Annulments

[EvelynEVF]

If you look for my previous posts in this thread (34ff), I wrote that apparently his first instance was the archdiocese of Boston, which most of us think of as a second instance, so I think it’s a combination of that and media that misreport because they misunderstand.

I checked with my priest, and he said if you have two tribunals that agree, the case is closed. If there are irregularities that could invalidate the decision (a respondent was not actively sought out, somebody lied and admits to it now), then the case could conceivably be reopened, but I guess that is super rare. My priest figures that as long as I personally act in good conscience, if I obtain two agreeing verdicts, then I have the paperwork necessary to remarry. If something weird happens after that, I just don’t know, but I would not put my life on hold for the antics of a spiteful ex-spouse (who would really be the only person to try to reopen a case like that, anyway).

 

[Frances_Fishers]

I thought I read that two tribunals had agreed that it was invalid and then Rome overturned it.

Even if that isn’t true what if it was?

Do you mean what if someone married in a Catholic ceremony right after two tribunals agreed, and then Rome took the case because there was some serious problem that came to light - and decided the first two tribunals had been misled or wrong?

If I am understanding what I have read above, the second marriage would lose its recognition, right? That’s what happened to King Lothair II. He lied to bishops under his brother’s (the emperor’s) control to get his first marriage annulled and then “validly” married another woman before his first queen protested his lies to the pope. He had to acknowledge his first queen as his wife again.

eta - I read Sheila Rauch’s book quite awhile ago. That the Boston Tribunal or her assigned advocate did not tell her about appealing to Rome did not seem right - but her account of what happened fudged a lot of things and that was not right either.

One example that struck me at the time was she made it sound as though her husband went straight for annulment after she separated from him in 1989 (because “the magic” was gone, in her phrase) but before she had decided to divorce him, and she was shocked and horrified. She actually filed for divorce the year after she left him, 1990, but he did not seek annulment until 1993. Her own account of their first conversation about it has him protesting that she was the one who wanted a divorce, which is what made me look up the dates.

Just saying, to Sheila and to the Boston Tribunal, if your cause is just there should be no need to mislead people.

 

[dans0622]

hypothetically though, what if it was first ruled that his first marriage was invalid, so he remarried. Then Rome said it was actually valid after he got remarried. What are you suppose to do?

Hello,

According to recent norms governing the Rota (given by Pope Benedict in January 2013), it is not possible to propose recourse for a new proposition of a cause (technical language…it just means you can’t ask the Rota to review a case that has already received two affirmative decisions) after a Party has celebrated a canonical marriage. This prevents the scenario you presented.

Dan

 

[Frances_Fishers]

Hello,

According to recent norms governing the Rota (given by Pope Benedict in January 2013), it is not possible to propose recourse for a new proposition of a cause (technical language…it just means you can’t ask the Rota to review a case that has already received two affirmative decisions) after a Party has celebrated a canonical marriage. This prevents the scenario you presented.

Dan

Dan, Can you tell me what date he issued these norms? I can’t find what you mentioned in his address to the Rota in January 2013 (online Vatican version), or any reference to these new norms in search engines.

I did find a reference to a March 2013 canon law newsletter (Great Britain) indicating the Signatura “took back” a case with two conforming decisions - after the Rota refused the defender of the bond’s request for a new proposition - six years after the second decision. It does not mention this dilemma being “fixed.”

Maybe i am misunderstanding. You are saying there is no longer recourse to a third tribunal, even for grave allegations of injustice or procedural error, if a new canonical marriage has been celebrated?

 

[dans0622]

Dan, Can you tell me what date he issued these norms? I can’t find what you mentioned in his address to the Rota in January 2013 (online Vatican version), or any reference to these new norms in search engines.

I did find a reference to a March 2013 canon law newsletter (Great Britain) indicating the Signatura “took back” a case with two conforming decisions - after the Rota refused the defender of the bond’s request for a new proposition - six years after the second decision. It does not mention this dilemma being “fixed.”

Maybe i am misunderstanding. You are saying there is no longer recourse to a third tribunal, even for grave allegations of injustice or procedural error, if a new canonical marriage has been celebrated?

Hello,

First, I apologize for giving the wrong date. The grant of the norms was on February 11, 2013. (The formal request for the norms was made in January). They were supposed to be published in the *Acta Apostolicae Sedis *but they haven’t been. I read them in the December 2013 edition of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland Newsletter. They are also in the 2013 edition of the Canon Law Society of America’s “Roman Replies and Advisory Opinions.”

The case you mentioned is quite influential (different topic entirely) and a bit odd in how it all “played out.” Anyway, the norms I am speaking of only apply to the Rota. So, I don’t know if the Signatura would entertain an action which the Rota would not (can not) consider. It seems like they could but perhaps they have a similar norm.

No, you are not misunderstanding me. If there are such violations in a case, the one who is aggrieved will have to propose recourse before the other party contracts a marriage. As long as the date on the recourse is prior to any wedding, the Rota could still accept it.

Dan

 

[Frances_Fishers]

Hello Dan - thanks for that! Very interesting, and I appreciate you taking the time.

 

[dileepettan]

What does a church annulment document (letter) contain? Is this a simple letter? Anyone have some idea?

Thank you,

 

[His_helpmeet]

What does a church annulment document (letter) contain? Is this a simple letter? Anyone have some idea?

Thank you,

When DH got his letter, it was just a letter stating that the appeals tribunal had confirmed the original decision (or something to that effect), that he was now free to marry, that if he had any concerns he could appeal to the Rota, and that if he was intending to marry or have his marriage convalidated (as we were) he could speak to his pastor.

 

[Batfink]

When DH got his letter, it was just a letter stating that the appeals tribunal had confirmed the original decision (or something to that effect), that he was now free to marry, that if he had any concerns he could appeal to the Rota, and that if he was intending to marry or have his marriage convalidated (as we were) he could speak to his pastor.

I’ve only had the first letter, it was equally short. It said that the Tribunal had reached an affirmative decision and the case would automatically be passed on to the court of the second instance. That was one line. Then there was a further paragraph of 3 lines stating that this was not a final decision of nullity and therefore no plans should be made to marry. Then a signature from the chief judge.

 

[Nic1099]

Hello,

According to recent norms governing the Rota (given by Pope Benedict in January 2013), it is not possible to propose recourse for a new proposition of a cause (technical language…it just means you can’t ask the Rota to review a case that has already received two affirmative decisions) after a Party has celebrated a canonical marriage. This prevents the scenario you presented.

Dan

Hi Dan

I’m still awaiting the decision of the Court of Second Instance but in the interim, I’ve been scouring the Net for information. Luckily enough, I found some scant detail on how the Irish system works. One petitioner stated that as there were no objections, the Court of Second Instance concurred with the local Tribunal. Is this the case? I didn’t think so. I believed a decision was reached based on the facts surrounding the case and the testimony of witnesses, not on what the parties believe or feel (myself included!).

That would suggest that if both parties are in agreement, a Decree of Nullity would be automatically issued, that is only becomes a problem if there is an objection. It also implies another scenario wherein a respondent objects, that this scenario in itself would finalise the matter and that the validity of the marriage would be upheld. This seems at odds to my understanding of the Tribunal system and would provide an unfair advantage to an opposing respondent.

Am I correct in stating that if I do receive an affirmative decision from the Court of Second Instance, that the respondent can’t ask the Rota to review the decision once I am married?

I have to admit that waiting is extremely difficult. The case has been with the Court of Second Instance for four months now and I haven’t heard anything. I haven’t been informed of any appeal or if the case is to be reopened. If there isn’t an appeal or no new examination, why is it taking so long? I had read that if a decision is to be ratified that it would take approximately two months.

Finally, may I ask, why did the Court of Second Instance ask for any other observations that I wished to add. That was in January. I know that you have previously stated that this was during a time when the Appellate Court was deciding how to proceed. The reason I ask is that I know of only two people who have been through the ‘annulment’ process and neither received any correspondence from the Court of Second Instance. They received the initial decision from the local Tribunal and finally the concurring decision of the Court of Second Instance. They were not asked to submit further observations. This is another reason that led me to believe that the respondent had appealed the initial decision.

Regards
Nic

 

[dans0622]

… One petitioner stated that as there were no objections, the Court of Second Instance concurred with the local Tribunal. Is this the case? I didn’t think so. …

Am I correct in stating that if I do receive an affirmative decision from the Court of Second Instance, that the respondent can’t ask the Rota to review the decision once I am married?

… If there isn’t an appeal or no new examination, why is it taking so long? I had read that if a decision is to be ratified that it would take approximately two months.

Finally, may I ask, why did the Court of Second Instance ask for any other observations that I wished to add. …

Hello,

Question 1: You’re correct. Whether or not a Party “objects” means nothing since it is not evidence of nullity or validity. If a Party “appeals”, that results in certain procedural actions but is not evidence of nullity or validity.

2: You are correct.

1. I can’t say why it is taking as long as it has. I do know that people call the Tribunal where I work and ask where the case is, why it is taking this long, what is being done, what is needed, etc. That happens routinely. Don’t be afraid to call the Tribunal and ask those sorts of questions. Or, if you have a good “advocate” have him/her do it.
2. I can’t really give much of an answer here, either. Again, feel free to call the Tribunal and ask what is going on. I think you have been patient enough and your call would not cause any problems.

Dan

 

[EasterJoy]

As an aside to the OP: The experts in this subject frequent the Liturgy and Sacraments forum. If you have a technical question, I’d encourage you to post it there, as well.

 

[Nic1099]

Hello,

Question 1: You’re correct. Whether or not a Party “objects” means nothing since it is not evidence of nullity or validity. If a Party “appeals”, that results in certain procedural actions but is not evidence of nullity or validity.

2: You are correct.

1. I can’t say why it is taking as long as it has. I do know that people call the Tribunal where I work and ask where the case is, why it is taking this long, what is being done, what is needed, etc. That happens routinely. Don’t be afraid to call the Tribunal and ask those sorts of questions. Or, if you have a good “advocate” have him/her do it.
2. I can’t really give much of an answer here, either. Again, feel free to call the Tribunal and ask what is going on. I think you have been patient enough and your call would not cause any problems.

Dan

Thanks Dan for your swift and informative reply.

May I assume then, that if the respondent does indeed ask the Rota to review the decision before I married, that the wedding would have to be postponed until a final decision was reached?

Regards
Nic

 

[Rau]

Is there any scripture that talks about the idea of annulments? Doesn’t it kind of seem like a cop out?

I imagine that some couples seek annulment on less than appropriate grounds. I also think the Church process of determining whether the conditions for a valid marriage were all met, or not, many years ago, cannot always be expected to come to the right decision. But as I understand it, a degree of rigour is indeed applied, and the burden is on the applicants to make the case.

I don’t know what proportion of people enquiring about annulment actually secure one. A proportion will conclude they are not eligible after initial enquiries, and not proceed. A fair proportion of those that do submit a request will be doing so on advice that their circumstances may meet the requirements. It would be interesting to understand how often couples fail in their bid.

 

[dans0622]

… May I assume then, that if the respondent does indeed ask the Rota to review the decision before I married, that the wedding would have to be postponed until a final decision was reached? …

Hello,

Yes, but it is highly unlikely that the Rota would even admit the “challenge” (as it is called). If a case receives two conforming decisions (2 negatives or 2 affirmatives), then it is quite difficult to get the Rota to consider hearing the case again. A person can only challenge the Sentence in such a situation if “new and serious proofs or arguments” are brought forward. “Mere objections or critical observations … are not sufficient.” (See the document Dignitas connubii, #290-294).

There is a timeline that is to be observed: the person makes it known that he or she is “challenging” the sentence. Within 30 days, the new and serious proofs/arguments must be presented. Within 30 days of those proofs/arguments being put forth, the Tribunal has to decide whether or not to admit the challenge.

Again, it is quite unlikely that the challenge would result in the case being re-examined. I wouldn’t even bother considering it.

Dan

 

[Nic1099]

Again, it is quite unlikely that the challenge would result in the case being re-examined. I wouldn’t even bother considering it.

Dan

Thanks again Dan,

My mind is at ease knowing that if I do receive an affirmative decision from the Court of Second Instance, that that is basically the end of it. Here’s hoping and praying!

Regards
Nic