On the bishops' discussion slate: Streamlining anullments

[Rose74]

Hello,

Yes, I should have been clearer. The process starts at the diocese and then has to be sent over to Rome (not the Rota, but the CDF, who examines the file and presents it to the Pope). As of now, it cannot happen in any other way. I asked my question because there are some diocese which do not even try to process such cases.

No, the person does not need to become Catholic. This was once a stipulation but hasn’t been, since the 1970s. In a case such as yours, the “favor” would be for your faith.

While this is not as rigorous as a nullity case, it is still a very particular and exact process. Here is a link to it…perhaps it will be comprehensible to you. The main point is that it must be possible to prove his non-baptism (parents’ testimony is best, along with his own). There are other requirements but that’s square one.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010430_favor-fidei_en.html

Dan

Thanks for the information. It would be fairly easy to prove his status. He was baptized into the LDS (mormon) church at the age of 8. The Church doesn’t accept Mormon baptisms as valid, so he is considered an unbaptized non-Christian. He left that church 15 years ago and practices no other religion.

 

[dans0622]

…You’d think there wouldn’t be much to do, yet my case was formally accepted over a year ago, the publication of the acts was over March 10, and I am still waiting on a first ruling. …

There is no current, procedural law which requires or even allows such a delay. It’s a travesty.

Dan

 

[Usige]

I don’t mean to suggest that I have become disillusioned. I just now know what is reasonable to expect in a given case.

I think the second instance Courts tend to “assume the original finding is true.” The review looks at procedure and the argument offered in the Sentence. If the procedure was correct and the argument is at least minimally compelling, the second Court gives it a ratification. An over-turned decision is rare, even with an appeal. An overturned decision without an appeal is extremely rare. So, removing the mandatory review would not (in my opinion) mean that there will be many cases that would have been overturned but now won’t be. The practical impact will be minimal.

Since the review is so often a formality, what’s the point? Given that I think the review is usually a formality, I don’t mind if it is done away with. Ideally, I’d wish that second instance Courts would be more meticulous and diligent and that the review would be seen as something of value. If that was the case, I would be against discarding it.

These comments are based on a rather limited, yet real, experience of work with and in second instance Courts.

Dan

Dan, thanks for the insight. If most automatic appeals are principally procedural or administrative reviews then I would agree that there is little point. I guess you could say that the Defender of the Bond is giving a second concurring opinion by not filling an appeal.

I did not mean to imply you were disillusioned. For me it is the number of petitions that are uncontested that would cause my disillusionment. I had originally looked down that path as a way to strengthen marriage, but it’s a little like trying to stop murder by standing in front of a bullet. It’s why I turned my attention to the front end of the process instead (teaching precanna, NFP, etc). Little did I realize that you still get beat down there too.

 

[MJJean]

There is no current, procedural law which requires or even allows such a delay. It’s a travesty.

Dan

Thank you. I know you’re a canon lawyer and working within the system, so what you’ve said means a lot to me.

I called the Tribunal the day I replied to this thread just to make sure I hadn’t missed a mailing since March, when I last received anything from them. My address is 8718 My Street and there is an 8718 Around the Block Street. Our postal worker sometimes drops mail off at the wrong house. I take their mail to them when I get it, but they haven’t returned the courtesy. I was hoping maybe the first decision had been made and I missed the letter. No joy. The lovely lady at the Tribunal returned my call within a few hours. She said my case is waiting for the judge to make a ruling, they have everything they need, they will send a letter when a decision has been made, and that there is nothing further anyone can do.

I can see why a lot of people don’t even try to regularize their marital situation and either leave the Church for “catholic lite” churches or just simply receive quietly anyway. Not that I would do that, but I understand why others do.

 

[MJJean]

Dan, thanks for the insight. If most automatic appeals are principally procedural or administrative reviews then I would agree that there is little point. I guess you could say that the Defender of the Bond is giving a second concurring opinion by not filling an appeal.

I did not mean to imply you were disillusioned. For me it is the number of petitions that are uncontested that would cause my disillusionment. I had originally looked down that path as a way to strengthen marriage, but it’s a little like trying to stop murder by standing in front of a bullet. It’s why I turned my attention to the front end of the process instead (teaching precanna, NFP, etc). Little did I realize that you still get beat down there too.

I think there is some merit in having someone look over the case file briefly to make sure there aren’t any obvious reasons why the the judgement should not stand, but I don’t think the current system works. It takes long enough to get a 1st ruling, why make people wait an additional 3-6 months or longer for a 2nd ruling made by another (probably overwhelmed) Tribunal? If the 2nd ruling is largely a procedural review it could be handled locally.

 

[Usige]

I think there is some merit in having someone look over the case file briefly to make sure there aren’t any obvious reasons why the the judgement should not stand, but I don’t think the current system works. It takes long enough to get a 1st ruling, why make people wait an additional 3-6 months or longer for a 2nd ruling made by another (probably overwhelmed) Tribunal? If the 2nd ruling is largely a procedural review it could be handled locally.

I’d agree. I’d be surprised if most diocese have more than two or three people who have canon law degrees so if the judge has one, then it is possible that the defender of the bond is the only other one with a JCL or JCD. Given that, if the defender does not see a reason to appeal then they could be the local set of eyes (not that they need the extra work ).

 

[dans0622]

I’d agree. I’d be surprised if most diocese have more than two or three people who have canon law degrees so if the judge has one, then it is possible that the defender of the bond is the only other one with a JCL or JCD. Given that, if the defender does not see a reason to appeal then they could be the local set of eyes (not that they need the extra work ).

In the diocese where I work (270,000 Catholics), there are nine degreed canonists serving in the Tribunal and one more over in the chancery. Now that I think about it, this is probably more than average. But, I’ve never researched such statistics.

Dan