Explanations of the Tribunal Process

[acanonlawyer]

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

Setting the ground(s) at the beginning of the process and changing the ground(s) are separate issues. Changing formulated grounds “without discussing it with anyone”: that is something worth pondering in light of what is said in canon 1514.

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

Not really. The petition should present the basic reason why the marriage is allegedly invalid and then the process (in terms of the questions/evidence that would be pertinent) flows from that allegation. To wait until the end to formulate grounds would be like saying “We are initiating a trial.” “What are you trying to find out?” “I don’t know yet. We will tell you when we finish.”

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

Yes, it is. I am merely admitting that there are lots of variations out there, as a matter of fact.

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.

No, the process is not manifestly unjust nor does it beg for abuse. It can be abused, certainly, as can anything.

If it is possible for you to find assistance from an independent, knowledgeable canon lawyer, I would suggest that you do so.

Dan

 

[BTypical]

If it is possible for you to find assistance from an independent, knowledgeable canon lawyer, I would suggest that you do so.

We can’t afford one, so I’m trying to do the research myself (which is why I appreciate your reference to Dignitas connubii; I have some reading to do now). While I don’t doubt that the lawyers’ charges are legitimate – canon law’s pretty difficult – quite honestly, it shouldn’t take hiring a canon lawyer to get the Tribunal to behave itself. Requiring one is essentially limiting the chances of an annulment to those who can afford a canon lawyer.

 

[JulianN]

Setting the ground(s) at the beginning of the process and changing the ground(s) are separate issues.

Yes—I should have been clear that I meant the Tribunal set the grounds as something other than what my advocate proposed. They did not later change them.

 

[Horton]

I am speaking strictly of the annulment process, not about domestic violence in general.

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

You made this claim and I refuted it.

 

[BTypical]

Yes—I should have been clear that I meant the Tribunal set the grounds as something other than what my advocate proposed. They did not later change them.

Thanks for the clarification; I think that’s what may have happened here, now that @acanonlawyer has explained the process a little more clearly. (So thank you again!)

This does not, however, explain why the Tribunal set the grounds as one that is guaranteed not to be proven, and concerns a topic that isn’t even addressed in the questionnaire responses. It still looks for all the world like (a) they’re setting things up to deny the petition and/or (b) they’re setting things up to issue a canonical impediment to marriage against my husband if they approve the petition.

 

[BTypical]

You made this claim and I refuted it.

Only if you consider domestic abuse ended once the abuser has been stopped. Ask any victim whether that’s the actual case.

Basically, the Tribunal is saying it’s perfectly fine to abuse your spouse as long as you start doing so after the wedding. Because you’ll be able to trap them and keep them from moving on from what you’ve done, even if they manage to get away from you specifically.

That is enablement. That is abuse in its own right. That is not what God intended when he instituted the Sacrament, and I will not accept it.

 

[acanonlawyer]

We can’t afford one,

Yes, it can be expensive. In addition to those canon lawyers who work on their own, and so have to charge a substantial fee, you might find one in another diocese who is willing to help out without a big fee. I, personally, don’t do that sort of thing but there could be some out there. So, perhaps put in a call to tribunals in a neighboring state, for example (if you are in the USA), and see if there is a canonist there who could help.

quite honestly, it shouldn’t take hiring a canon lawyer to get the Tribunal to behave itself.

Couldn’t agree more.

Dan

 

[Horton]

If you wish to debate domestic violence, start another thread.

 

[BTypical]

I am debating whether a Tribunal enables domestic violence. You state that you have refuted that assertion. You have done so by redefining “domestic violence.” That is misdirection, not refuting my statement. I stand by my assertion that this Tribunal enables domestic violence by trapping its victims within invalid “Sacraments” of Matrimony using inappropriately stringent grounds to refuse the declaration of nullity.

 

[PatK63]

My experience, second hand, it that they bend over backwards to find grounds for an annulment. Do you have the support of your pastor? Sounds like you need an advocate!

 

[JulianN]

I stand by my assertion that this Tribunal enables domestic violence by trapping its victims within invalid “Sacraments” of Matrimony using inappropriately stringent grounds to refuse the declaration of nullity.

This would certainly be unusual, in my experience, and I’ve dealt with a number of tribunals. They usually choose the grounds most likely to be proven— and are usually correct. I will tell you that the grounds don’t always seem obviously clear to those outside the tribunal.

 

[BTypical]

My experience, second hand, it that they bend over backwards to find grounds for an annulment.

My experience is that they’re doing everything they can to defend the bond. That’s actually laudable.

My complaint is that, in defending the bond, they’ve crossed the line into breaking their own stated rules and procedures. That’s a problem, and the way they’re doing this leads me to question whether their rulebreaking extends beyond our situation (surely they don’t have it in for us personally) into some situations that constitute outright abuse.

This would certainly be unusual, in my experience, and I’ve dealt with a number of tribunals. They usually choose the grounds most likely to be proven— and are usually correct. I will tell you that the grounds don’t always seem obviously clear to those outside the tribunal.

Which leads back to my demand that they be transparent about their policies and procedures. That doesn’t breach any sort of confidentiality, because I’m not asking about specific cases. Neither would the use of electronic documents, online portals, checklists, etc., as they can be secured. The entire process seems designed to intimidate people into not filing or continuing a case. That’s directly opposed to explicit instructions from Pope Francis.

IMNSHO, it is not too much to expect my husband to receive an explanation as to why the Tribunal ignored the proposed grounds in favor of unrelated grounds that are, on the surface, much weaker and more likely to result in a denial.

 

[JulianN]

Neither would the use of electronic documents, online portals, checklists, etc., as they can be secured.

I hope not. I would have been very worried about hacking.

 

[BTypical]

It’s much easier to hack paper documents than it is to hack electronic ones. And come on, you can’t tell me the Tribunal isn’t scanning documents in, at least at the end of cases anyway. Otherwise their file room would be unbelievable.

 

[JulianN]

They actually have to retain the documents, so yes, it’s a pretty large file room.

 

[BTypical]

If they’re not converting them to secure electronic format, they’re asking for someone to break in and steal and/or copy the paper files. Even just setting them on fire would be disastrous. There is nothing in Church doctrine or discipline that says they can’t join the 21st century (or heck, even the 20th) on this particular issue. However, there is quite a bit in there about ministering to all God’s people, even those (like my husband) who physically cannot read paper files…

 

[JulianN]

They should have offered your husband assistance—I often assist people with their paperwork, even with no disability involved. I’m not sure why his advocate didn’t offer.

The Church requires paper copies of most records—baptismal records pop to mind.

 

[BTypical]

His advocate just handed him papers and told him to fill them out.

When I had to request my baptismal record for my own (defect-in-form) annulment, I received it from that diocese by secure email. This same Tribunal accepted it. They also accepted what was obviously a microfiched-to-paper copy of my divorce decree. Since they’re apparently going to do a phone call verification to the Clerk of Court anyway, that made sense.

 

[JulianN]

No, I didn’t mean they couldn’t use email. But they are required to keep paper records.

And his advocate is not doing his/her job.

 

[BTypical]

As I said, there’s nothing in Church doctrine or discipline that says they can’t join the 21st century in terms of technology. They have to respect confidentiality. That can be done without paper forms, and in fact, can be done more securely by electronic means.

And his advocate is not doing his/her job.

Ya think? My husband is trying to find out what he can do to change advocates. The Tribunal is being no help there either.