Explanations of the Tribunal Process

[BTypical]

I’ve posted here before about the extremely poor experiences both my husband and I are experiencing as we work through the Declaration of Nullity processes.

There’s been another development and I am, quite frankly, beyond outraged at this point. But I’m not here to talk about that. What I’m here to ask is this:

Can anyone point me toward resources that clearly and completely explain the way the tribunal process is supposed to work? I am looking specifically for a step-by-step outline of what, exactly, happens at each point, e.g., who determines the judges and when does that happen? Who confirms or denies the grounds and what criteria are used? At what point are witnesses contacted? What are the rights, obligations, and powers of each player in the process? And so on and so forth.

The generic FAQs available at the USCCB site and on various diocesan sites offer little to no actual detail about this extremely opaque process.

Thanks!

 

[1ke]

I believe the internal administrative processes are up to each diocese, as long as they comply with the relevant canon law.

@acanonlawyer can perhaps answer your questions.

 

[BTypical]

Awesome, thanks!

 

[EricF]

Good luck Btypical. Been there, done that, experienced the frustrations. You are in my prayers.

 

[JulianN]

Your best bet is to contact your own diocesan Tribunal to inquire. They all operate a little differently as far as their administration and process.

For example, my diocese takes witness statements in the form of a written questionnaire. But I am a witness in a case for a diocese that required a phone interview with two judges of the Tribunal.

 

[BTypical]

I got beyond frustrated a long time ago. Now, at this point, it certainly looks for all the world like the Tribunal we’re dealing with, is in the business of enabling and even actively encouraging domestic abuse (that’s not a reference to my own case, btw). It also is treating all parties as guilty until proven innocent.

Publishing the administrative procedures violates no confidentiality, which is why I want to find out more about those. Why aren’t diocesan Tribunals more open about the process?

 

[BTypical]

Thanks. It’s my own diocesan Tribunal that’s the problem. When I tried to contact them, I was told that I was being too emotional. You’re darn right I was emotional. The Tribunal was changing their own rules. And if they’re doing what I think they are, another person who’s in a domestic abuse situation (in danger for their lives) will have zero recourse! That’s unacceptable.

It’s time to shine a light on this opaque process. Publishing procedures violates no confidentiality.

 

[JulianN]

It also is treating all parties as guilty until proven innocent.

I understand how frustrating the process can be – but this is actually not even the role of the Tribunal. They do not determine guilt or innocence, nor even who is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Their role is to determine the validity of the marriage at the time the wedding occurred. Unlike civil law, it’s not about presuming innocence until proven guilty; it’s about presuming a marriage is valid until proven otherwise.

And if they’re doing what I think they are, another person who’s in a domestic abuse situation (in danger for their lives) will have zero recourse!

Most tribunals have processes in place to protect victims of domestic abuse. Do all the parties involved have an advocate? That person should be the one communicating these concerns to the tribunal.

 

[acanonlawyer]

who determines the judges and when does that happen?

Judges are appointed to their position by the diocesan bishop. They are assigned to particular cases by the judicial vicar or the adjutant (assistant) judicial vicar. Assignment takes place once the Respondent Party has been “cited” (notified) and made aware of the petition that introduced the case. Substitutions of personnel can happen at any point.

Who confirms or denies the grounds and what criteria are used?

The Judicial vicar (or the adjutant), based on the information/allegation presented in the petition, determines the ground(s). Criteria used are the law of the Church as well as the facts/allegations presented in the petition.

At what point are witnesses contacted?

They are contacted once the grounds have been determined.

What are the rights, obligations, and powers of each player in the process?

This is a detailed question. Basically, the judge (or presiding judge or the ponens (“the writer”)) has “power” in that he directs the process on a day-to-day basis. The “defender of the bond” has no real power but has the right/obligation to defend the bond of marriage and see to it that proper procedures are followed (so that the process itself is “valid”). An “auditor” is a person who collects testimony/evidence. A “notary” authenticates legal acts. An “assessor” is a knowledgeable person who assists the judge(s) in “assessing” the law and facts. An “expert” is usually someone who is a psychologist/psychiatrist who tries to help identify issues of a psychological nature. An “advocate” is one who assists a Party in the course of a process by providing competent help so that the process is understood, both in terms of the outline and the purpose. Also, an advocate would supply an argument in support of his/her client.

I hope this is of some assistance. The personnel and procedures which are to be used are clearly laid out in the Code of Canon Law and the 2005 document entitled Dignitas connubii. What happens in practice at a particular tribunal, however, can deviate from the norm in both trivial and substantive matters.

Dan

 

[Fauken]

An “advocate” is one who assists a Party in the course of a process by providing competent help so that the process is understood, both in terms of the outline and the purpose. Also, an advocate would supply an argument in support of his/her client.

An advocate is someone who has at the minimum a JCL, correct?

 

[acanonlawyer]

An advocate is someone who has at the minimum a JCL, correct?

No. It would be best if he/she did but that is not a requirement.

Dan

 

[JulianN]

An advocate is someone who has at the minimum a JCL, correct?

No. I’m an advocate, and while I do have a graduate degree in theology, I do not have a JCL. I was trained by the Tribunal.

 

[BTypical]

I understand how frustrating the process can be – but this is actually not even the role of the Tribunal. They do not determine guilt or innocence, nor even who is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage.

This is why I want to find out more about the process. This Tribunal is indeed treating all parties as liars until they can prove their words are true. That is the presumption that someone is guilty of the sin of false witness (cf. 9th Commandment) and can’t possibly be acceptable. I want to believe that I’m simply misunderstanding something and that they don’t actually refuse to believe that sworn and notarized testimony is truthful.

Most tribunals have processes in place to protect victims of domestic abuse. Do all the parties involved have an advocate? That person should be the one communicating these concerns to the tribunal.

All parties have an advocate, but all the advocates are doing is protecting the Tribunal.

Also, my reference here is also related to those who have escaped domestic violence situations. The Tribunal in question won’t consider domestic violence to be indicative of intent of good against the spouse unless the violence itself started before the marriage. Red flags and clear warning signals are not enough. This Tribunal is refusing to consider even the possibility that abusers might wait until after the wedding to start the actual transgressions. There is ample research showing that that’s exactly what many abusers do.

The Judicial vicar (or the adjutant), based on the information/allegation presented in the petition, determines the ground(s). Criteria used are the law of the Church as well as the facts/allegations presented in the petition.

In my husband’s case, the Tribunal completely changed the grounds of the case without discussing it with anyone. That is juridical abuse.

[Witnesses] are contacted once the grounds have been determined.

That’s ridiculous. How can they determine grounds until all evidence is collected? This is a clear case of working to sustain a conclusion that has already been determined, rather than drawing conclusions based on facts.

The personnel and procedures which are to be used are clearly laid out in the Code of Canon Law and the 2005 document entitled Dignitas connubii.

Thanks. I’ll look it up.

What happens in practice at a particular tribunal, however, can deviate from the norm in both trivial and substantive matters.

That is unacceptable. A declaration of nullity (or denial of same) should mean the same thing no matter which Tribunal issues it.

I hope this is of some assistance.

Thanks, it has been. The process as you have explained it is manifestly unjust and just begging for abuses. It’s time we laity started screaming to the rafters about it.

 

[JulianN]

In my husband’s case, the Tribunal completely changed the grounds of the case without discussing it with anyone. That is juridical abuse.

Actually, that may have been doing him a favor. Sometimes, the judges see more clearly what the actual grounds should be. I received a decree of nullity for my first marriage, and the Tribunal revised the grounds.

 

[BTypical]

Actually, that may have been doing him a favor. Sometimes, the judges see more clearly what the actual grounds should be.

Not in this case. The new grounds the judges chose came completely out of left field and are totally unsupported by any facts already provided. But I appreciate your candor.

 

[PatK63]

@BTypical
Domestic Abuse is a police matter. If someone is being abused they need to get away. Then, they can go through the annulment process which I understand you have found painful. I am sorry you have not been treated more fairly.

 

[His_helpmeet]

In terms of determining whether there is grounds, when Hubby applied for a declaration of nullity, he was asked to fill out a preliminary questionnaire. They asked questions such as details surrounding the wedding itself, whether anything unusual happened on the day, whether there were any pre-existing issues such as premarital pregnancy, when the problems began in the marriage, what the problems were and what caused them, and whether there had been any temporary separations, and if there were, why they had returned to conjugal life. Hubby also had to have his pastor fill out a form indicating how long the pastor had been at his current post, how familiar he was with Hubby’s marital problems, and his assessment of Hubby’s character and truthfulness. In other words, the tribunal got a fair amount of information before they decided whether they would take the case.

In the case of witnesses, you’re also presuming that they wouldn’t have already conducted a more in-depth interview or questionnaire with the petitioner. I assume that that would be the case in order for them to determine whether there were grounds.

 

[BTypical]

@His_helpmeet, since my husband is blind (and neither the Tribunal nor the advocate have offered any sort of accommodation for this – all he would have needed is electronic forms submissions), I’ve had to assist him with the process. I saw the questionnaire. I know what the answers are. It was clear from those answers what the grounds should be. There was no in-depth interview as I’d have been aware of either the long phone call or the need to drive him to a personal appointment.

The Tribunal has changed the grounds to exclude all but one that the evidence absolutely will not support (because it isn’t true). Its apparent intent is to make sure that the cause for the declaration fails in the name of “defending the bond.”

@PatK63, domestic abuse doesn’t end when the abuser is stopped. It continues by way of the victim having to pay the legal and emotional price for the domestic abuse. This Tribunal is continuing and enabling that abuse by catching victims in a trap: if the violence didn’t start before the wedding, then the marriage is valid because the divorce is only based on events that happened after the wedding. But if the violence did start before the wedding and the victim went through with it anyway, clearly, the victim consented to the treatment. Either way, the marriage won’t be declared invalid and the victim will never be allowed to remarry. That is unacceptable given that there are usually red flags that show a propensity for violence before the wedding, even if there’s no violence itself. Those red flags show intent against the good of the spouse.

 

[Horton]

The Tribunal in question won’t consider domestic violence to be indicative of intent of good against the spouse unless the violence itself started before the marriage.

The determination of the validity of a marriage is based on information at the time the vows are exchanged. While no one will condone domestic violence, it is not, on it’s own, grounds for nullity. Do not take this to mean that the tribunal wants a victim spouse to return to a violent situation. The Church allows, even encourages, an abused spouse to live apart and even civilly divorce their abuser, but the marriage bond remains intact.

 

[BTypical]

That perpetuates and continues the abuse. There are almost always red flags and clear indicators prior to the marriage, even if there isn’t violence. Those red flags and clear indicators make the intent against the good of the spouse clear, and should be sufficient evidence.