Validity of the nullity

[dans0622]

Sorry, but this is a non sequitur. The high overturn rate of U.S. declarations of nullity, coupled with the admonishments of Popes JPII and BXVI to the U.S. tribunals, are prima facie evidence that something is amiss in this country in the tribunal system.

The ‘reason to believe’ is the knowledge that U.S. tribunals have moved the goalposts in the interest of pastoralism.

Hello,

I looked through the 2001 and 2003 volumes of Rotal decisions and noted 14 cases from the United States. There could have been more but it is not always clear where the cases are from, given the Latin names of the original diocese. (I thought “Sinus Viridis” could be American…sure enough, that’s Green Bay, Wisconsin.) I didn’t bother to look up all the names that were unfamiliar to me.

Anyway, of those 14:

six were split decisions in the USA (i.e., got one affirmative and one negative) and of those, four were given negatives at the Rota. None of these can be called “overturned.”

Four cases were affirmative in the USA, appealed to the Rota and were given negatives. These were all overturned. What would have happened if they had been heard again in the USA is unknown.

One was negative in the USA, appealed to the Rota, and given another negative.

One was a mess: two affirmatives, appealed to the Rota, both those sentences were declared null and then the case was given two negatives at the Rota. Again, an embarrassing mess.

One was affirmative in the USA, appealed to the Rota, given a negative there but then given an affirmative by the Rota.

Finally, one was affirmative in the USA, appealed to the Rota, and given two negatives. Again, this was overturned but may have been given a negative in the USA.

There were other cases from the USA but the actual sentences were not published. So, I don’t know what the history of those cases was. For example, in 2003, I counted 15 cases from the USA: nine were given negative decisions while six were affirmative. Overall, that year saw the Rota issue about 75 affirmative decisions and about 58 negatives.

Dan

 

[manualman]

While it is true that the marriage tribunals do NOT enjoy infallibility, this does not mean that one cannot confidently rely upon their conclusions.

It’s true that there are shockingly many nullity declarations granted today. It’s also true that there are shockingly many people who call themselves catholic, but care very little about the faith in their daily lives. Is it so unreasonable that many of these are incapable of valid consent? (a common reason given).

Personally, I suspect that many people who obtain a declaration based on defect of consent do so by intentionally AIMING for it, and crafting their responses accordingly. Those who do so aren’t doing themselves any real favors compared to those who simply blow off the church and go get remarried anyways. God isn’t mocked.

But if you HAVE received a declaration of nullity and you know that you participated honestly and genuinely seeking the truth, then you have every reason to confidently rely on the results. God bless you in your journey!

 

[hurting]

Hello,

I looked through the 2001 and 2003 volumes of Rotal decisions and noted 14 cases from the United States. There could have been more but it is not always clear where the cases are from, given the Latin names of the original diocese. (I thought “Sinus Viridis” could be American…sure enough, that’s Green Bay, Wisconsin.) I didn’t bother to look up all the names that were unfamiliar to me.

Anyway, of those 14:

six were split decisions in the USA (i.e., got one affirmative and one negative) and of those, four were given negatives at the Rota. None of these can be called “overturned.”

Four cases were affirmative in the USA, appealed to the Rota and were given negatives. These were all overturned. What would have happened if they had been heard again in the USA is unknown.

One was negative in the USA, appealed to the Rota, and given another negative.

One was a mess: two affirmatives, appealed to the Rota, both those sentences were declared null and then the case was given two negatives at the Rota. Again, an embarrassing mess.

One was affirmative in the USA, appealed to the Rota, given a negative there but then given an affirmative by the Rota.

Finally, one was affirmative in the USA, appealed to the Rota, and given two negatives. Again, this was overturned but may have been given a negative in the USA.

There were other cases from the USA but the actual sentences were not published. So, I don’t know what the history of those cases was. For example, in 2003, I counted 15 cases from the USA: nine were given negative decisions while six were affirmative. Overall, that year saw the Rota issue about 75 affirmative decisions and about 58 negatives.

Dan

Dan,

If I’m reading your analysis correctly, the found a case for nullity only one time out of 14. Other than this being a very small sample from which to surmise (and yes, that is a problem), the overturn rate is still very high, no?

 

[manualman]

Dan,

If I’m reading your analysis correctly, the found a case for nullity only one time out of 14. Other than this being a very small sample from which to surmise (and yes, that is a problem), the overturn rate is still very high, no?

You followed him better than I did, but regardless you have to understand what you’re looking at here. The Rota does NOT hear a random sampling of cases from the local tribunals. If it did, one could draw ominous conclusions from data like 1 in 14 upheld.
But that’s not what the Rota is. Cases that go to the Rota are ones in which one party is convinced that an error was made and is willing to take the time and expense of going to Rome over it. Would YOU do that if you thought your case likely to lose? I wouldn’t. Only the strongest cases make it that far.

 

[hurting]

But then again these studies are not looking at the full admonishments either. The admonishments were to not rely on the same reasons - not to not declare the decree of nullity. They also were to make the decree of nullity process more efficient - something these studies leave out completely - so again a straw man argument as these studies against the decree of nullity process have only quoted what they wanted heard.

Now you are being disingenuous. Both popes clearly admonished the U.S. tribunals not to confuse pastoralism with the search for truth. They were unequivocal in their indictment of the expansive and liberal use of canon 1095.

I am trying to be charitable here. The “studies” challenging the liberal annulment mentality in American tribunals to which you refer are no more straw men nor are they any more self-serving than the “studies” or more pointedly the unsupported opinions of people who like the fact that the U.S. tribunals can and do, in essence, invalidate marriages on the most specious of grounds.

The tribunal system in the U.S. is telling people what they want to hear.

 

[hurting]

You followed him better than I did, but regardless you have to understand what you’re looking at here. The Rota does NOT hear a random sampling of cases from the local tribunals. If it did, one could draw ominous conclusions from data like 1 in 14 upheld.
But that’s not what the Rota is. Cases that go to the Rota are ones in which one party is convinced that an error was made and is willing to take the time and expense of going to Rome over it. Would YOU do that if you thought your case likely to lose? I wouldn’t. Only the strongest cases make it that far.

No courts of appeal (which the Rota is) routinely conduct random sampling evaluations of cases heard below them - that’s not what appeals courts do. Nonetheless when a court of appeal routinely reverses the decisions of the lower courts aligning under it, one can reasonably and reliably infer that some is amiss in the lower courts.

The direct appeal provision to the Rota is the most telling indictment of the U.S. tribunal system of all.

 

[dans0622]

Dan,

If I’m reading your analysis correctly, the found a case for nullity only one time out of 14. Other than this being a very small sample from which to surmise (and yes, that is a problem), the overturn rate is still very high, no?

Hello,

As far as a high “overturn rate”–I think it’s high. I would not say “very high.”

Re: the Rotal decisions. Three, in the final decision, were affirmative. 11 were negative. Of those 11, 5 had already been given one negative in the USA. 5 were only heard in one instance in the USA–would they have been given a negative in the ordinary, second instance court in the USA? We’ll never know. I think we can presume that most of them would not have gotten a negative, but… And, to get to the 11 negatives, one case was given two affirmatives in the USA and then two negatives in Rome.

I apologize for the statistics and but I supply these numbers to correct the notion that USA tribunals give every case two affirmatives, send all these cases over there, and the Rota finds in the negative 90% of the time. That is not the way it is. It’s a bit more nuanced than that. That being said, in all of this I am not trying to say that all tribunals in the USA are well-run or that all Judges in the USA correctly apply the law. In my opinion, some don’t. (But, given my job–defender of the bond–that should not be surprising.)

By the way, regarding lack of form cases: where I work, I think I can safely estimate/guess that about 40% of the “cases” are lack of form. This is truly an easy, “rubber stamp annulment” that is (correctly, according to the law) countenanced by the Holy See. I am not far from being convinced that the Church should get rid of the requirement for canonical form…

Dan

 

[hurting]

Hello,

As far as a high “overturn rate”–I think it’s high. I would not say “very high.”

Re: the Rotal decisions. Three, in the final decision, were affirmative. 11 were negative. Of those 11, 5 had already been given one negative in the USA. 5 were only heard in one instance in the USA–would they have been given a negative in the ordinary, second instance court in the USA? We’ll never know. I think we can presume that most of them would not have gotten a negative, but… And, to get to the 11 negatives, one case was given two affirmatives in the USA and then two negatives in Rome.

I apologize for the statistics and but I supply these numbers to correct the notion that USA tribunals give every case two affirmatives, send all these cases over there, and the Rota finds in the negative 90% of the time. That is not the way it is. It’s a bit more nuanced than that. That being said, in all of this I am not trying to say that all tribunals in the USA are well-run or that all Judges in the USA correctly apply the law. In my opinion, some don’t. (But, given my job–defender of the bond–that should not be surprising.)

By the way, regarding lack of form cases: where I work, I think I can safely estimate/guess that about 40% of the “cases” are lack of form. This is truly an easy, “rubber stamp annulment” that is (correctly, according to the law) countenanced by the Holy See. I am not far from being convinced that the Church should get rid of the requirement for canonical form…

Dan

Thanks for your insights. I would have hoped that regardless of your role as defender of the bond you’d have a higher confidence level that the process is sound (not trying to put words in your mouth or misconstrue what you’ve said).

I understand your point about the nuance, but 11 of 14 is a horrible reversal rate. Can you imagine if the typical common pleas court in the criminal/civil arena had overturn rates like that? More importantly, can you imagine if such overturn rates were than high in capital punishment cases (a nullity trial ought to take on that kind of import in my estimation). More study might bear out the nuance, but I’d proffer that Occam’s Razor applies: the U.S. tribunal system simply applies a different and lower standard than the rest of the world. Sadly neither JPII nor BXVI was moved to do anything more than admonish the U.S. hierarchy.

Again, I’d offer that the ‘direct-to-Rota’ appeal for second instance is the most damning evidence that the hierarchy outside the U.S. has very strong suspicions that something is up.

 

[styrgwillidar]

I understand your point about the nuance, but 11 of 14 is a horrible reversal rate.

Had to edit several times— but

Dan, aren’t you saying that of the 14 cases, the Rota

3 agreed with affirmative decisions in the US

5 simply affirmed the negative decision in the US (i.e. cases with one affirmative/one negative decision. Meaning they were negatives being appealed to the Rota)

4 only had the first instance with an affirmative decision in the US, with the second being the Rota decision itself- all negatives. So statistically we actually have to toss these since we don’t know what a second decision would have been in the US

1 only had the first instance with a negative decision in the US with the second being the Rota which was also a negative.

1 decision overturned, basically voiding both US decisions and retrying both decisions at the Rota.

So, 9 decisions in the US upheld out of 10 (tossing out the 4 with affirmative first decision in the US, with Rota as a second instance)

Or worst case

9 decisions in the US upheld out of 14 (but that would have to assume in all 4 cases where the Rota was the court of second instance, the second decision in the US would have agreed with the first affirmative decision)

Or am I not understanding correctly?

ETA: Sorry may have made a mistake, you said the Rota made three affirmative decisions and I assumed these were just concurrences with US rulings, not an overturning of a negative decision.

 

[styrgwillidar]

To summarize my last, If I understand things correctly:

The final US decisions being appealed were upheld 8 times, over-ruled once.

1 reversal out of 9 decisions.

In the cases where the Rota was the court of second instance there was:

1 concurrence with a US first negative decision
4 non-concurrences with a US first affirmative decision

Again, as you’ve said it’s impossible to know how a second US tribunal would have ruled. But even considering these as upholds/reversals, worst case is then

5 reversals out of 14 decisions.

 

[dans0622]

I guess I am not explaining this very well. I’ll try one more time.

For six cases, there was both a negative and affirmative in the USA (not necessarily in that order). Then, the case went to Rome. For these six, we can’t say that a negative at the Rota is “a reversal” unless we’re going to call it “a reversal” no matter what the Rota decides in such cases.

There was one case that was negative in the USA, appealed to Rome, and given another negative.

There was one case that was affirmative in the USA, appealed to Rome, and given both a negative and affirmative at the Rota.

That’s eight cases out of 14 that no one can call “reversals.”

Only one case of 14 was clearly “a reversal”–two affirmatives in the USA followed by two negatives in Rome.

The remaining five cases might have been “reversals” or they might have been like the first six. For the sake of argument, though, let’s say that all of these are “reversals.”

So, the bottom line: in the most pessimistic, anti-USA tribunal perspective, we would say that we have six cases out of 14 that are “reversals.” In the most optimistic, pro-USA tribunal perspective, we would say that only one out of 14 was a real reversal.

If this does not make sense, I apologize and hereby give up.

Dan

 

[styrgwillidar]

I guess I am not explaining this very well. I’ll try one more time.

For six cases, there was both a negative and affirmative in the USA (not necessarily in that order). Then, the case went to Rome. For these six, we can’t say that a negative at the Rota is “a reversal” unless we’re going to call it “a reversal” no matter what the Rota decides in such cases.

There was one case that was negative in the USA, appealed to Rome, and given another negative.

There was one case that was affirmative in the USA, appealed to Rome, and given both a negative and affirmative at the Rota.

That’s eight cases out of 14 that no one can call “reversals.”

Only one case of 14 was clearly “a reversal”–two affirmatives in the USA followed by two negatives in Rome.

The remaining five cases might have been “reversals” or they might have been like the first six. For the sake of argument, though, let’s say that all of these are “reversals.”

So, the bottom line: in the most pessimistic, anti-USA tribunal perspective, we would say that we have six cases out of 14 that are “reversals.” In the most optimistic, pro-USA tribunal perspective, we would say that only one out of 14 was a real reversal.

If this does not make sense, I apologize and hereby give up.

Dan

Thanks for clearing it up somewhat. I guess my definition of a US split decision is that it is an overall denial of the petition for a declaration of nullity. As I understand it, a declaration of nullity is not granted unless both decisions are affirmative. Hence, the split decision is really a negative decision. That is the ‘final’ US decision is a negative and can only be overturned on appeal to the Rota. Ergo, a Rota appeal in the negative is upholding the ‘final’ US decision.

Does that make sense?

 

[hurting]

To summarize my last, If I understand things correctly:

The final US decisions being appealed were upheld 8 times, over-ruled once.

1 reversal out of 9 decisions.

In the cases where the Rota was the court of second instance there was:

1 concurrence with a US first negative decision
4 non-concurrences with a US first affirmative decision

Again, as you’ve said it’s impossible to know how a second US tribunal would have ruled. But even considering these as upholds/reversals, worst case is then

5 reversals out of 14 decisions.

Allow me to clarify. I will admit that I simplified a bit, but I’m looking at the Rota’s reversal at either first or second instance as a reversal:

six were split decisions in the USA (i.e., got one affirmative and one negative) and of those, four were given negatives at the Rota. None of these can be called “overturned.”

To me this reads like 4 reversals out of 6 (Rota vs. first instance)

Four cases were affirmative in the USA, appealed to the Rota and were given negatives. These were all overturned. What would have happened if they had been heard again in the USA is unknown.

To me this reads like 4 reversals out of 4 (Rota vs. first instance)

One was negative in the USA, appealed to the Rota, and given another negative.

To me this reads like 0 reversals out of 1 (Rota vs. first instance)

One was a mess: two affirmatives, appealed to the Rota, both those sentences were declared null and then the case was given two negatives at the Rota. Again, an embarrassing mess.
To me this reads like 1 reversals out of 1 (Rota vs. first instance)

One was affirmative in the USA, appealed to the Rota, given a negative there but then given an affirmative by the Rota.

To me this reads like 0 reversals out of 1 (Rota vs. first instance)

Finally, one was affirmative in the USA, appealed to the Rota, and given two negatives. Again, this was overturned but may have been given a negative in the USA.

To me this reads like 1 reversals out of 1 (Rota vs. first instance)

Overall, of the 14 cases, the Rota ultimately:

1. concurred with either/both of the lower courts that 3 were invalid

2. concurred with either/both of the lower courts that 1 was valid

3. did not concur with the lower court(s) and reversed the decision from invalid to valid in 10 cases

4. had no instances where it declared a marriage invalid where the lower court had ruled it valid

Another way of looking at it is that the US court(s) found for validity in only one of the cases (#2) whereas the Rota found for validity in eleven. By my count the reversal rate is 10/14, and I realize it is a bit of a stretch to infer, but it does not appear from the foregoing that marriage enjoys the favor of the law in the US tribunal system.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Another way of looking at it is that the US court(s) found for validity in only one of the cases (#2) whereas the Rota found for validity in eleven. By my count the reversal rate is 10/14, and I realize it is a bit of a stretch to infer, but it does not appear from the foregoing that marriage enjoys the favor of the law in the US tribunal system.

Well, I thought the process requires the concurrence of two tribunals- first and second instance as part of the process. As I understand it, as mentioned above, a declaration of nullity is not issued unless there are two affirmative decisions.

So, if the concern is about US decisions to grant nullity, you’re counting a situation where the Rota concurs with not granting a declaration of nullity as overturning the US decision. Which isn’t accurate. If the individuals involved didn’t appeal there would be no declaration of nullity and the marriage would be considered valid. So, how is a situation where a marriage is being considered valid, and the Rota concurring with that decision somehow a reversal?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

By my count the reversal rate is 10/14, and I realize it is a bit of a stretch to infer, but it does not appear from the foregoing that marriage enjoys the favor of the law in the US tribunal system.

The problem I see with this discussion is there is no balance. How does the rate of reversal of the U.S. compare to that of other countries?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

But that’s not what the Rota is. Cases that go to the Rota are ones in which one party is convinced that an error was made and is willing to take the time and expense of going to Rome over it. Would YOU do that if you thought your case likely to lose? I wouldn’t. Only the strongest cases make it that far.

I concur.

If one party is fighting the decision, and there is any doubt, it would seem to me the that the validly of the bond will be favored. Having gone through the annulment process myself, I could see problems arising. For example, some things may be known to the spouses that are not known to anyone else, and cannot be proven. That information may directly determine whether or not the marriage is valid. The local court may believe the spouse and declare the marriage invalid, yet another court, especially one that is not local, might say there is enough doubt to rule in favor of the marital bond.

 

[hurting]

I guess I am not explaining this very well. I’ll try one more time.

For six cases, there was both a negative and affirmative in the USA (not necessarily in that order). Then, the case went to Rome. For these six, we can’t say that a negative at the Rota is “a reversal” unless we’re going to call it “a reversal” no matter what the Rota decides in such cases.

There was one case that was negative in the USA, appealed to Rome, and given another negative.

There was one case that was affirmative in the USA, appealed to Rome, and given both a negative and affirmative at the Rota.

That’s eight cases out of 14 that no one can call “reversals.”

Only one case of 14 was clearly “a reversal”–two affirmatives in the USA followed by two negatives in Rome.

The remaining five cases might have been “reversals” or they might have been like the first six. For the sake of argument, though, let’s say that all of these are “reversals.”

So, the bottom line: in the most pessimistic, anti-USA tribunal perspective, we would say that we have six cases out of 14 that are “reversals.” In the most optimistic, pro-USA tribunal perspective, we would say that only one out of 14 was a real reversal.

If this does not make sense, I apologize and hereby give up.

Dan

Dan,

Please don’t give up. I think I follow you now and would be inclined to infer that the most pessismistic view is accurate that 6 of 14 either were or would have been reversals based on data from the article I posted upthread which suggests that courts of second instance in the US typically do not overturn the first instance decision.

*“In the US, 6 percent of ordinary-process cases are renounced by those seeking an annulment, while an additional 6 percent are abated because the parties failed to follow through with the procedural acts necessary for a trial to take place. Of the remaining 88 percent of cases in which sentences are given, 96 percent of sentences are in favor of nullity. Sentences in favor of nullity are automatically appealed to a court of second instance in another diocese. One percent of these cases are renounced or abated, 69 percent are confirmed by decree, and 30 percent proceed to an additional trial. In this final category, 98 percent are eventually ruled null.” *

I tried to follow the logic above, and believe it shows that of 100 nullity cases that entered the ordinary process in the US (and these are almost exclusively defective consent cases), eventually 82% were declared null. More importantly, if you exclude the renounced/abated cases, the nullity rate is 94%.

1st InstanceRenounced 6 Dismissed 6 Decree IssuedNull 84 Not Null 4 100 2nd InstanceRenounced 1 1 Confirmed by Decree 69 58 Confimed by Trial 29 24 Reversed by Trial 1 1 100 84 No Verdict Rendered 13 13.0%Null 82 82.0%94.25%Not Null 5 5.0%5.75% 100

 

[Cojuanco]

While it is true that the marriage tribunals do NOT enjoy infallibility, this does not mean that one cannot confidently rely upon their conclusions.

It’s true that there are shockingly many nullity declarations granted today. It’s also true that there are shockingly many people who call themselves catholic, but care very little about the faith in their daily lives. Is it so unreasonable that many of these are incapable of valid consent? (a common reason given).

Personally, I suspect that many people who obtain a declaration based on defect of consent do so by intentionally AIMING for it, and crafting their responses accordingly. Those who do so aren’t doing themselves any real favors compared to those who simply blow off the church and go get remarried anyways. God isn’t mocked.

But if you HAVE received a declaration of nullity and you know that you participated honestly and genuinely seeking the truth, then you have every reason to confidently rely on the results. God bless you in your journey!

That, and I have heard tell of priests in this country solemnizing marriages even they had doubts as to the validity to, back in the dark days known as the 1970s. If the front line does not screen out defects, ought we to be surprised so many cases get sent to the tribunal?

 

[dans0622]

… I tried to follow the logic above, and believe it shows that of 100 nullity cases that entered the ordinary process in the US (and these are almost exclusively defective consent cases), eventually 82% were declared null. More importantly, if you exclude the renounced/abated cases, the nullity rate is 94%.
…

Hello,

In my opinion, the statistics you cited here are much more pertinent and compelling than whatever the “overturn rate” at the Rota happens to be from year to year… Even with the best preliminary, “weeding out” process that keeps weak cases out of the Tribunal’s hands, you would expect at least a few negatives here and there. Yet, you can find Tribunals that handle hundreds of cases in a year and have given 0 negatives.

Dan

 

[hurting]

Hello,

In my opinion, the statistics you cited here are much more pertinent and compelling than whatever the “overturn rate” at the Rota happens to be from year to year… Even with the best preliminary, “weeding out” process that keeps weak cases out of the Tribunal’s hands, you would expect at least a few negatives here and there. Yet, you can find Tribunals that handle hundreds of cases in a year and have given 0 negatives.

Dan

Agreed. If I understand correctly, the Rota can only handle a small handful of the cases that could possible be appealed there.

Not to impugn the bolded statement above overmuch, but I sincerely doubt there’s much weeding out going on, especially in cases involving alleged defects in consent. I would certainly hope that obvious defective form-based petitions would be dissuaded early on, but based on the materials I’ve seen posted on the websites of various dioceses around the country (including my own, large Midwestern one that’s probably conservative leaning if there is such a thing anymore), I remain highly skeptical that defective consent petitions are discouraged in any meaningful way; I’d sooner believe the opposite is true. Indeed in my diocese, annulments are downright solicited, with petitioners being urged to let the tribunal decide if there’s a case.