Oh what a Happy Day

[GoodDad1]

Thank you for all your prayers and support. Earlier, I wrote that I was shocked that my application for annulment was initially denied. I reapplied in the archdiocese where I was actually legally married and yesterday I was overjoyed to receive the letter annulling my earlier marriage.

I recall a conversation with the initial tribunal judge who asserted that her mission was to discover “the truth” which led her to judge that my claims were not true.

As a lawyer, I realize that there is always two sides of a story. As a student of human nature, I understand that any two people have a different perspective on any given subject.

I agree that the focus should be on the moment of marriage when considering annulments. It’s not a Catholic divorce.

If tribunal judge seek to discern truth, doesn’t it imply that they believe they have the infallible power of God? When they force disclosing of extent of abuse to the abuser, doesn’t it seem downright cruel?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

If tribunal judge seek to discern truth, doesn’t it imply that they believe they have the infallible power of God?

No, it means that they are, to the best of their ability, trying to take in all the information available and determine the “truth” of what happened. They never claim to be infallible, they are just trying to arrive at just conclusions.

 

[GoodDad1]

Part of the problem is every archdiocese has a different standard. My local tribunal apparently impossibly decides whether an allegation is “true” or not true. Your tribunal apparently decides whether or not the conclusion is “just.“ The disparity seems arbitrary and grossly unfair.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Part of the problem is every archdiocese has a different standard. My local tribunal apparently impossibly decides whether an allegation is “true” or not true. Your tribunal apparently decides whether or not the conclusion is “just.“ The disparity seems arbitrary and grossly unfair.

You’re mistaking a difference in language with a difference in practice. The way an annulment tribunal operates is pretty much universal, there are just different people interpreting the given information. They’re doing their best.

 

[Titivillus]

Please let me know if these questions are too forward – I have next to zero direct experience of the annulment process.
[And: I glad for the OP that his case has resolved satisfactory for him]

Thank you for all your prayers and support. Earlier, I wrote that I was shocked that my application for annulment was initially denied. I reapplied in the archdiocese where I was actually legally married and yesterday I was overjoyed to receive the letter annulling my earlier marriage.

While I understand there are up to 3 venues where an annulment might be pursued (the diocese of the bride’s residence, the groom’s residence, or where the putative marriage actually took place, if those all be distinct), does this story indicate one may get up to 3 bites at the apple? That is, if one tribunal rejects the case, you can try another tribunal (presuming another 1 or 2 available)?

 

[GoodDad1]

From my perspective, it was a question of proper jurisdiction and who possessed the actual documents if any existed. A second bite of the apple is more appropriate to an appeal of the initial denial.

I recognize that one diocese recognized defect of form and the other did not. This is a rather significant discrepancy and raises major concerns about the arbitrariness of the process and the competencies of the persons in charge of annulments.