J
JRKH
Guest
Your situation caused me to pull out the paperwork from my case and look at the questions asked of me as petitioner. Assuming that the process in Canada is approached similarly, I can assure you that it is not an “accusatory” approach at all. The questions were fairly general and none asked me to provide “grounds” for the annulment. Only the last question could really be construed this way…It asked why I was asking for a decree of nullity…Well that is helpful. Thanks. It hardly seems just that the “grounds” which feel more like “charges” aren’t made known to me before I choose my witnesses, as I can’t address them without knowing. I may ask to have them made known before going forward.
As much as the paperwork states that I’m not being accused of anything, if my ex-wife is going to make the case that I didn’t enter into the marriage of my own will, or in good faith, or that I didn’t understand it, that’s an accusation, no matter how wrapped in church-speak it is. It’s sad that the court system had to let me know her allegations before I responded but the Church does not. I can really see how people are made cynical about Religion when I see hypocritical processes like this in action. We had begun steps for me to take the RCIA in the fall but I’m not sure I can do that in good faith if this is the way the Church treats people. It’s very sad.
I think that the Tribunal basically tries to get a picture of the courtship and marriage so that they and not the participants can determine what, if any, grounds exist.
That is my sense anyway based on my own experience.
Indeed. If you approach the whole matter openly, honestly, humbly and willing to accept God’s will - you should be just fine.The best advice I’ve read is still to surrender it and ultimately that is what we will do.
Peace
James