I don’t tend to read “ncr” stuff anyway…

First, it’s important to note that this document doesn’t have the ability to change any practice. It has no authority whatsoever. It is only the result of the bishops’ conversations and it is for the benefit of the Pope, not us. We’ll have to wait and see what the Pope says (in an official capacity) about what the Bishops said in this document.

Second, I don’t really think that’s what the paragraphs say. If somebody is married, then divorces, then marries again, no amount of “internal forum” discussion could ever resolve the apparent problem of marriage/divorce/remarriage. These *public, * *legal *actions require a *public, * *legal *resolution (“public” not in the sense of on the street corner but in view of the interested parties and in the legal system).

The question of teaching, forming consciences, sin–these can be addressed “internally” and, as the document says, these “internal” discussions can lead to a “correct judgment” about what is preventing a “fuller participation” in the life of the Church…

That’s my perspective.

Dan

 

[Convert1]

Hello,

It seems the link is to a different story. That’s fine…I don’t tend to read “ncr” stuff anyway…

First, it’s important to note that this document doesn’t have the ability to change any practice. It has no authority whatsoever. It is only the result of the bishops’ conversations and it is for the benefit of the Pope, not us. We’ll have to wait and see what the Pope says (in an official capacity) about what the Bishops said in this document.

Second, I don’t really think that’s what the paragraphs say. If somebody is married, then divorces, then marries again, no amount of “internal forum” discussion could ever resolve the apparent problem of marriage/divorce/remarriage. These *public, * *legal *actions require a *public, * *legal *resolution (“public” not in the sense of on the street corner but in view of the interested parties and in the legal system).

The question of teaching, forming consciences, sin–these can be addressed “internally” and, as the document says, these “internal” discussions can lead to a “correct judgment” about what is preventing a “fuller participation” in the life of the Church…

That’s my perspective.

Dan

Sorry. I read a couple of links yesterday. Here’s the one I was actually referring to:

ncronline.org/news/vatican/synod-offers-striking-softening-remarried-proposing-individual-discernment

Thanks, Dan. I appreciate your perspective.

 

[sadpanda2]

Hello,

It seems the link is to a different story. That’s fine…I don’t tend to read “ncr” stuff anyway…

First, it’s important to note that this document doesn’t have the ability to change any practice. It has no authority whatsoever. It is only the result of the bishops’ conversations and it is for the benefit of the Pope, not us. We’ll have to wait and see what the Pope says (in an official capacity) about what the Bishops said in this document.

Second, I don’t really think that’s what the paragraphs say. If somebody is married, then divorces, then marries again, no amount of “internal forum” discussion could ever resolve the apparent problem of marriage/divorce/remarriage. These *public, * *legal *actions require a *public, * *legal *resolution (“public” not in the sense of on the street corner but in view of the interested parties and in the legal system).

The question of teaching, forming consciences, sin–these can be addressed “internally” and, as the document says, these “internal” discussions can lead to a “correct judgment” about what is preventing a “fuller participation” in the life of the Church…

That’s my perspective.

Dan

Good explanation. NCR jumps to the conclusion that their predetermined agenda dictates; it is not in any way a news source, and indeed the bishop of the diocese in which they are headquartered has told them to drop “Catholic” from their name as they are not, in fact, Catholic. With this issue in particular, it is best to pay them no heed.

 

[Convert1]

Good explanation. NCR jumps to the conclusion that their predetermined agenda dictates; it is not in any way a news source, and indeed the bishop of the diocese in which they are headquartered has told them to drop “Catholic” from their name as they are not, in fact, Catholic. With this issue in particular, it is best to pay them no heed.

I don’t subscribe to any online source exclusively, I read a great deal of source articles and take most all of them with a grain of salt. Also, I understand one would question the “agenda” proposed by the NCR.
Ultimately, I was speaking to the fact of the vote itself. (which in this case, is accurate) I also understand the Bishop’s report itself has no impact or power on current practice and teaching. I simply hoped Dan would speculate based on his immense experience as to what action, if any, Pope Francis will take based on the 94 items listed in the report and it’s findings. He did.
And I appreciate his opinion.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Hi Dan,

Life just took another left turn, but maybe a good one.

I was called by the tribunal, and a secretary informed me that my ex had filed a petition for annulment prior to me. Now, setting aside the question of why the tribunal would be pressing me for a baptismal certificate for my putative ex, when the very fact that she filed earlier than me means she supposedly had to supply her own copy a long time ago… unless someone (not necessarily the secretary) was incompetent…

The secretary is now requesting that we combine the two annulment petitions into one – my ex’s, because hers was filed earlier than mine; and I am being asked to submit a withdrawl request for my petition. Ironically, I told my ex in writing that I was filing for annulment, but she never bothered to talk with me or give me the same courtesy.

I can see the development is a good thing in one sense. But I didn’t have time to think things through during the phone call and ask some questions because, well, this was unexpected and my brain simply doesn’t work that fast.

There are two concerns that I would like to ask in general about – with a follow up question on how I ought to write my response permitting them to combine the petitions:

1st: To what extent can tribunal staff edit my petition to remove statements I have made, if they “combine” the petition. The secretary said they wanted the information from my petition as that could help the judge decide the grounds for annulment, but mentioned something about rejecting information that was incompletely documented. I’m not totally sure what she meant – but I was thinking that I have some witnesses who are intended to document many things which are probably otherwise “unsubstantiated” allegations. The professional evaluator for the divorce, for example. who is a psychologist is one of those. witnesses.

2nd: If my ex becomes angry with the tribunal (and this is likely, for she even yelled at her own attorney during the divorce; she is extremely childish and whimsical at times); I can see her refusing to cooperate when things don’t go the way she expects them to, or people don’t ask the questions she wants them to. Therefore, I need to be concerned about whether or not she can withdraw the petition once it has been formally submitted to the judge. The length and intensity of grudges she holds can be pretty amazing and unreasonable. She could easily withdraw the petition as an act of spite, should she become angry; and I mean – even if it damaged her own reputation/case in the future. So, combining the petitions seems (psychologically) to be putting myself in her power with respect to being able to stop the process.

So – lastly – is there a normal way to phrase my withdrawl request such that if my ex later chooses to withdraw her own petition in the future, that the tribunal can take the documents she supplied (eg: her baptismal certificate, hopefully) and testimony; and convert it over to my petition? and secondly, to insure that all the information in my petition does get reviewed, at least as background material; How do I insure it’s not censored before reaching the judge for review while choosing the grounds for annulment/acceptance of the petition?

Any other comments or perspective you have on the issue/process are welcome.
Thanks.

 

[dans0622]

…

1st: To what extent can tribunal staff edit my petition to remove statements I have made, if they “combine” the petition. The secretary said they wanted the information from my petition as that could help the judge decide the grounds for annulment, but mentioned something about rejecting information that was incompletely documented. I’m not totally sure what she meant – but I was thinking that I have some witnesses who are intended to document many things which are probably otherwise “unsubstantiated” allegations. The professional evaluator for the divorce, for example. who is a psychologist is one of those. witnesses.

2nd: If my ex becomes angry with the tribunal (and this is likely, for she even yelled at her own attorney during the divorce; she is extremely childish and whimsical at times); I can see her refusing to cooperate when things don’t go the way she expects them to, or people don’t ask the questions she wants them to. Therefore, I need to be concerned about whether or not she can withdraw the petition once it has been formally submitted to the judge. The length and intensity of grudges she holds can be pretty amazing and unreasonable. She could easily withdraw the petition as an act of spite, should she become angry; and I mean – even if it damaged her own reputation/case in the future. So, combining the petitions seems (psychologically) to be putting myself in her power with respect to being able to stop the process.

So – lastly – is there a normal way to phrase my withdrawl request such that if my ex later chooses to withdraw her own petition in the future, that the tribunal can take the documents she supplied (eg: her baptismal certificate, hopefully) and testimony; and convert it over to my petition? and secondly, to insure that all the information in my petition does get reviewed, at least as background material; How do I insure it’s not censored before reaching the judge for review while choosing the grounds for annulment/acceptance of the petition?..

It’s difficult for me to respond to your questions because what you are being told to do is quite strange. This is what I understand has happened:

1. The other party submitted a petition.
2. You submitted a petition.
3. Neither petition was accepted.
4. You (and she, I suppose) are now being asked to withdraw/amend/combine your petition(s).

First of all, if the other Party submitted a petition *and *it was accepted, you should have been notified of this immediately by means of what is called the “citation.” I take it, however, that you never received such a document from the Tribunal and both petitions have just been sitting there…

Second, since your petition was never accepted because of the “missing” document, then you can do whatever you want with it (edit it, discard it, etc.). It’s a bit odd to say that you will withdraw it, if it wasn’t accepted. But, I suppose you can withdraw a pending petition. How do you do that? It’s just a simple “I wish to withdraw my petition.” As for the information contained therein–I don’t see much value there for the Tribunal. When the case actually starts, you can give all the information that was there (for example, when you would receive the citation you could send all of that along with your own perspective on what the grounds would be). You shouldn’t have to worry about any “censoring.”

Third, having a “combined” petition is not even possible right now. Once the procedural changes come into effect next month, it is at least a possibility. Right now, procedural law expects that one person will file a petition and the other party will respond. So, I don’t have any advice as to how you can go about “combining” the petitions.

Fourth, if the other Party’s petition is accepted, she can, at any time, withdraw it. But, you would have the opportunity to request that the case proceed. You, in effect, would become the petitioner. Once the case begins, you (even as a Respondent) have a right to a decision and so you can pursue it just as much as the Petitioner does (or doesn’t). You, then, as a Respondent, can submit witnesses, your own testimony, your own documents. You can read/reply to the evidence. You can have an advocate. If the Petitioner is troublesome (in a procedural sense), you can make requests that the case proceed with or without her positive cooperation. All of this is true if you are a “co-petitioner” (an odd idea in itself but…) or a typical Respondent. I don’t think the other Party has any more “power” over you in either case.

This all seems to be more complicated than it needs to be. The Tribunal should just accept whatever petition is properly submitted first, send the other one back, and then go from there as usual…

Dan

 

[Huiou_Theou]

It’s difficult for me to respond to your questions because what you are being told to do is quite strange. This is what I understand has happened:

1. The other party submitted a petition.

Yes.

1. You submitted a petition.

Yes.

1. Neither petition was accepted.

The only correspondence I have from them appears to imply that neither has been accepted. What I have in writing, I’ll post below with only XXXXs to blank out identifying info. So, you can see the exact verbage used by them to explain what should be happening to me. I think it agrees with your inferences very well.

XXXX 30,2015
XXXX
This is to inform you that we have received you packet of forms for you Formal case. We appreciate the time and effort this takes on your part.

**Please note **that the Formal application process (once we receive your completed forms) takes approximately 6 to 8 weeks (or longer), at that time, the Judge will formally accept the case.

In some cases, we may need to request competence from another Diocese to handle the case here in XXXX. Granting of competence from another Diocese generally takes from 6 to 8 weeks, after which time, the Judge here may formally accept the case.

Please remember that the Formal Cases take approximately 12 to 18 months from the date of acceptance before they are finished. Once the case is formally accepted by the Judge, you will receive a letter informing you of the officials assigned to your case. Letters will also go out to your former spouse and witnesses.

Please Note: We will need a copy of the baptismal certificate for your former spouse. Please contact the church of marriage. They should have a copy of her baptismal certificate in your marriage file. You can then contact her church of baptism for a recent copy.

Thank you!

Tribunal Staff – (8 mo.)
cc: Rev XXX XXX

The letter is typed, with the exception of (8 mo.) which is a handwritten comment.
That happens to be the exact time from my getting the petition packet questionaire and being able to return it. That took me a miserable 8 months. The case number is assigned based on the year and order in which my petition request was received (not when my response to the packet was sent in). eg: 0015-xxxx, means year 2015 and the xxxx’th petition request they received that year.

I of course, have been calling the staff “secretaries” although they do not identify themselves that way; they are obviously NOT judges, and the one who called me was a woman – so not a priest.

This phone call followed shortly after my letter asking that even without the baptismal certificate of my ex, I would like my case forwarded to a judge for formal acceptance if the parish in another state refuses to supply her certificate.; eg: see the letter I outlined a few posts back in this thread when you cautioned me that I use canon law at my own risk.

1. You (and she, I suppose) are now being asked to withdraw/amend/combine your petition(s).

The secretary said nothing about what my ex-wife is being requested to do or not do; rather she said my wife filed a petition before I did and that they normally take the earlier case or combine the cases. That heavily suggests my ex-wife’s petition has sat unaccepted for over 8 months. Given that my wife often fills out forms inaccurately, especially taxes and divorce questionaires for the state, etc. but she always does them rapidly – I am not all that surprised that hers hasn’t been accepted.

The secretary told me she had read my petition; she reiterated that she appreciated how much work I put into it, and then asked if my wife had informed me that she had filed.

In my original questionaire, I had explicitly stated that, I had told my wife that I was filing, but that she had not responded or acknowledged anything I said – and that was the reason I didn’t know where to get a baptismal certificate for her. (That’s why the tribunal sent me the letter quoted in this post informing me of a way to get a certificate for my wife, but which failed to work…) At no time has she ever told me anything about filing, although she wrote things suggesting she was planning to some five years ago.

I have already told the tribunal that I have anxiety, and that confrontations with my wife are at the root of the problem. So I hope they are not trying to force me to work with her as that would be cruel.

I reiterated my history to the secretary and reminded her that the exact wording of what I said to my ex wife concerning annulment is in the questionaire.

That’s when the staff member who called me said that 1) she was a canon lawyer 2) she gave me her name (which I hope I remember), 3) That they would either accept the earlier petition or combine them. 4) That I would become respondent if they combined them.

I asked her if I would still keep my priest contact whom I already have, and she said yes; at which point I told her that I have no problem with them combining the cases.

She then said that they “were seeking to find the truth” and suddenly said that my questionaire would be submitted to the judge if they combined them, but some information that wasn’t substantiated could be rejected. She then said that in order for them to combine the case I needed to send them a letter, and didn’t have to complicated but should say that I’m withdrawing my petition.

That’s about where the conversation ended, I hung up; and after thinking about it,I felt like I had just encountered a bait and switch. I mean I signed the thing with an oath that I had told the truth… and, yet, obviously they have to assume that it may not be.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

First of all, if the other Party submitted a petition *and *it was accepted, you should have been notified of this immediately by means of what is called the “citation.” I take it, however, that you never received such a document from the Tribunal and both petitions have just been sitting there…

Exactly; and that bothers me. I don’t know when my ex submitted – it could be anywhere in the last two years. Her filing number predated mine, so it pretty much has to be more than 8 months ago; or else she has reserved the filing number but is refusing to file the response packet in order to jam the system indefinitely. She dragged the divorce out for three years by similar techniques.

So I’m very uncomfortable withdrawing my petition, since I think there is very likely something wrong with her document. Therefore,I wonder if my ex’s petition is also defective. eg: I can imagine, for example, that my wife was not allowed to get my baptismal certificate.

As for the information contained therein–I don’t see much value there for the Tribunal. When the case actually starts, you can give all the information that was there (for example, when you would receive the citation you could send all of that along with your own perspective on what the grounds would be). You shouldn’t have to worry about any “censoring.”

OK. But if hers is defective, then they can refuse to accept it, correct?
So, if I don’t at least give them permission to use (for example) my baptismal certificate, they can just shift to stonewalling my wife; and if she’s not smart enough to ask them to proceed in spite of a missing certificate… the case could be pre-formal acceptance forever.

Third, having a “combined” petition is not even possible right now. Once the procedural changes come into effect next month, it is at least a possibility. Right now, procedural law expects that one person will file a petition and the other party will respond. So, I don’t have any advice as to how you can go about “combining” the petitions.

Ouch. Understood. Though, they can clearly stonewall for a month…

Fourth, if the other Party’s petition is accepted, she can, at any time, withdraw it. But, you would have the opportunity to request that the case proceed. You, in effect, would become the petitioner. Once the case begins, you (even as a Respondent) have a right to a decision and so you can pursue it just as much as the Petitioner does (or doesn’t). You, then, as a Respondent, can submit witnesses, your own testimony, your own documents. You can read/reply to the evidence. You can have an advocate. If the Petitioner is troublesome (in a procedural sense), you can make requests that the case proceed with or without her positive cooperation. All of this is true if you are a “co-petitioner” (an odd idea in itself but…) or a typical Respondent. I don’t think the other Party has any more “power” over you in either case.

OK. Thanks Dan, that’s a relief.
Basically, If I understand you correctly, she can’t withdraw evidence that she has submitted once the judge has it. So, if her case is accepted – they must tell me it is being withdrawn before it can be withdrawn, and I would become the petitioner if I request to continue; but the information she entered before withdrawing would then still be legally usable? eg: her testimony before withdrawing won’t be removed and a new respondent questionaire sent to her?

If that’s the case, then I know how to proceed for certain.

 

[Convert1]

OK. Thanks Dan, that’s a relief.
Basically, If I understand you correctly, she can’t withdraw evidence that she has submitted once the judge has it. So, if her case is accepted – they must tell me it is being withdrawn before it can be withdrawn, and I would become the petitioner if I request to continue; but the information she entered before withdrawing would then still be legally usable? eg: her testimony before withdrawing won’t be removed and a new respondent questionaire sent to her?

If that’s the case, then I know how to proceed for certain.

Does this Tribunal not offer an Advocate that both of you may speak with to determine the process moving forward? Have you asked them?

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Does this Tribunal not offer an Advocate that both of you may speak with to determine the process moving forward? Have you asked them?

I think the answer is no.
There are individual priests who help people file, and the petition request mentions that an advocate can be assigned once the case is under way.
But the case is not officially under way because it’s being stalled…

I might try calling the tribunal again, but the secretary didn’t leave a return phone number; and the local phone directory strangely enough has the number for the tribunal in the next diocese over and not mine.

I will be speaking with the priest who helped me file probably tomorrow. I doubt he will know any more than Dan. The priest wasn’t available last Friday and for several days after when I got the phone call from the tribunal staff. That’s why I thought to ask Dan.

If combining cases was simple, then I would. But since even Dan doesn’t know – something’s clearly a little wrong/abnormal.

 

[dans0622]

Exactly; and that bothers me. I don’t know when my ex submitted – it could be anywhere in the last two years. Her filing number predated mine, so it pretty much has to be more than 8 months ago; or else she has reserved the filing number but is refusing to file the response packet in order to jam the system indefinitely. She dragged the divorce out for three years by similar techniques.

So I’m very uncomfortable withdrawing my petition, since I think there is very likely something wrong with her document. Therefore,I wonder if my ex’s petition is also defective. eg: I can imagine, for example, that my wife was not allowed to get my baptismal certificate.

OK. But if hers is defective, then they can refuse to accept it, correct?
So, if I don’t at least give them permission to use (for example) my baptismal certificate, they can just shift to stonewalling my wife; and if she’s not smart enough to ask them to proceed in spite of a missing certificate… the case could be pre-formal acceptance forever.

Ouch. Understood. Though, they can clearly stonewall for a month…

OK. Thanks Dan, that’s a relief.
Basically, If I understand you correctly, she can’t withdraw evidence that she has submitted once the judge has it. So, if her case is accepted – they must tell me it is being withdrawn before it can be withdrawn, and I would become the petitioner if I request to continue; but the information she entered before withdrawing would then still be legally usable? eg: her testimony before withdrawing won’t be removed and a new respondent questionaire sent to her?

If that’s the case, then I know how to proceed for certain.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that the Tribunal is “doing its own thing” on a number of issues. The “combined petition”, the lack of action on submitted petitions (even if they are not, strictly speaking, petitions…Petitions are supposed to be accepted/rejected within one month. If no action is taken, even after another request, they are presumed to be accepted. Canon 1506), … As a result, I doubt there is much I can say about any of it. They are going to do what they are going to do.

Anyway, I’ve never heard of anyone wanting to “withdraw” evidence. I suppose it could be attempted but once it is submitted to the Judge, it is the Judge’s and is part of the case. In my opinion, nobody has a “right” to withdraw evidence. Renounce the entire process, sure. But, the testimony/evidence is what it is. Such a withdrawal, it seems to me, would never be possible unless both Parties agreed to it.

But, let’s just say that the other Party somehow withdraws evidence. When the time of “publication” comes, you can review all the evidence. If there is something you think it missing, you can attempt to supply it.

Can they refuse to accept the other person’s petition? Apparently, they have no qualms about not acting on it… So, yes.

Again, I am at a loss about some of what seems to be going on and am not really able to offer much. The tribunal does things that I am not familiar with and/or do not support. Is there a real-life canon lawyer somewhere in your area who can help you out?

It should not be this complicated…

Dan

 

[Convert1]

I think the answer is no.
There are individual priests who help people file, and the petition request mentions that an advocate can be assigned once the case is under way.
But the case is not officially under way because it’s being stalled…

I might try calling the tribunal again, but the secretary didn’t leave a return phone number; and the local phone directory strangely enough has the number for the tribunal in the next diocese over and not mine.

I will be speaking with the priest who helped me file probably tomorrow. I doubt he will know any more than Dan. The priest wasn’t available last Friday and for several days after when I got the phone call from the tribunal staff. That’s why I thought to ask Dan.

If combining cases was simple, then I would. But since even Dan doesn’t know – something’s clearly a little wrong/abnormal.

Can. 1738 The person making recourse always has the right to use an advocate or procurator, but useless delays are to be avoided; indeed, a legal representative is to be appointed ex officio if the person making recourse lacks one and the superior thinks it necessary. Nevertheless, the superior always can order the person making recourse to be present in order to be questioned.

 

[dans0622]

Can. 1738 The person making recourse always has the right to use an advocate or procurator, but useless delays are to be avoided; indeed, a legal representative is to be appointed ex officio if the person making recourse lacks one and the superior thinks it necessary. Nevertheless, the superior always can order the person making recourse to be present in order to be questioned.

That canon concerns a different subject matter/procedure but you’re substantially correct. See Dignitas connubii, Art. 101 – § 1:

Without prejudice to the right of the parties to defend themselves personally, the tribunal is bound by the obligation to provide that each spouse is able to defend his rights with the help of a competent person, most especially when it concerns causes of a special difficulty.

Dan

 

[Guineviere]

6 months since I posted an update here.

The case is complete and has been in the que waiting for the first judgement for 6 months. The case was accepted 15 months ago. The published “average” wait time is 10-12 months.

It’s so discouraging…I just want to move on with my life.

 

[rose2]

My heart goes out to you, may the Lord bless you. This will pass and although the time lag is discouraging you are doing what is right in seeking the churches decision on your case. It seems to me that the synod has slowed everything down but I hope and pray that after December things will speed up a little. I have got on with my life in the knowledge that God knows what is true and in the end that is what matters. x