How might the nullity process be improved?

[joeybaggz]

Your second to last paragraph is spot on! How can we talk so much about how important forgiveness is and talk about God’s mercy and then have the strict rules of the annulment process and the chance you might never be able to receive the Sacraments for the rest of your life!
I could never return to a protestant church though after being Catholic.

Appreciate the remark. Please though don’t misunderstand; I believe in the process and the need to have structure in which to find the truth. It’s just that as I stated above, the nullity process isn’t always as neat and clean, as straightforward as we wish it could be. Occasionally I think maybe a ruling based on mercy/benefit of the doubt - call it what you want - may bot be perfect, but I think God will sort it out. And as His Son said, He will back up His Church.

Again, the great comfort of the Church is that we don’t always have to right, just faithful.

Shalom

 

[7_Sorrows]

Are you inferring that all witnesses see and hear, and then tell the same version of events? One of the frustrations of members of a tribunal is that witnesses don’t always tell the same story. Hence confusion, and possibly a ruling based more on "benefit of the doubt’ rather than totally consistent testimony. Like any civil trial - as in “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”.

I have no problem with “stringent” It is just that the nullity process is subject to the inconsistencies of many of those involved. It doesn’t always fit neatly in a box.

The process does, however, almost always find the truth. As to those that “slip through the cracks”, leave it up to the Holy Spirit. What I like about Catholic, is that we don’t always have to be right, just faithful.

Shalom

And when you are asking witnesses to go back 30 years, how reliable is their memory.
Are they holding any grudges against you?
How many innocent men have we seen convicted of a crime, only to be released 20-30
years later when it was proved through DNA they could not have committed the crime? Yet people were sure they were guilty at the time.
I don’t know what marriage was like in the time of Jesus. I don’t know if polygamy
existed. I don’t know how divorce was in his day. How is the Tribunal 100% sure they are ruling correctly?
It would be wonderful if we all found the perfect mate. I have googled certain celebrities from time to time and have been astonished to see some were married 4-5
times. I think you have to look at backgrounds people have growing up. Obviously, some people don’t know why they are marrying or they don’t take it seriously if they are married 4-5-6 times.

I wish I had a good answer how the process could be improved or do a complete overhaul, but I have a feeling that any suggestions will be met with criticism.

 

[otjm]

Except those of Catholics not observing canonical form without a dispensation.

Agreed; however, that is already a very short process of documents, not of witnesses.

 

[otjm]

But the logical conclusion to that is there is no such thing as objective validity of marriage. Validity becomes dependent on whether the couple stays together or not.

We already know that some marriages that were found to be invalid by the Tribunal of First Instance, and sometimes again by the Tribunal of Second Instance, are found to be valid when appealed to the Roman Rota which has the final word on the matter. We first widely learned about that when Joe Kennedy’s “annulment” was overturned by the Roman Rota when his wife appealed the first tribunal’s finding.

Actually, the “Kennedy” decree of nullity was not overturned, contrary to popular reports, as there was no decree of nullity. The first tribunal would have granted a decree, but an actual decree does not exist until and unless the second tribunal (here, the Rota because his wife appealed directly to the Rota) also agrees; at that point a decree is given.

And not to mention that the Rota, instead of the normal 6 months to review, sat on the matter for 10 years. That has never been explained, as far as I know.

Right now I cannot find a source which shows how many appeals are made to the Rota. My recollection (and if anyone has a source different, please provide) is that in the US, we have had decrees in the tens of thousands (CARA notes by every 5 years, noted below) and the most I have seen in the past from the Rota were in the hundreds. Again, if someone has a source…?

1985: 60,691
1990: 72,308
1995: 57,018
2000: 49,973
2005: 33,727
2010: 26,025

I also don’t believe that the Rota said they “had a valid marriage” as my understanding is that what the tribunal says actually amounts to “the case is not proven”. It therefore continues under the presumption that the marriage is valid.

I say this, as I originally understood that one only had one try at the case. I have since been told that one still might be able to try the case anew if there is evidence either that was not presented, or has been developed since the first submission, on different grounds. Not being a Canon lawyer, I can’t affirm or deny, but was told this by a deacon involved in tribunal cases.

2016:: 22,767 (date correct)

 

[otjm]

Are you inferring that all witnesses see and hear, and then tell the same version of events? One of the frustrations of members of a tribunal is that witnesses don’t always tell the same story. Hence confusion, and possibly a ruling based more on "benefit of the doubt’ rather than totally consistent testimony. Like any civil trial - as in “if the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”.

I have no problem with “stringent” It is just that the nullity process is subject to the inconsistencies of many of those involved. It doesn’t always fit neatly in a box.

The process does, however, almost always find the truth. As to those that “slip through the cracks”, leave it up to the Holy Spirit. What I like about Catholic, is that we don’t always have to be right, just faithful.

Shalom

Perhaps I have misread your posts, but they seem to come across as looking for a shortcut.

I can understand that the tribunal may end up with witnesses who are not consistent. On the other hand, witnesses are asked questions concerning what they observed and knew of the parties, or at least one of them. The witnesses are not asked to identify impediments themselves, but rather for evidence which would indicate an impediment. It is up to the tribunal to determine if the evidence supports the impediment(s) underlying the original request.

And yes, there will be circumstances where the evidence is ambivalent; however, the tribunal seeks truth; and if the truth is not evident, then any declaration is not truthful.

It is all too easy to confuse true mercy with fake mercy. True mercy does not ignore truth, nor does it operate where truth cannot be found.

Tribunals are not “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” nor are they imbued with infallibility.

And again, tribunals do not say “No question, you have a valid marriage”; they say that the case was not proved.

Are there going to be mistakes? Neither Christ nor the Church promise there will be none, and they can be made on both sides of the issue (as both JP 2 And B 16 have noted - too many cases on weak grounds).

And in this forum, there have been individuals who have railed that the tribunals are wrong. I seriously suspect that some of the railing about it has been by individuals who do not understand what constitutes an impediment or a lack of consent, and take the position “My spouse showed up, I showed up, we exchanged vows, they were not drunk, I was not drunk, so the marriage is valid!”, and whose spouse applied and received a decree of nullity. .

And thus it goes.

 

[Phemie]

Actually, the “Kennedy” decree of nullity was not overturned, contrary to popular reports, as there was no decree of nullity. The first tribunal would have granted a decree, but an actual decree does not exist until and unless the second tribunal (here, the Rota because his wife appealed directly to the Rota) also agrees; at that point a decree is given.

And not to mention that the Rota, instead of the normal 6 months to review, sat on the matter for 10 years. That has never been explained, as far as I know.

Right now I cannot find a source which shows how many appeals are made to the Rota. My recollection (and if anyone has a source different, please provide) is that in the US, we have had decrees in the tens of thousands (CARA notes by every 5 years, noted below) and the most I have seen in the past from the Rota were in the hundreds. Again, if someone has a source…?

1985: 60,691
1990: 72,308
1995: 57,018
2000: 49,973
2005: 33,727
2010: 26,025

I also don’t believe that the Rota said they “had a valid marriage” as my understanding is that what the tribunal says actually amounts to “the case is not proven”. It therefore continues under the presumption that the marriage is valid.

I say this, as I originally understood that one only had one try at the case. I have since been told that one still might be able to try the case anew if there is evidence either that was not presented, or has been developed since the first submission, on different grounds. Not being a Canon lawyer, I can’t affirm or deny, but was told this by a deacon involved in tribunal cases.

2016:: 22,767 (date correct)

You’re right, the finding was that there were no grounds for nullity. The marriage is already presumed valid so there wouldn’t be a finding of validity. In my head I understand that, it doesn’t always translate to paper.

As I understand it the petition is usually based on a specific impediment. In the Kennedy case he petitioned based on his belief that “he was mentally incapable of entering into marriage at the time.” If one petitioned based on A and there was no finding of nullity then one could then petition based on B if there was more evidence of B.

It’s true that the Kennedy case went to the Rota as the court of second instance. I’m not sure how many cases are appealed to the Rota as second instance. Actually, how many cases are appealed at all? How common is it that the parties contest a finding of nullity? I would think it would be more common to petition the Rota if both first instance and second instance didn’t find a cause for nullity or if they didn’t agree.

Do we know for sure how long it takes the Rota to render a decision?

 

[Horton]

Actually, the “Kennedy” decree of nullity was not overturned, contrary to popular reports, as there was no decree of nullity. The first tribunal would have granted a decree, but an actual decree does not exist until and unless the second tribunal (here, the Rota because his wife appealed directly to the Rota) also agrees; at that point a decree is given.

And not to mention that the Rota, instead of the normal 6 months to review, sat on the matter for 10 years. That has never been explained, as far as I know.

Right now I cannot find a source which shows how many appeals are made to the Rota. My recollection (and if anyone has a source different, please provide) is that in the US, we have had decrees in the tens of thousands (CARA notes by every 5 years, noted below) and the most I have seen in the past from the Rota were in the hundreds. Again, if someone has a source…?

1985: 60,691
1990: 72,308
1995: 57,018
2000: 49,973
2005: 33,727
2010: 26,025

I also don’t believe that the Rota said they “had a valid marriage” as my understanding is that what the tribunal says actually amounts to “the case is not proven”. It therefore continues under the presumption that the marriage is valid.

I say this, as I originally understood that one only had one try at the case. I have since been told that one still might be able to try the case anew if there is evidence either that was not presented, or has been developed since the first submission, on different grounds. Not being a Canon lawyer, I can’t affirm or deny, but was told this by a deacon involved in tribunal cases.

2016:: 22,767 (date correct)

I find these number incredible. I would have guessed it would have went the other way. From 72,000 in 1990 to 26,000 in 2010, that is a significant decrease. I have to wonder if it is a result of better catechesis from the 80’s to the 21st century.

 

[Phemie]

I find these number incredible. I would have guessed it would have went the other way. From 72,000 in 1990 to 26,000 in 2010, that is a significant decrease. I have to wonder if it is a result of better catechesis from the 80’s to the 21st century.

Would that that were the case but I suspect that the decrease in number is because they can’t be bothered to petition for a decree of nullity.

The reality is that nothing changes for them unless they specifically care about remarrying in the Church. If that doesn’t matter to them, and for a good many it doesn’t, they just marry civilly and continue as if nothing had happened. Priest doesn’t really know them, they keep receiving the sacraments and life goes on as usual. It’s a far cry from the days when the priest visited all members of his parish annually or semi-annually and knew their stories.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Would that that were the case but I suspect that the decrease in number is because they can’t be bothered to petition for a decree of nullity.

The reality is that nothing changes for them unless they specifically care about remarrying in the Church. If that doesn’t matter to them, and for a good many it doesn’t, they just marry civilly and continue as if nothing had happened. Priest doesn’t really know them, they keep receiving the sacraments and life goes on as usual. It’s a far cry from the days when the priest visited all members of his parish annually or semi-annually and knew their stories.

I agree.

 

[otjm]

You’re right, the finding was that there were no grounds for nullity. The marriage is already presumed valid so there wouldn’t be a finding of validity. In my head I understand that, it doesn’t always translate to paper.

As I understand it the petition is usually based on a specific impediment. In the Kennedy case he petitioned based on his belief that “he was mentally incapable of entering into marriage at the time.” If one petitioned based on A and there was no finding of nullity then one could then petition based on B if there was more evidence of B.

It’s true that the Kennedy case went to the Rota as the court of second instance. I’m not sure how many cases are appealed to the Rota as second instance. Actually, how many cases are appealed at all? How common is it that the parties contest a finding of nullity? I would think it would be more common to petition the Rota if both first instance and second instance didn’t find a cause for nullity or if they didn’t agree.

Do we know for sure how long it takes the Rota to render a decision?

I have only found a couple of references, all within the last 17 years. In once case, there was a note that the Rota had received 600+ cases and had rendered a decision on 100.

Two references (both for a given year) noted percentage of cases “reversed” or “overturned” ( I don’t rely on the author’s comment as to any decision); one referred to two thirds of US cases being “overturned” and the other to “90%”. Neither noted the number of cases these statistics applied to. One other reference I cam across indicated something like 300 cases the Rota had dealt with from the US.

Further confusing the matter is that the Rota can receive a case as the starting place (as opposed to a tribunal); it can be the second on appeal as opposed to the normal second tribunal, and it can be an appeal after two tribunals have had the case (and the two could be conflicting or agreeing). Thus, any numbers become less meaningful, when one has no clue as to each case history.

The “Kennedy” case was held by the Rota for 10 years. No explanation; possibly some very intricate matter of law; as to the best of my knowledge none of the casework has been made public, and any speculation concerning the case is just that. One reference in the early 2000 era indicated that the case might be still ongoing as of that time.

Some people have thrown around Rota statistics with a whole lot of fervor and precious little understanding. “90%” is 90% of what? 100 cases? 300? And that is out of how many - 30,000? 50,000 or more that year? While that might not be a statistical anomaly, it is close to it, as we know nothing of the history of the cases, including why they ended up at the Rota in the first place.

A case can start at the Rota, though normally they start at the local tribunal; they can then be appealed to the Rota instead of the second tribunal, or there can be two tribunals hearing the matter and then it is appealed. Further, the decision of the Rota may not be that the case had no merit, but that there may have been some weakness, for example, in the evidence, which might have been sufficient for a different grounds of decision - not simply no decision at all. And much if not most information seems to be by reporters, who are not Canon lawyers and are not trying to report law, but rather a decision, or an overall view of nullity cases in general.

IMHO, there is also a tremendous gap between many, if not most clergy, and the people in the pews (and those who should be there but are not). I have found on more than one occasion a priest somewhat aghast that people do not know much about their faith - the presumption was that those folks do. Whether and if this spills over to tribunals (and by extension, to the Rota and to Rome) might be fodder for CARA. Given the degree that secularism has crept into the lives of society, and the abysmal degree (if any degree) to which a vast number of people were catechized,… well, we have far more cultural Catholics than I think most people perceive. And from that, far more marriages that might be found to have impediments or lack of consent.

But I am not a Canon lawyer, so I have no (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[otjm]

I find these number incredible. I would have guessed it would have went the other way. From 72,000 in 1990 to 26,000 in 2010, that is a significant decrease. I have to wonder if it is a result of better catechesis from the 80’s to the 21st century.

I think that if you understand how the 1917 code dealt with decrees of nullity (very few grounds, and reviewed marriage as a contract, as noted from a dissertation by someone getting their degree) to the changes in the 1983 code, which acknowledged marriage as an act of persons and brought in psychology to the understanding of ability to confect the marriage, it begins to make sense.

There had to be a tremendous backlog of cases that previously had no grounds upon which to try the matter. Once the Code changed and there were realized about a dozen issues which could affect the validity of the marriage, all those prior divorces (and divorces and remarriages) came flooding in.

In addition, there was a change due to Vatican 2, to emphasize the pastoral care of those who had “left the Church”.

The statistics have been bandied about, often by people who know little about how the Church actually functions concerning marriage validity questions. And becuase there is no real reporting of cases that do not receive a decree of nullity, people have no perspective of what actually has happened since the change in the Code.

Again going back to what CARA reported a few years ago, according to their research, about 85% of divorced Catholics have never started the process to determine whether their marriage, which ended up in a divorce, was or was not valid to being with. And given that Mass attendance on a weekly basis hovers around 25%, it is not a stretch of the imagination that a good percentage of those who no longer attend Mass may feel either they are excommunicated because of the divorce or because of divorce and remarriage.

Last year we had a woman in her late 50’s/early 60’s come to Catholics Can Return Home program our parish sponsors. She is not a very sophisticated individual; she was 18 when she was getting married. The priest told her she had to become a Catholic, so she attended a series of sessions with the pastor, became Catholic, and got married. Her husband divorced her a few years later, and she has thought until this last year that she was excommunicated and did not attend Mass literally for decades.

She has no intention of getting married again, so will not go through the tribunal; but is an example of people who have struggled with a divorce and what they believe the Church teaches about their status.

 

[otjm]

Would that that were the case but I suspect that the decrease in number is because they can’t be bothered to petition for a decree of nullity.

The reality is that nothing changes for them unless they specifically care about remarrying in the Church. If that doesn’t matter to them, and for a good many it doesn’t, they just marry civilly and continue as if nothing had happened. Priest doesn’t really know them, they keep receiving the sacraments and life goes on as usual. It’s a far cry from the days when the priest visited all members of his parish annually or semi-annually and knew their stories.

Again, I think many have simply left the Church entirely. They are part of that 75% of Catholics who do not attend Mass on a regular basis.

I agree that some do attend Mass, and some of them may receive Communion. I simply do not see the numbers that some people seem to think are sitting in the pews.

And as far as not being bothered - how many left the Church during or after the first divorce, either because they perceived they were excommunicated, or because they needed help and found either ambivalence or outright hostility?

Add to that those who have at least some idea that the Church does not accept second marriages (and often little or no idea bout decrees of nullity) and I would be hesitant to judge them as “can’t be bothered”.

I would hazard a guess that if any of us were to do a survey even of Catholics in our parish who are in their first marriage, that we would find a tremendous amount of misinformation concerning decrees of nullity.

Add to that the emotional upheaval of a divorce, and then often another marriage, and we have someone seriously adrift.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think that if you understand how the 1917 code dealt with decrees of nullity (very few grounds, and reviewed marriage as a contract, as noted from a dissertation by someone getting their degree) to the changes in the 1983 code, which acknowledged marriage as an act of persons and brought in psychology to the understanding of ability to confect the marriage, it begins to make sense.

There had to be a tremendous backlog of cases that previously had no grounds upon which to try the matter. Once the Code changed and there were realized about a dozen issues which could affect the validity of the marriage, all those prior divorces (and divorces and remarriages) came flooding in.

Thanks for the information. Interestingly the annulment trend seems to echo the civil divorce trend; the civil divorce rate went up sharply from the 1960s-70s, leveled off in the 80s and is now trending down. While societal trends are part of this, I’m sure it’s no coincidence that civil grounds for divorce changed at that time from “divorce based on fault, based on a handful of reasons to be at fault” to “no fault divorce, for any reason or no reason at all”. And at least in the US, a civil divorce is required to petition for a decree of nullity.

So, it certainly makes sense that a number of Catholics who were divorced years or many decades ago, filed in droves once the Code changed.

However, I now wonder, if the Code was changed in 1983, why can’t be changed again, to expand the grounds on which to base a decree of nullity? Isn’t this part of the Church’s authority to bind and loose?

Now of course it can get to a point where annulments are so easy to get that they might as well be Catholic divorce. I don’t support encoding the idea that “if anything happens later in the marriage that you wouldn’t have married knowing would happen, that makes the marriage invalid”. But perhaps something about NOT presuming the validity of non-Catholic marriages?

I know such a move would certainly increase the burden on priests to convalidate such marriages in the event of conversion to the Church, but I read somewhere that almost half of all nullity petitions from the US are from converts, so it seems that making such a change WOULD decrease much of the burden on the tribunals.

 

[DarkLight]

I know such a move would certainly increase the burden on priests to convalidate such marriages in the event of conversion to the Church, but I read somewhere that almost half of all nullity petitions from the US are from converts, so it seems that making such a change WOULD decrease much of the burden on the tribunals.

One practical issue is that convalidations can also be difficult for converts. We’ve seen it happen on this forum. The convert was divorced previously to their current marriage. They obtain an annulment - but now their current marriage needs convalidating. The spouse often refuses; they don’t see the need to put themselves through a convalidation and often may even be insulted that their marriage requires something “extra” from the Catholic church.

 

[Phemie]

However, I now wonder, if the Code was changed in 1983, why can’t be changed again, to expand the grounds on which to base a decree of nullity? Isn’t this part of the Church’s authority to bind and loose?

Now of course it can get to a point where annulments are so easy to get that they might as well be Catholic divorce. I don’t support encoding the idea that “if anything happens later in the marriage that you wouldn’t have married knowing would happen, that makes the marriage invalid”. ** But perhaps something about NOT presuming the validity of non-Catholic marriages?**

NO! The idea that just because you’re not Catholic your marriage is invalid is abhorrent. Marriage existed before the Church.

 

[otjm]

However, I now wonder, if the Code was changed in 1983, why can’t be changed again, to expand the grounds on which to base a decree of nullity? Isn’t this part of the Church’s authority to bind and loose?

Yes, the Church could see fit to include whatever, in its estimation, might show an impediment to a valid marriage. The area which seems to cause the most consternation appears to revolve around the maturity to make a vow, if I am not mistaken. I would suspect that if we were to see a change, it might be to fine tune the areas involving this, and consent.

Now of course it can get to a point where annulments are so easy to get that they might as well be Catholic divorce. I don’t support encoding the idea that “if anything happens later in the marriage that you wouldn’t have married knowing would happen, that makes the marriage invalid”. But perhaps something about NOT presuming the validity of non-Catholic marriages?

Well, if one looks at how the Church views Protestant baptisms, which covers a whole lot of ground, and given that the Roman rite considers the two parties the minister(s) of the sacrament of marriage, I doubt it. Ultimately, what may be at play is the issue of the indissolubility of marriage; and It would appear that there is sufficient law within the Canons on marriage to cover Protestants who do not agree with the permanence of marriage.

I know such a move would certainly increase the burden on priests to convalidate such marriages in the event of conversion to the Church, but I read somewhere that almost half of all nullity petitions from the US are from converts, so it seems that making such a change WOULD decrease much of the burden on the tribunals.

Having been to several convalidations, I don’t really see much burden at all. The ceremony in long form doesn’t take anywhere near a half hour. and I would suspect that many, if not almost all priests would be delighted to have an abundance of convalidations.

 

[jmcrae]

Is this a standard position/finding of the church? You do realize in the case of spousal abuse, this is simply saying,“We find that officially, you don’t have to live with the monster, but you do have to stay chained to him for the rest of your life?”

Maybe this is why all too many people who find themselves up to their eyeballs in a situation that makes their life a living hell, simply turn their backs and head for the Pentecostal side of the tracks?

Shalom

In Canon 1153 the Church allows for civil divorce without remarriage in cases where one of the spouses has made the common life intolerable. Any sort of abuse would fit that criteria.

They remain married in the eyes of the Church, but they are no longer legally bound and they can protect their finances and their other assets.

I think the issue becomes complicated when one or both parties decide that the have a fundamental right to be married and having sex, and that therefore the Church is being unreasonable for requiring a Declaration of Nullity before allowing them to attempt marriage again.

 

[Gorgias]

It would appear that there is sufficient law within the Canons on marriage to cover Protestants who do not agree with the permanence of marriage.

OK… you’ve piqued my interest!

Do you have any references to share?

(Or, are you simply asserting that Protestants, merely by the virtue of being Protestant (and belonging to congregations that accept divorce), shouldn’t be held at their word when they vow “until death do us part”?)

 

[ToeInTheWater]

OK… you’ve piqued my interest!

Do you have any references to share?

(Or, are you simply asserting that Protestants, merely by the virtue of being Protestant (and belonging to congregations that accept divorce), shouldn’t be held at their word when they vow “until death do us part”?)

Not everyone actually DOES vow “until death do us part” though. Jewish people don’t, as they still follow the law of Moses that allows divorce for basically any reason, though only the husband can apply for a religious divorce, at least if you are an Orthodox Jew.

And completely civil marriage vows certainly don’t always include them. Here’s an example from the website of a JP who does freelance wedding ceremonies:

nhweddingceremonies.com/secularceremony.htm

JP: Groom & Bride, please join hands. Groom, do you take Bride, to be your wife? Do you promise to love, honor, cherish, and protect her, forsaking all others, and holding only unto her?

Groom: I do.

Bride, do you take Groom, to be your husband? Do you promise to love, honor, cherish, and protect him, forsaking all others, and holding only unto him?

Bride: I do.

Vows and Exchange of the Rings

{And now, Bride and Groom will say their vows and will exchange their wedding rings…}

JP: Groom, please repeat after me:

I Groom, take thee, Bride to be my wife - To have and to hold, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, and I promise my love to you. With this ring, I thee wed.

Bride, please repeat after me:

I Bride, take thee, Groom to be my husband - To have and to hold, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, and I promise my love to you. With this ring, I thee wed.

Nothing is mentioned about the marriage ending at death. Now, to be fair to this JP he also includes examples of ceremonies on his website, that DO include references to the marriage ending at death, but there is certainly no legal requirement to do so.

There are also many jurisdictions that don’t even require any kind of ceremony. In Japan, all the bride and groom need to do is fill out a form and file it, and that is also a country that has always accepted divorce. Indeed, I even recall reading that the Catholic teaching on divorce is one reason many in Japan did not convert, even before the government started persecuting Christians.

Also, many brides and grooms write their own vows these days and while I’m sure many do include “until death do us part”, many don’t.

I do think that even if the canon law isn’t changed, many of the converts entering the Church should qualify for the fast-track process for obviously invalid marriages. In a similar way to how, if a Baptism isn’t done with the formula “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” it is automatically invalid.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, the Church could see fit to include whatever, in its estimation, might show an impediment to a valid marriage. The area which seems to cause the most consternation appears to revolve around the maturity to make a vow, if I am not mistaken. I would suspect that if we were to see a change, it might be to fine tune the areas involving this, and consent.

Well, if one looks at how the Church views Protestant baptisms, which covers a whole lot of ground, and given that the Roman rite considers the two parties the minister(s) of the sacrament of marriage, I doubt it. Ultimately, what may be at play is the issue of the indissolubility of marriage; and It would appear that there is sufficient law within the Canons on marriage to cover Protestants who do not agree with the permanence of marriage.

Having been to several convalidations, I don’t really see much burden at all. The ceremony in long form doesn’t take anywhere near a half hour. and I would suspect that many, if not almost all priests would be delighted to have an abundance of convalidations.

They don’t just show up and get convalidated, though - the priest has to meet with the couple, then get them to complete a set of paperwork, then the priest meets with the Marriage Tribunal to review the paperwork and to get permission to marry the couple, and then if permission is given, he has to provide marriage preparation (typically at least as he more meeting) before they can set a date.