How might the nullity process be improved?

[buc_fan33]

So change the assumptions…

But you can’t. The Church ALWAYS assumes the validity of a marriage until proven otherwise. It’s very similar to a court case. You don’t need to prove yourself innocent. Your accuser needs to prove you are guilty. Likewise, in a case to determine the validity of a marriage, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner (the canonical term for what we would call the plaintiff in a civil or criminal trial). It would be incredibly unjust to assume a marriage is invalid and lay the burden of proof on someone to prove his or her marriage was valid.

You’re assumed innocent until proven guilty. Your marriage is assumed valid until proven invalid.

 

[Gorgias]

I am saying that if someone says that their understanding of marriage at the time was that it was a purely civil matter and that if the record shows that they were married civilly, then those things together should lead to a fast-track decision that the marriage was invalid because of a lack of proper understanding of marriage.

Actually, Pope Francis’ reforms of the relevant canons includes a method by which to “fast track” the nullity case.

From this site, the following causes for a “fast track” proceeding could be:

According to the procedural norms attached to Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus (see Art. 14 § 1), these cases include the following:

• lack of faith resulting in the simulation of consent to be married or an error that determines the will regarding one of the requirements of marriage
• the brevity of married life (i.e., the couple divorced very quickly after being married)
• procured abortion to prevent procreation (presumably during the marriage itself, prior to bearing other children and thus showing an unwillingness to procreate)
• the stubborn persistence in a extramarital affair at the time of the wedding or at a time immediately following
• the malicious concealment of:
• infertility
• a serious contagious disease
• children born from a previous relationship
• an incarceration

• a reason for getting married that is completely foreign to married life (presumably something like entering a legal fiction of a marriage to be able to immigrate or gain an inheritance) or consisting of the unplanned pregnancy of the woman
• the physical violence inflicted to extort the consent to marry
• the lack of use of reason proved by medical documents

Of course, the case you note is an interesting one: how would we determine that the person had in mind “a purely civil marriage” (by which I would understand you to mean that they didn’t have in mind permanence, right?), rather than a true Christian marriage? We would still have to interview the person who had that mindset, or others who would have known him to have that mindset at the time of the wedding, wouldn’t we? So, although Pope Francis’ reforms will speed up the length of time of the process, they wouldn’t be able to affect the issues that bother many people (including 7 Sorrow’s list of highly relevant issues) – namely, locating and asking people to revisit the events of years gone by…

 

[Gorgias]

So change the assumptions…

Now you’ve hit on what I mentioned in the first post.

We can change the process, but you’re asking for a change in doctrine. Is that a reasonable request – to change what we believe, because it’s difficult to live up to?

 

[TechieGuy]

It would be incredibly unjust to assume a marriage is invalid and lay the burden of proof on someone to prove his or her marriage was valid.

Nobody is asking anyone to prove their marriage was valid.

The petitioner is asserting that the marriage was invalid and then is required to prove that case.

Simplify the process by - in the absence of any objection from the ex-spouse - taking the petitioner at his word that the marriage was invalid.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Furthermore, there might well be an examination of the question of just how ‘Christian’ the folks were when they entered into marriage.

A person who was baptized as an infant at the Methodist Church where their grandparents went, but never set foot in a church again and considered himself an agnostic at the time of their civil marriage would hardly be expected to consider himself as entering into a Sacramental Marriage.

+1

 

[7_Sorrows]

You’re absolutely correct! It’s really difficult to find someone – let alone someone who can think back that far and remember what they witnessed that long ago!

And yet… the question that’s being asked really is “what happened at the time of the wedding?”. How might we discern the answer to that question without asking people?

This is very true. But, ex-in-laws aren’t necessarily the people you have to ask. In fact, as an advocate, I tend to prioritize them lower down the list of folks who a petitioner might want to contact.

Agreed; even Catholics misunderstand the process.

By “bureaucratic”, do you mean “formal”? It is a formal, legal process… and, along with that, comes a certain amount of impartial, formal professionalism.

I can only hope, in all charity, that all she was doing was asking “this is an affidavit; do you affirm that you’ve told the truth in all you’ve written?” In other words, I’m hoping that she was really just asking the pro-forma question that must be asked when an affidavit is taken. I understand that your perception was “uncaring and snide”… but I hope that isn’t what was going on…

It is slow. And, Deacon Jeff alludes to some of the reasons: tribunals generally are understaffed to handle the volume of work, and it is cost-prohibitive to add sufficient numbers of employees who are qualified in canon law.

Hopefully, that’s what advocates do. But, to tell the truth, I get the feeling that often, advocates, too, are overwhelmed by the volume of cases and work, especially if they’re volunteers!

When many witnesses are no longer living or you lost contact with them years ago, and they are demanding witnesses, sometimes ex in-laws are the last chance.

Yes, the process is legal, formal and impersonal.

I was speaking on the phone with this woman. I had already signed paperwork stating
everything I had written was true and she just blurted the question out as an afterthought, not like this was a question she asks everyone.

 

[pianistclare]

It’s roughly 6 months in this Archdiocese.
They always tell us: submit paperwork BY the first Sunday in Advent if you want someone to come into the Church at Easter. They will get a YES or NO by Holy Week.

Glad to see the days of waiting for YEARS is over.
My sister waited for years.

My pastor tells people up FRONT if they can have a hope. If it appears that nothing could be done, he levels with them. OK to try though.

 

[Kielbasi]

Would either or both of these significantly reduce the $$$$ required?

Just my :twocents:

tee
Other ObDisclaimer: Not A Canon Lawyer

I don’t think money is the source of people’s frustration, but the uncertainly and the time it takes.

If the matter could be resolved in a more or less firm time period known in advance, and people were surer which way it was likely to go, it would do a lot to reduce a lot of the angst involved.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Nobody is asking anyone to prove their marriage was valid.

The petitioner is asserting that the marriage was invalid and then is required to prove that case.

Simplify the process by - in the absence of any objection from the ex-spouse - taking the petitioner at his word that the marriage was invalid.

I wish it were as easy as taking the petitioner at his or her word!!

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t think money is the source of people’s frustration, but the uncertainly and the time it takes.

If the matter could be resolved in a more or less firm time period known in advance, and people were surer which way it was likely to go, it would do a lot to reduce a lot of the angst involved.

Good points!

 

[7_Sorrows]

It’s roughly 6 months in this Archdiocese.
They always tell us: submit paperwork BY the first Sunday in Advent if you want someone to come into the Church at Easter. They will get a YES or NO by Holy Week.

Glad to see the days of waiting for YEARS is over.
My sister waited for years.

My pastor tells people up FRONT if they can have a hope. If it appears that nothing could be done, he levels with them. OK to try though.

6 months has got to be a record! There must not be a large metropolis in your diocese.
That is smart to give them a time frame in order to come into the Church the following Easter.
My friend’s husband waited 4 years!

 

[pianistclare]

6 months has got to be a record! There must not be a large metropolis in your diocese.
That is smart to give them a time frame in order to come into the Church the following Easter.
My friend’s husband waited 4 years!

Atlanta is huge.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Atlanta is huge.

Kudos to your diocese for being so fast!

 

[tee_eff_em]

I don’t think money is the source of people’s frustration, but the uncertainly and the time it takes.

But the money was brought up as a part of the current status quo – That is: Even if the previously required fees have been done away, the members of the tribunal still need to be paid ($$) and have extensive Canon legal training ($$).

If the matter could be resolved in a more or less firm time period known in advance, and people were surer which way it was likely to go, it would do a lot to reduce a lot of the angst involved.

I thought (but could be mistaken) this was already the case? Cases with little chance of being found null are quashed early leading many to (mistakenly) perceive nullity cases as a rubber stamp (even when they do take 12-18 months or more)?

tee
Not a Canon Lawyer
Never Been Directly Involved in a Nullity Case

 

[joeybaggz]

I figured there would be plenty of posters so I wouldn’t bother. I see most of my major points/arguments have been made by others.

The one thing that bothers me about this thread is (and I have real all the posts - albeit quickly so I might have missed one or two), but NO ONE used the word matrimony in this discussion. I know, you consider the term Sacramental marriage an equivalent, but is it?

Matrimony is the name of the sacrament in the RCC. To confect the sacrament one must have full knowledge of its nature of the sacrament, and enter into with a lifelong commitment to live a life consistent with what the sacrament of matrimony demands.

Marriage and matrimony are not equivalent. Matrimony is a sacrament, marriage is not. And if I sound as if I am just making a simple semantic argument consider that Baptism is a sacrament; is dunking someone in the river in a church that does not consider Christ the Son of God, co-equal with the Father, of the same substance, consubstantial? Holy Orders is a sacrament, is someone who got a degree from the Church of What’s Happening Now Bible College, the equivalent of a Catholic priest validly ordained in the apostolic succession? Is a symbolic meal of grape juice and home made bread by the bread baking ministry of a pentecostal chuch the sacramental equivalent of the Eucharist in the RCC? You can call it such, but is it? Church other that the RCC use the term matrimony; heck even popular magazines use the term to described marriage, but do they really mean the same thing as the term as employed by the RCC?

Jesus issued his teaching on the permanence of marriage to the Jewish people. Marriages at his time in Israel were all religious ceremonies conducted by a recognized church elder (rabbi) and witnessed by a congregation in a temple setting. It’s a little different today when marriages are done by justices of the peace in a room next door to a court hearing traffic offenses. Or in corn fields, jumping out of airplanes, on the seashore or waterskiing on a lake?

Christ gave Peter and his successors to ability to speak for him in the power to loose and bind. Of course the church must take this gift seriously, but Jesus left it up to Peter how to implement his words. In light of the trivialization of marriage today, how often is the sacrament of matrimony actually brought into reality, and if it is not, then shouldn’t people be given the benefit of the doubt? Jesus showed mercy to all, shouldn’t the church be less hidebound in following the rules, and more merciful to those is terrible situations due to the cruelty of a spouse that never was?

My :twocents:

 

[7_Sorrows]

I figured there would be plenty of posters so I wouldn’t bother. I see most of my major points/arguments have been made by others.

The one thing that bothers me about this thread is (and I have real all the posts - albeit quickly so I might have missed one or two), but NO ONE used the word matrimony in this discussion. I know, you consider the term Sacramental marriage an equivalent, but is it?

Matrimony is the name of the sacrament in the RCC. To confect the sacrament one must have full knowledge of its nature of the sacrament, and enter into with a lifelong commitment to live a life consistent with what the sacrament of matrimony demands.

Marriage and matrimony are not equivalent. Matrimony is a sacrament, marriage is not. And if I sound as if I am just making a simple semantic argument consider that Baptism is a sacrament; is dunking someone in the river in a church that does not consider Christ the Son of God, co-equal with the Father, of the same substance, consubstantial? Holy Orders is a sacrament, is someone who got a degree from the Church of What’s Happening Now Bible College, the equivalent of a Catholic priest validly ordained in the apostolic succession? Is a symbolic meal of grape juice and home made bread by the bread baking ministry of a pentecostal chuch the sacramental equivalent of the Eucharist in the RCC? You can call it such, but is it? Church other that the RCC use the term matrimony; heck even popular magazines use the term to described marriage, but do they really mean the same thing as the term as employed by the RCC?

Jesus issued his teaching on the permanence of marriage to the Jewish people. Marriages at his time in Israel were all religious ceremonies conducted by a recognized church elder (rabbi) and witnessed by a congregation in a temple setting. It’s a little different today when marriages are done by justices of the peace in a room next door to a court hearing traffic offenses. Or in corn fields, jumping out of airplanes, on the seashore or waterskiing on a lake?

Christ gave Peter and his successors to ability to speak for him in the power to loose and bind. Of course the church must take this gift seriously, but Jesus left it up to Peter how to implement his words. In light of the trivialization of marriage today, how often is the sacrament of matrimony actually brought into reality, and if it is not, then shouldn’t people be given the benefit of the doubt? Jesus showed mercy to all, shouldn’t the church be less hidebound in following the rules, and more merciful to those is terrible situations due to the cruelty of a spouse that never was?

My :twocents:

I agree with your two cents 100%!

 

[Phemie]

One big improvement would be to make the rules regarding “Requirements of Form” for non-Catholic Christians more in line with those of Catholics.

For example, if two non-Catholic Christians were married by a Justice of the Peace or by their buddy who had just gotten an ‘ordination’ from the Universal Life Church, then that in itself could be evidence that the couple did not intend to enter into a Sacramental Marriage.

Remember that the Tribunal doesn’t rule on whether a marriage is sacramental or not, only on whether it is valid or not. There are many reasons why two Christians might choose to marry in front of a JP, reasons which would in no way result in an invalid marriage. Just because they didn’t opt to go the church route in no way means that they didn’t intend to be married for life, to the exclusion of all others, and to be welcoming of children.

 

[Phemie]

Furthermore, there might well be an examination of the question of just how ‘Christian’ the folks were when they entered into marriage.

A person who was baptized as an infant at the Methodist Church where their grandparents went, but never set foot in a church again and considered himself an agnostic at the time of their civil marriage would hardly be expected to consider himself as entering into a Sacramental Marriage.

Just because you don’t practice doesn’t mean you can’t have a valid marriage. Most of the other Christian religions don’t think of marriage as a sacrament so how could they be intending to enter a sacramental marriage? Imposing that requirement would mean that no non-Christian could ever be validly married and we know that’s not the case.

 

[Joe_5859]

6 months has got to be a record! There must not be a large metropolis in your diocese.
That is smart to give them a time frame in order to come into the Church the following Easter.
My friend’s husband waited 4 years!

In my old diocese, it was like that. We had people going through RCIA who started the process after RCIA was underway and who knew by Holy Week. It was a small diocese. My current diocese is not like that, though. If someone is in RCIA and needs an annulment, the recommendation is to work on the annulment and come back for RCIA the following year. I really hate telling people that. I’d much prefer that it happen more quickly.

 

[Peebo]

I started my process over a year ago. I am sure there are some cases more complicated than others. I probably will not have an answer until next year.

My biggest frustration is witnesses. Maybe it would be better to list frustrations and problems to see where improvements need to be made.
1. It is hard to find witnesses going back 30+ years.
2. Reluctance to contact anyone (ex in-laws) when you have had no contact with them for 30+ years and expect them to want to take their time filling out the questionnaire.
3. Witnesses who are not Catholic and don’t understand why an annulment is needed and are not interested in helping.
4. The bureaucratic aspect of the process. Does anyone really care how painful it is to go through the process let alone put it on paper? I didn’t get the feeling the people doing their job enjoy working in the process. My first contact was as cold as a fish and very rude like I was one more problem she had to deal with. There was no warmth.
Very arrogant as though she was holding all the power. She snidely asked if it was true what she had read on the questionnaire. I wanted to say “No. I spent ten hours pulling
things out of thin air!”. My stomach fell and I actually went into a depression wondering how I could have been so stupid to even start the process and share so many private details of my life only to have someone ask me if it was true! I pretty much shut down and told myself I was through with the whole thing. This person was not my advocate by the way. I felt so let down I even stopped going to Mass and wondered why I was even in the Catholic Church. That lasted for a few months. And I have considered my options if it does not come back in my favor which is sad because after being a non church going Christian for 38 years I felt like I had found a home.
This only brought to mind why I stopped attending any church at 18.
5. Even though they have streamlined the process it is still slow.

I have no idea how to overhaul this process, but people need to be made to feel they are treated like a human being and not just a file or dossier as Don Ruggero said in
another thread.

This was the stumbling block for my wife…her first marriage was over 30 years ago…only one witness who would write a statement for her …one sister who was Protestant and didn’t particularly like the Catholic church refused…everyone else had died…( it was a small family home wedding)…fortunately our diocese allowed for her to be interviewed by a special witness who then sent her results to the diocese which they accepted…of course the anxiety of going through the whole process…it’s probably even more so for Protestants…my wifes case…her husband just walked out on her after 30 years marriage to live with his girlfriend who he had been seeing…he refused mediation…just wanted a divorce…so it’s different in that her church would allow divorce and remarriage because of her husbands adultery…so she had a hard time coming to understand when she wanted to become Catholic that she felt like it was her fault… I think the Orthodox does allow divorce and remarriage but I think they require the ones to be married to do some sort of penance…perhaps a poster might be able to elaborate more on that.