How might the nullity process be improved?

[ToeInTheWater]

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.

But AFAIK that is only the case if a marriage situation requires a full tribunal hearing. “Improper form” annulments don’t even go to the full tribunal.

I also know that “radical sanation” is an already existing process in the case of a spouse refusing to have the marriage convalidated.

I suppose that if we’re taking a consequentialist approach, then “not presuming any non Catholic marriages are valid” may wind up causing more problems than it solves.

But I do think that it may be reasonable to have “married in a faith tradition that does not recognize the permanence of marriage” to be grounds for a “fast-track” annulment. For how can a couple marry validly when they have an improper understanding what marriage is, even if they plan to stay together until death when they marry, they know they can get out of it if they change their minds.

 

[jmcrae]

But AFAIK that is only the case if a marriage situation requires a full tribunal hearing. “Improper form” annulments don’t even go to the full tribunal.

I’m not even talking about a Declaration of Nullity here - this is just the Convalidation, in the case of a *first *marriage where we discover that there was a lack of form, and the couple make a decision (typically when they decide that they want to baptize their children, or when the non-Catholic party to the marriage decides to become Catholic) that they want to have their marriage recognized in the Church.

Most of the time, the Catholic party doesn’t even realize that they did anything wrong; they typically say, “Well, we were told that because s/he wasn’t Catholic, we had to get married outside the Church” (which is how they interpreted being told that they needed the Bishop’s permission to have the wedding at all).

I also know that “radical sanation” is an already existing process in the case of a spouse refusing to have the marriage convalidated.

It’s not as accessible as one might hope for, in my observation.

I suppose that if we’re taking a consequentialist approach, then “not presuming any non Catholic marriages are valid” may wind up causing more problems than it solves.

As well as causing serious ecumenical issues. Imagine the leadership of other denominations and other religions being told that the Catholic Church automatically considers all of their marriages “null” merely because both parties were faithfully following the tenets of the religion or denomination where the wedding took place.

But I do think that it may be reasonable to have “married in a faith tradition that does not recognize the permanence of marriage” to be grounds for a “fast-track” annulment. For how can a couple marry validly when they have an improper understanding what marriage is, even if they plan to stay together until death when they marry, they know they can get out of it if they change their minds.

My current understanding is that simply showing up to the wedding signifies consent, unless there is an actual prenup that has wording in it that assumes there will be a divorce. They don’t actually have to say the words, “Until death us do part.” Of course, if they were to specify some other criteria for separation, that could be grounds for a quick Declaration of Nullity, But simply omitting the words doesn’t do that, from what I’ve recently been told; this information came from a Pastor who was relaying information from our local Marriage Tribunal for a case related to a couple I’m working with in our RCIA.

 

[otjm]

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”?)

Part of the essence of marriage is its permanence until death of one of the spouses. I may be wrong, but I would assume that if it can be shown that any Catholic - or Protestant - entered marriage with the belief that “if it doesn’t work out, we can get a divorce”, that would go to consent.

Again, I am no Canon lawyer. But it would seem to be simulation of marriage.

And again, I don’t presume Protestants hold that marriage is less than permanent; but I would suspect, given the degree to which society in general has been secularized, and how that affects individuals, that there are plenty of people who may think permanence is a nice goal, but one that is not a “given”. - Catholic or Protestant.

 

[otjm]

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.

And even with that, I don’t know of any priests who would not be overjoyed to have a whole bunch of these.

And, in my parish, some of that would end up on the deacon’s desk - as deacons can also witness marriages.

And to add to that, many parishes have couples who do marriage prep.

Not to mention that the number of marriages each year is about half of what it was about 20 years ago.

With about 145,916 marriages in 2016, among 37,192 priests and 18,173 permanent deacons, for a total of 55,365 individuals capable of witnessing a marriage (and lets assume we have only 50,000 doing so - retirement, etc) that leaves a little less than three marriages per official witness. Not exactly overworked, IMHO. So unless decrees of nullity suddenly go up by a factor of 7 or 8, which would be about double the highest number we have ever had, it is unlikely that the burden would double from an average of 3 marriages a year to 6.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Didn’t read all 4 pages.

But I went through this process. Took a hair over a year to get mine done.

In my case - both myself and my ex from like 20 years ago were unbaptized young adults who went to a courthouse and wed because that’s what scared teenagers do when they have a kid too early.

So I’m wondering how on God’s green earth it took them a year to get this very obvious case completed ?

Seriously, this was obviously a non sacramental marriage. I was told right away by different, informed people that it’s a open and shut case. So why can’t something like this be administratively handled? I mean handled just like a “lack of form” marriage when a Catholic marries outside the Church and needs it “annulled”? Because those are very obvious as well and get done very quickly.

Going through this process - having my confused ex call me and ask what is this packet they sent her all about - then having to get witnesses from that era was very difficult. Not to mention my witnesses are somewhat hostile towards the Catholic Church and view it as legalistic. So all this did, in their minds, was confirm what they already believed about the RCC.

 

[otjm]

Didn’t read all 4 pages.

But I went through this process. Took a hair over a year to get mine done.

In my case - both myself and my ex from like 20 years ago were unbaptized young adults who went to a courthouse and wed because that’s what scared teenagers do when they have a kid too early.

So I’m wondering how on God’s green earth it took them a year to get this very obvious case completed ?

Seriously, this was obviously a non sacramental marriage. I was told right away by different, informed people that it’s a open and shut case. So why can’t something like this be administratively handled? I mean handled just like a “lack of form” marriage when a Catholic marries outside the Church and needs it “annulled”? Because those are very obvious as well and get done very quickly.

Going through this process - having my confused ex call me and ask what is this packet they sent her all about - then having to get witnesses from that era was very difficult. Not to mention my witnesses are somewhat hostile towards the Catholic Church and view it as legalistic. So all this did, in their minds, was confirm what they already believed about the RCC.

A marriage between a baptized individual and a non-baptized individual, or two non-baptized individuals is not a sacramental marriage, but it is putatively a valid marriage. The question is not about the sacramentality of the marriage, it is about the validity of the marriage.

As to how long it took, there are comments in this thread as to what can cause the length of time from start to finish; but your marriage was basically on the same track that a marriage of two Catholics (who got married because of a pending pregnancy) would be on.

Note: I am not trying to justify the length of time. And not to be facetious, but for any serious case (including contested divorces) it is not at all unusual for the secular court system to take a year or more before a trial is had, and more if it is appealed.

And normally (until Pope Francis provided that cases might not need to be appealed), two tribunals had to pass on the case.

And I am not trying to be snide; but some of this has to do with the fact that Catholics are notoriously poor “givers” at the collection box. Our average is about 1 to maybe as high as 2% of income. Were we to tithe as the LDS folks do - 10% - at least some of this time could be reduced. Staffing of tribunals is seriously short; we are significantly short of Canon lawyers (as well as other staffing). and no, selling off the artwork in the Vatican would not be more than a small drop in a large bucket…

 

[jmcrae]

And even with that, I don’t know of any priests who would not be overjoyed to have a whole bunch of these.

And, in my parish, some of that would end up on the deacon’s desk - as deacons can also witness marriages.

And to add to that, many parishes have couples who do marriage prep.

Not to mention that the number of marriages each year is about half of what it was about 20 years ago.

With about 145,916 marriages in 2016, among 37,192 priests and 18,173 permanent deacons, for a total of 55,365 individuals capable of witnessing a marriage (and lets assume we have only 50,000 doing so - retirement, etc) that leaves a little less than three marriages per official witness. Not exactly overworked, IMHO. So unless decrees of nullity suddenly go up by a factor of 7 or 8, which would be about double the highest number we have ever had, it is unlikely that the burden would double from an average of 3 marriages a year to 6.

From 3 to 6? That would be an incredibly small parish.

We typically have 30-35 Inquirers every year for RCIA, with about half or just over of those actually completing the process and receiving their Sacraments of Initiation the following Easter.

Each and every one of those 35 Inquirers would be required to have their marriages convalidated prior to going forward to the Period of Catechesis, if we say that all non-Catholic marriages are presumed to be null.

We already typically have about 10-14 couples a month inquiring about Baptism for their children, and there are usually two or three out of each group who need to have their marriages convalidated concurrent with having their children baptized, which runs to about 24-36 convalidations a year already happening, just from that segment of the parish population alone - and this is in addition to a drawer full of marriage files for young couples getting married in the Church for the first time, and doing it right.

My original point was that if we say that all non-Catholic marriages are null, we then go from having one or two RCIA Inquirers needing to have their marriages convalidated during the Fall, to all of them needing to have this done, by the end of November, if they want to join the Period of Catechesis this year.

That’s not the only reason it’s a bad idea, nor is it the most important reason, but the attitude that, oh, well, converts should all just get convalidations anyway, because it’s just a half-hour ceremony - I don’t think there’s an awareness of the background work involved.

I just don’t think it would be physically possible for a pastor to complete 35 convalidations of marriage between St. Jerome’s day when the Inquirers show up asking about RCIA and St. Andrew’s day, when the Inquirers move to the Period of Catechesis, given the other tasks that Pastors are also required to do at the same time.

 

[otjm]

From 3 to 6? That would be an incredibly small parish.

Average. some priests will be busier, some won’t.

We typically have 30-35 Inquirers every year for RCIA, with about half or just over of those actually completing the process and receiving their Sacraments of Initiation the following Easter.

Each and every one of those 35 Inquirers would be required to have their marriages convalidated prior to going forward to the Period of Catechesis, if we say that all non-Catholic marriages are presumed to be null.

don’t count me in on saying that.

We already typically have about 10-14 couples a month inquiring about Baptism for their children, and there are usually two or three out of each group who need to have their marriages convalidated concurrent with having their children baptized, which runs to about 24-36 convalidations a year already happening, just from that segment of the parish population alone - and this is in addition to a drawer full of marriage files for young couples getting married in the Church for the first time, and doing it right.

Those are some awesome numbers.

My original point was that if we say that all non-Catholic marriages are null, we then go from having one or two RCIA Inquirers needing to have their marriages convalidated during the Fall, to all of them needing to have this done, by the end of November, if they want to join the Period of Catechesis this year.

That’s not the only reason it’s a bad idea, nor is it the most important reason, but the attitude that, oh, well, converts should all just get convalidations anyway, because it’s just a half-hour ceremony - I don’t think there’s an awareness of the background work involved.

I just don’t think it would be physically possible for a pastor to complete 35 convalidations of marriage between St. Jerome’s day when the Inquirers show up asking about RCIA and St. Andrew’s day, when the Inquirers move to the Period of Catechesis, given the other tasks that Pastors are also required to do at the same time.

Given the premise, I would agree. I also would not suggest or entertain that all Protestant marriages are null. It does not reflect reality. Again, my interjection was simply speaking of averages… fwiw. Perhaps not much, since we agree on your premises.

 

[jmcrae]

Average. some priests will be busier, some won’t.

don’t count me in on saying that.

Those are some awesome numbers.

The parish encompasses a territory with a population of about 40,000 people. We have about 10,000 people affiliated in some way with the Church, and about 3500 of them attend weekly Sunday Mass. Most of them are young professionals, either starting their families or with school age kids at home. We serve seven elementary schools and three junior highs.

Given the premise, I would agree. I also would not suggest or entertain that all Protestant marriages are null. It does not reflect reality. Again, my interjection was simply speaking of averages… fwiw. Perhaps not much, since we agree on your premises.

Again, what I was reacting to was the suggestion that in order to speed up the nullity process, we should declare all non-Catholic marriages null.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

A marriage between a baptized individual and a non-baptized individual, or two non-baptized individuals is not a sacramental marriage, but it is putatively a valid marriage. The question is not about the sacramentality of the marriage, it is about the validity of the marriage.

As to how long it took, there are comments in this thread as to what can cause the length of time from start to finish; but your marriage was basically on the same track that a marriage of two Catholics (who got married because of a pending pregnancy) would be on.

Note: I am not trying to justify the length of time. And not to be facetious, but for any serious case (including contested divorces) it is not at all unusual for the secular court system to take a year or more before a trial is had, and more if it is appealed.

And normally (until Pope Francis provided that cases might not need to be appealed), two tribunals had to pass on the case.

And I am not trying to be snide; but some of this has to do with the fact that Catholics are notoriously poor “givers” at the collection box. Our average is about 1 to maybe as high as 2% of income. Were we to tithe as the LDS folks do - 10% - at least some of this time could be reduced. Staffing of tribunals is seriously short; we are significantly short of Canon lawyers (as well as other staffing). and no, selling off the artwork in the Vatican would not be more than a small drop in a large bucket…

Yeah, lack of funds makes sense. I’ve been told that the average family at our parish gives $3-4 per week. That is terrible. People spend more than that at Starbucks every morning.

And see the parallel with secular courts bugs me. Someone else told me that since we were non Catholics, the Church has to recognize our marriage regardless that it took place in a courthouse. Well, men marry other men in courthouses, so do we annul them too, or just use common sense and say it’s obviously invalid?

Just seems there is a easier way around this if a person/couple has zero Christian upbringing and was not married in a Church. Those people have a totally different view of marriage then Christians do.

 

[jmcrae]

Just seems there is a easier way around this if a person/couple has zero Christian upbringing and was not married in a Church. Those people have a totally different view of marriage then Christians do.

We also have to take into account that we can’t do anything that would cause the marriage of Adam and Eve to be ruled as not valid. This is why the couple administers the Sacrament to each other, why the union is exclusive to one man and one woman as if each were the only man or only woman in the world, and why it is not necessary to be a baptized Christian in order for the union to be valid.

 

[Phemie]

Yeah, lack of funds makes sense. I’ve been told that the average family at our parish gives $3-4 per week. That is terrible. People spend more than that at Starbucks every morning.

And see the parallel with secular courts bugs me. Someone else told me that since we were non Catholics, the Church has to recognize our marriage regardless that it took place in a courthouse. Well, men marry other men in courthouses, so do we annul them too, or just use common sense and say it’s obviously invalid?

Just seems there is a easier way around this if a person/couple has zero Christian upbringing and was not married in a Church. Those people have a totally different view of marriage then Christians do.

Remember that a man can marry a man in many churches too, so you can’t go by that. The Church recognizes that marriage is a legal matter too, and that it existed long before the Church came along. And that the form as we know it was not required for a long time after the Church came along.

The Church recognizes that two Catholics get validly married simply by exchanging consent in front of witnesses if a priest can’t be there for an extended period of time.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Remember that a man can marry a man in many churches too, so you can’t go by that. The Church recognizes that marriage is a legal matter too, and that it existed long before the Church came along. And that the form as we know it was not required for a long time after the Church came along.

The Church recognizes that two Catholics get validly married simply by exchanging consent in front of witnesses if a priest can’t be there for an extended period of time.

If they are marrying two men are they really Churches or just social gatherings?

 

[dans0622]

I suggest that “the process” could be improved by each and every tribunal following it as it is established in the Church’s law. Easier said than done, perhaps, but still a goal worth pursuing.

Dan

 

[WilliamE]

Here’s a thought: how about publishing (anonymised) judgments of the marriage tribunals that can then be used as precedent by other tribunals, thus increasing consistency across the world.

I think that would be a great idea. I often see posters on here attempting to equate canon law with civil law. When deciding cases in civil law, courts often look to precedent when reaching a judgement. Doing the same thing when deciding annulment cases might help to “even out” some of the wildly differing decisions reached by different tribunals.

 

[Phemie]

I think that would be a great idea. I often see posters on here attempting to equate canon law with civil law. When deciding cases in civil law, courts often look to precedent when reaching a judgement. Doing the same thing when deciding annulment cases might help to “even out” some of the wildly differing decisions reached by different tribunals.

How do we know that there are “wildly differing decisions” without being privy to any of the evidence presented?

 

[dans0622]

How do we know that there are “wildly differing decisions” without being privy to any of the evidence presented?

Well, if one court says “yes” and the other says “no” on the same case, that’s about as different as it gets.

To the point about publishing decisions, that does happen. The Rota does it every year (maybe about 100 cases) and their decisions are a guide for other tribunals. Lower courts also publish some decisions but the value of those Sentences is, in my view, hit and miss…more often miss, but I have to admit that I don’t usually even bother with reading them anymore.

Dan

 

[Phemie]

Well, if one court says “yes” and the other says “no” on the same case, that’s about as different as it gets.

To the point about publishing decisions, that does happen. The Rota does it every year (maybe about 100 cases) and their decisions are a guide for other tribunals. Lower courts also publish some decisions but the value of those Sentences is, in my view, hit and miss…more often miss, but I have to admit that I don’t usually even bother with reading them anymore.

Dan

Oops, I’d failed to take the overturn by the second tribunal into consideration.

In civil law we often equate winning a case with the quality of the lawyer fighting it. Could it be that one Tribunal has a better Defender of the Bond than an other? Just asking, I don’t really know how these cases are argued.

 

[Gorgias]

In my case - both myself and my ex from like 20 years ago were unbaptized young adults who went to a courthouse and wed because that’s what scared teenagers do when they have a kid too early.

So I’m wondering how on God’s green earth it took them a year to get this very obvious case completed ?

Seriously, this was obviously a non sacramental marriage. I was told right away by different, informed people that it’s a open and shut case. So why can’t something like this be administratively handled? I mean handled just like a “lack of form” marriage when a Catholic marries outside the Church and needs it “annulled”?

Just a few thoughts:

Some have already mentioned to you that the question wasn’t the ‘sacramentality’ of your marriage, but its validity. Unbaptized people can marry validly.

The reason that it couldn’t be handled administratively is that it wasn’t purely a matter of documentation. Lack of form cases are simply a matter of asking “Are you Catholic? Were you married according to the form of matrimony of the Catholic Church? Can you document that you were not?” There’s nothing that calls for testimony or an investigation into consent or impediments. It’s purely a matter of providing documentation.

In your case, as you describe it, this was “cut and dry” – but it was a cut and dry formal case, not a cut and dry documentary case. It was necessary to establish (with the testimony of the spouse(s) and witnesses) the truth of your claims. Since it’s a formal case, however, it had to go through the formal process. That’s what takes all the time. Imagine, if you will, that all “cut and dry” formal cases went to the front of the line (so to speak). They’d never be able to get to the other formal cases, then – or, they’d take so long (from being ‘demoted’) that long cases would take interminably longer! That’s not terribly fair, either.

And see the parallel with secular courts bugs me. Someone else told me that since we were non Catholics, the Church has to recognize our marriage regardless that it took place in a courthouse.

No, that’s not quite accurate. Catholics must get married in a church. You did not have this requirement. It’s not that the Church “had to recognize” your marriage; it’s only that she had to allow for a form of the ceremony other than “in a Catholic Church, by a deacon or priest.”

Just seems there is a easier way around this if a person/couple has zero Christian upbringing and was not married in a Church. Those people have a totally different view of marriage then Christians do.

Perhaps. And yet, that would have to be established in a formal case. And, once you’re in the “formal case” process, you get all the timeframe woes.

 

[dans0622]

Oops, I’d failed to take the overturn by the second tribunal into consideration.

In civil law we often equate winning a case with the quality of the lawyer fighting it. Could it be that one Tribunal has a better Defender of the Bond than an other? Just asking, I don’t really know how these cases are argued.

I’d like to think that I’m a better than average defender and that what I say (write) can make a difference. I suppose it does, at least from time to time. But, most often, I’d say it just comes down to different judges having different standards, different understandings of the law, and different ways of looking at the evidence…just as you can have the same in civil law, both in judges and jurors.

Dan