R
- Status
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
The Government has no business in Church Sacramental affairs. In addition the justice has no idea what he is talking about. “…and the steps taken to dissolve a Marriag,…” Tribunals don’t dissolve Marriages during annulments.
R
rpp
Guest
Hmm… 
Something does not seem right here.
When I went through my annulment, I recall receiving a letter advising me that I was permitted to see what testimony my ex-wife submitted and that she could see mine upon request. We would then be able to submit a single letter of rebuttal. If recall correctly, we could not see witness statements, however. Of course, I am writing this from memory so it is possible I am mistaken.
There was, I believe a time-limit. That is once the tribunal rendered judgment, the records were sealed.
So if she wanted to see what her ex- said, she should have been able to. My guess is that she was not granted an annulment but felt the marriage was invalid or that she somehow deserved one.
Something does not seem right here.When I went through my annulment, I recall receiving a letter advising me that I was permitted to see what testimony my ex-wife submitted and that she could see mine upon request. We would then be able to submit a single letter of rebuttal. If recall correctly, we could not see witness statements, however. Of course, I am writing this from memory so it is possible I am mistaken.
There was, I believe a time-limit. That is once the tribunal rendered judgment, the records were sealed.
So if she wanted to see what her ex- said, she should have been able to. My guess is that she was not granted an annulment but felt the marriage was invalid or that she somehow deserved one.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
Access to the proofs (evidence by testimonies and documents, etc.) is limited to the parties and their advocates at the time of the publication of the acts. See canon 1598 for details.
Running a risk of over simplification, somewhat . . . This permits them to exercise their right of defense, basically a right to know what the process is and to present proofs supporting their position in the process. But sometimes petitioners and respondents do this out of curiosity even though they “favor” a decree of nullity. It doesn’t matter why. They have the right. Others do not.
This kind of access, inspection at the time of publication, is necessary for a valid sentence. The law does regulate time limits for such actions though. The parties and their procurators also have access to the sentence in order to appeal or raise a complaint of nullity of sentence. See canons 1614 and 1615 in particular.
What is not permitted is third party access. In the US, there is a long history of a First Amendment basis that prohibits the intrusion of secular courts into the internal regulations and tribunals of religious bodies. Even the EEOC has a long list of failures in trying to impose certain standards beyond any that are generally neutral on Church employment when the duties are of a religious nature, but that is side issue.
From time to time, a civil attorney might ponder trying to force disclosure, but none have been successful, to my knowledge. The last federal case, as I vaguely recall (since I have that kind of material back at the ranch), on the particular point was a couple decades ago. The court held that the Church could not be compelled to release material from a tribunal process.
So the issue seems relatively settled, but one never knows these days.
Running a risk of over simplification, somewhat . . . This permits them to exercise their right of defense, basically a right to know what the process is and to present proofs supporting their position in the process. But sometimes petitioners and respondents do this out of curiosity even though they “favor” a decree of nullity. It doesn’t matter why. They have the right. Others do not.
This kind of access, inspection at the time of publication, is necessary for a valid sentence. The law does regulate time limits for such actions though. The parties and their procurators also have access to the sentence in order to appeal or raise a complaint of nullity of sentence. See canons 1614 and 1615 in particular.
What is not permitted is third party access. In the US, there is a long history of a First Amendment basis that prohibits the intrusion of secular courts into the internal regulations and tribunals of religious bodies. Even the EEOC has a long list of failures in trying to impose certain standards beyond any that are generally neutral on Church employment when the duties are of a religious nature, but that is side issue.
From time to time, a civil attorney might ponder trying to force disclosure, but none have been successful, to my knowledge. The last federal case, as I vaguely recall (since I have that kind of material back at the ranch), on the particular point was a couple decades ago. The court held that the Church could not be compelled to release material from a tribunal process.
So the issue seems relatively settled, but one never knows these days.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
there are portions of the testimony, and of the document giving the judgments, which both parties must be given, however neither party has the right to see all the evidence, but must be given the full judgement. The rules are rather dicey and I am no expert, she needs a canon lawyer, not a civil lawyer. Sounds to me like she is making a federal case out of something that could be resolved by recourse to canon law, in order to make a point (that is as charitable as I am able to be). My guess is that if it comes down to a civil court order to reveal information protected by the seal (and some annulment info is so protected) the diocesan officials will willingly choose jail or fines rather than to break the seal.
I have no idea of NZ civil law, which I assume has roots in English common law. Henry VIII failed by the way in a similar attempt with his own situation. One (not the central) issue in his case was an attempt to force someone, the papal nuncio or whoever, to reveal some evidence in his suit. I hope heads do not roll in this case.
There was a similar high profile case involving an organized crime figure whose wife successfully sought an annulment several years ago and the federal court struck down a lower court order to the tribunal to release certain testimony to a third party.
I have no idea of NZ civil law, which I assume has roots in English common law. Henry VIII failed by the way in a similar attempt with his own situation. One (not the central) issue in his case was an attempt to force someone, the papal nuncio or whoever, to reveal some evidence in his suit. I hope heads do not roll in this case.
There was a similar high profile case involving an organized crime figure whose wife successfully sought an annulment several years ago and the federal court struck down a lower court order to the tribunal to release certain testimony to a third party.
- Status