Bi-ritual marriage tribunals?!

[twf]

I am a Latin in the Archdiocese of Vancouver, BC, Canada. I was looking at the Archdiocese’s website and noticed that our marriage tribunal is actually a regional tribunal serving four jurisdictions:
Latin Archdiocese of Vancouver
Latin Diocese of Prince George
Latin Diocese of Whitehorse
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster

The last one shocked me. Why would one tribunal serve both Latin and Byzantine jurisdictions? The vicar in charge of this tribunal is a Latin monsignor. If the Eparchy is too small to justify its own tribunal, why can’t the eparch hear the cases himself, or send them to the Ukrainian metropolitan see in Winnipeg?

(See rcav.org/tribunal/index.htm)

 

[bilop]

I am a Latin in the Archdiocese of Vancouver, BC, Canada. I was looking at the Archdiocese’s website and noticed that our marriage tribunal is actually a regional tribunal serving four jurisdictions:
Latin Archdiocese of Vancouver
Latin Diocese of Prince George
Latin Diocese of Whitehorse
Ukrainian Greek Catholic Eparchy of New Westminster

The last one shocked me. Why would one tribunal serve both Latin and Byzantine jurisdictions? The vicar in charge of this tribunal is a Latin monsignor. If the Eparchy is too small to justify its own tribunal, why can’t the eparch hear the cases himself, or send them to the Ukrainian metropolitan see in Winnipeg?

(See rcav.org/tribunal/index.htm)

Presumably they all use the same tribunal because the canon law relating to marriage and decrees of nullity is basically the same for all the sui juris Churches. I am not aware of any differences in the laws regarding marriage. Do you know of any?

The Eparch is likely not a canon lawyer.

Why would an Eastern Church need a separate tribunal? I imagine there is probably a representative of each of the Dioceses/Eparchy on the tribunal.

God Bless

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Presumably they all use the same tribunal because the canon law relating to marriage and decrees of nullity is basically the same for all the sui juris Churches. I am not aware of any differences in the laws regarding marriage. Do you know of any?

The Eparch is likely not a canon lawyer.

Why would an Eastern Church need a separate tribunal? I imagine there is probably a representative of each of the Dioceses/Eparchy on the tribunal.

God Bless

This question came up before and I don’t know if was answered: do they preserve the Orthodox teaching on marriage, that it is Christ through the priest that marries the couple, not themselves. That would effect the usual questions about intent among the Latins.

 

[twf]

Isa:
Eastern Catholic canon law certainly requires that a priest marry a couple. (While Latin canon law allows a priest or deacon to preside). Of course, this distinction between East and West existed long before the schism.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

This question came up before and I don’t know if was answered: do they preserve the Orthodox teaching on marriage, that it is Christ through the priest that marries the couple, not themselves. That would effect the usual questions about intent among the Latins.

How would this affect the questions about intent?

Even if the priest marries them, if one of them doesn’t intend to be open to children, or goes into the marriage without intending it to be permanent and exclusive, isn’t this still grounds for a decree of nullity?

Wouldn’t it be like confession? Christ through the priest absolves sin but if the person purposely made a bad confession his sins aren’t forgiven.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

How would this affect the questions about intent?

It does not affect intent. But intent is not the only reason for a decree of nullity to be granted.

There is also defect of form. A Byzantine Catholic couple can not be married by a deacon. A priest is necessary.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

It does not affect intent. But intent is not the only reason for a decree of nullity to be granted.

There is also defect of form. A Byzantine Catholic couple can not be married by a deacon. A priest is necessary.

I understand that and surely the tribunal would know that.

Isa Almisry wrote:
“This question came up before and I don’t know if was answered: do they preserve the Orthodox teaching on marriage, that it is Christ through the priest that marries the couple, not themselves. **That would effect the usual questions about intent among the Latins.”

**I was wondering what she meant by the last sentence.

 

[Aramis]

One reason for the tribunal covering multiple jurisdictions is a savings of costs. Not much, but it is enough.

Now, the intent of the couple is not likely to be affected by issues of Rite…

But the requirement for a marriage of Eastern Catholics within the framework of an Eastern Catholic Church requires a priest conduct the marriage; it is possible for an Eastern Rite couple to be married by a Roman deacon in the Roman manner (It is valid and licit, and sometimes even the only reasonable course…) at a Roman parish. (Only Ordination is restricted to one’s own Rite… tho’ marriage, solemn vows, and chrismation are discouraged from being received cross-rite, when practical. I met a Maronite couple who were married by a roman deacon while serving in the military. Nothing invalid in it…)

The issue of form is relevant in both rites, even tho’ the form differs. Part of the form is the intent of those granting the sacrament; the celebrant in the roman church weddings is merely witness, and so his intent is a minor issue. In the east, he has to also intend that the couple be joined in holy matrimony… but if he didn’t have that intent, why did he bother with the rather extensive litugy…

Really, the most compelling reason for it is simple economics. Since tribunals have a minimum size, it is less expensive to share the costs, and so long as the tribunal is not overwhelmed with work, it is not a bad thing.

 

[twf]

I find this grouping of jurisdictions odd in several ways. It excludes three Latin dioceses in our ecclesiastical province (Victoria, Kamloops, and Nelson), includes a Latin diocese from another province (Whitehorse, whose metropolitan is the archdiocese of Grouard-McLennan), and includes an eparchy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church sui juris…
When it comes to the Church’s current legal system, do ecclesiastical provinces, metropolitan sees, and autonomous ritual churches mean nothing?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I find this grouping of jurisdictions odd in several ways. It excludes three Latin dioceses in our ecclesiastical province (Victoria, Kamloops, and Nelson), includes a Latin diocese from another province (Whitehorse, whose metropolitan is the archdiocese of Grouard-McLennan), and includes an eparchy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church sui juris…
When it comes to the Church’s current legal system, do ecclesiastical provinces, metropolitan sees, and autonomous ritual churches mean nothing?

The bishop is the authority within his diocese/eparchy. If he chooses to work in this manner what is the problem? He makes the ultimate decision in all cases.

I see nothing wrong with this, actually I applaud it as it is a good use of resources.

 

[Aramis]

The 3 roman ones are fairly contiguous, yes?

If the other Roman bishops you mentioned opted for their own tribunals, that’s their choice.

 

[twf]

The 3 roman ones are fairly contiguous, yes?

I suppose so, though we’re talking about a collective territory that would cover several European countries…. I would hate to be a Catholic in the northern Yukon seeking the tribunal’s help…that would be quite the journey to Vancouver. The Ukrainian eparchy stretches all the way to the tip of the Yukon as well.

A judicial vicar’s authority comes from the bishop. Would that mean that the vicar who presides over this regional tribunal is actually simultaneously exercising the authority of three Latin bishops and a Ukrainian eparch?

 

[Aramis]

A judicial vicar’s authority comes from the bishop. Would that mean that the vicar who presides over this regional tribunal is actually simultaneously exercising the authority of three Latin bishops and a Ukrainian eparch?

No, just whichever bishop the case would fall under.

So, if the case were a Ukrainian couple, the vicar represents the Ukrainian Bishop.

The only time they would represent two would be a mixed marriage: One Ukrainian, one Roman. Normally, tho, whichever side sought the annulment would use their bishop…