You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Vatican official clarifies ‘fast-track’ annulments amid dispute
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
dans0622
Guest
I’m so ahead of the curve…I knew about this yesterday. I’m not surprised by the statement as well as fully supportive of it.
Dan
Dan
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
madisondiocese.org/DioceseofMadison/FAQaboutrevisedmarriagenullityprocess.aspxWho qualifies for the shorter process?
Answer: The shorter process is designed only for those rare cases when it can be employed without injustice. Three strict qualifications have to be met. (1) Both spouses have to petition for it together, or if not, then the other party must at least consent to it. (2) The nullity of the marriage must be manifest. Most marriage nullity cases deal with a defect in marital consent, i.e., with an invisible, internal act of the will placed by the spouses, often several years prior. Clearly, it would be exceptional for such a defect to be patently obvious today. (3) All the facts that make the marriage manifestly null have to be readily available. Unlike the documentary process, the shorter process can involve the questioning of both parties and knowledgeable witnesses, but this is to be done all in one session when possible. In general, the first criterion is not uncommon, but the second and third are both rare, especially in conjunction. The fact that the diocesan bishop has to oversee the process personally is an indication of just how rare and exceptional Pope Francis envisions the shorter process to be.
P
PaulfromIowa
Guest
Anyone else remember when people went to Reno for quickie divorces?
D
dans0622
Guest
Nevertheless, there was a comment from Msgr. Pinto (dean of the Rota) about this process being possible with the declared absence of the Respondent. I don’t know why he said that…
Dan
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Sounds like clerical bureaucrats will find ways to gum up any simplifications intended by the Pope.
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,Sounds like clerical bureaucrats will find ways to gum up any simplifications intended by the Pope.
Have you read what the Pope’s “simplifications” say on the point being discussed? It’s canon 1683.1.
Dan
D
DAML72
Guest
I don’t mean to be uncharitable, but I find this kind of dumb. Why should the quicker process be denied just because the other person doesn’t agree? I’m sure there are plenty of cases where both parties are Catholic and want the annulment and will do whatever they can to work together to get it done. On the other hand, you still have people like me who, though no parties to my marriage were Catholic, and one party was of no faith (my ex husband), will have to go through the whole long process because both ‘spouses’ were baptized, but one doesn’t care enough to participate. I was under the impression that the quick process would be available in cases where there was a lack of faith by one party - what incentive is there for a person of no faith to assent to the annulment process? Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow the fast track in all eligible cases, with the proviso that the full process would be warranted where the other spouse objects?
D
DAML72
Guest
Well, there went all my hopes for a simpler/shorter process. Does this mean the burden of proof provisions will remain the same also for those who do not obtain consent of the other spouse? I really don’t see how consent of both parties should make a difference in that regard. A marriage is either valid or it isn’t - the desire of both parties to receive an annulment should not be the deciding factor in making the process simpler.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
Annulment are granted quickly now. I don’t know anyone who has been refused in the past twenty years. Why speed them up?
D
dans0622
Guest
Hello,Well, there went all my hopes for a simpler/shorter process. Does this mean the burden of proof provisions will remain the same also for those who do not obtain consent of the other spouse? I really don’t see how consent of both parties should make a difference in that regard. A marriage is either valid or it isn’t - the desire of both parties to receive an annulment should not be the deciding factor in making the process simpler.
Every nullity case is more than likely going to be “simpler/shorter” since there is no longer going to be a mandatory review of all affirmative Sentences. This “shorter process” is a different entity entirely, in terms of procedure. It’s not just “simpler.”
The burden of proof is the same across the board, no matter the procedure.
In my view, the consent of both parties is a requirement because the “shorter process” does not have the built-in steps which give the Respondent time to propose witnesses, dispute the grounds, examine the evidence and rebut points made by others.
Besides that, when we are dealing with defects in consent, it is seldom easy to quickly find proof of a defect when only one Party is participating. The “ideal” is certainly having both Parties take an active role in providing testimony/evidence.
Yes, desire to participate in a process has nothing to do with validity or invalidity. It does have something to do with finding proof of invalidity, though, and the way the Church will go about gathering the proofs.
Dan
M
maryjk
Guest
I know a number of couples that their marriage was still valid.Annulment are granted quickly now. I don’t know anyone who has been refused in the past twenty years. Why speed them up?
It is best to know as soon as possible.
D
DAML72
Guest
I was lax in my use of ‘burden of proof’ late last night. I really meant to refer to the standards of proof - I thought that I read in the quicker process that one witness could be considered sufficient to prove the veracity of a particular matter as opposed to the multiple witnesses required previously. I’ve always been concerned with the witness requirement because I am an only child and don’t tend to share too much intimately with friends - not to mention that the relationships with friends who knew both of us have been broken down due to some of his behaviors. While there are factors keeping me from starting the process now, I feel I must because my parents are probably my only/best witnesses and they are advancing in age.Hello,
Every nullity case is more than likely going to be “simpler/shorter” since there is no longer going to be a mandatory review of all affirmative Sentences. This “shorter process” is a different entity entirely, in terms of procedure. It’s not just “simpler.”
The burden of proof is the same across the board, no matter the procedure.
In my view, the consent of both parties is a requirement because the “shorter process” does not have the built-in steps which give the Respondent time to propose witnesses, dispute the grounds, examine the evidence and rebut points made by others.
Besides that, when we are dealing with defects in consent, it is seldom easy to quickly find proof of a defect when only one Party is participating. The “ideal” is certainly having both Parties take an active role in providing testimony/evidence.
Yes, desire to participate in a process has nothing to do with validity or invalidity. It does have something to do with finding proof of invalidity, though, and the way the Church will go about gathering the proofs.
Dan
Ironically, part of what led me to the church was the possibility of receiving an annulment and putting my soul to rest, but I’m now a bit frustrated with the process. I was hoping the new path would be an option for a number of reasons.
D
dans0622
Guest
The “standards of proof” are also the same. The mention made of the possibly assigning “full proof” to the testimony of one witness is in the section of canons dealing with the ordinary process, not the “shorter process” (it’s not a big change from what the law used to be, really). It is not normal, though, for a nullity case to stand on the basis of the testimony of one witness (a witness, by the way, is *not *one of the Parties).I was lax in my use of ‘burden of proof’ late last night. I really meant to refer to the standards of proof - I thought that I read in the quicker process that one witness could be considered sufficient to prove the veracity of a particular matter as opposed to the multiple witnesses required previously. I’ve always been concerned with the witness requirement because I am an only child and don’t tend to share too much intimately with friends - not to mention that the relationships with friends who knew both of us have been broken down due to some of his behaviors. While there are factors keeping me from starting the process now, I feel I must because my parents are probably my only/best witnesses and they are advancing in age.
Ironically, part of what led me to the church was the possibility of receiving an annulment and putting my soul to rest, but I’m now a bit frustrated with the process. I was hoping the new path would be an option for a number of reasons.
In practice, you might see this or that Tribunal say “You need x number of witnesses or else your petition won’t even be accepted.” That, in my opinion, has never been a justifiable, across-the-board, requirement.
Dan
P
pnewton
Guest
They are not very fast here.Annulment are granted quickly now. I don’t know anyone who has been refused in the past twenty years. Why speed them up?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.