What does indissolubility mean?

[dans0622]

Now let’s leave the hypothetical, and allow me to ask some questions which no one probably has an answer to: (1) How many tribunals in America give negative decisions? (2) How many tribunals in America give affirmative decisions based on little or no proof? (3) How many pastors discourage divorce and tell parties that this is their one and only shot at marriage?

My suspicion is that the Church in America is living as if indissolubility were not a reality. There is a disconnect between our theoretical assent and our practical actions. And given that the maxim says “actions speak louder than words” what are our actions saying about our belief in the indissolubility of marriage?

I understand your concerns. The situation in the US is certainly out of the mainstream, when you consider the number of declarations of nullity which are granted–about 2/3 of all declarations of nullity in the whole world come from North America, at least in 2005. By the way, I can answer your first question, at least from 2005 statistics, for North America: 3% of the decisions were in favor of the bond in first instance courts and just under 2% in second instance. (The Middle East has the highest percentage in favor of the bond: 19%…FYI). I can’t answer your other questions.

So, does this mean that tribunals are simply saying everything is null without the necessary proof? That would likewise be a conclusion not based on proof. I might have statistics but I haven’t looked at many particular cases to see if the conclusions were flawed. While I know that there are some (I’ve seen a few) cases where the decision in favor of nullity seemed completely wrong, I think the largest factors in making the North American statistics this way are: lots and lots of people who actually fail to give consent to marriage as the Church understands it and lots and lots of people who want to regularize their current situation (second marriage) in the Church.

Perhaps the Catholics in other countries divorce just as much as in the US, and then enter another “marriage,” but they do not care about their situation. I would presume this is the case in Europe, for the most part. In North America, though, there is one marriage declared null for every seven catholic marriages. The worldwide statistic is 1:63.

Is there an “indissolubility heresy” in the US? I don’t think so, at least not among bishops and tribunal personnel. There is a huge problem with people who attempt to marry without having the proper intentions, inlcuding having an intention against indissolubility. Does the ready granting of declarations of nullity reinforce that intention against indissolubility? I suppose it might. But, the judge has to rule according to the evidence and the truth, no matter the consequences.

What the Church in North America needs is proper catechesis on what marriage truly is…not Tiger Woods-style marriage. Sadly, that’s the kind of “marriage” which is quite common, although not so public and to that extreme.

Dan

 

[Phemie]

I understand your concerns. The situation in the US is certainly out of the mainstream, when you consider the number of declarations of nullity which are granted–about 2/3 of all declarations of nullity in the whole world come from North America, at least in 2005. By the way, I can answer your first question, at least from 2005 statistics, for North America: 3% of the decisions were in favor of the bond in first instance courts and just under 2% in second instance. (The Middle East has the highest percentage in favor of the bond: 19%…FYI). I can’t answer your other questions.

I’d be very interested in seeing the total number of petitions submitted in other countries vs North America. If we submit 2/3 of the total petitions then it shouldn’t be surprising that we also end up with 2/3 of the decrees granted.

I think the largest factors in making the North American statistics this way are: lots and lots of people who actually fail to give consent to marriage as the Church understands it and lots and lots of people who want to regularize their current situation (second marriage) in the Church.

How many were for Protestants who were seeking a decree of nullity to marry a Catholic? How many of those Protestants were granted a decree based on not having the Catholic understanding of marriage as permanent, exclusive and procreative? That might skew the numbers if other countries don’t have many Protestants petitioning. How many of those were ‘lack of form’?

Perhaps the Catholics in other countries divorce just as much as in the US, and then enter another “marriage,” but they do not care about their situation. I would presume this is the case in Europe, for the most part. In North America, though, there is one marriage declared null for every seven catholic marriages. The worldwide statistic is 1:63.

It’s my understanding that Italy has at least as high a divorce rate but nowhere near the same number of petitions for decrees of nullity – they just don’t bother. Many people in my own parish have divorced in the last couple of years; some have even remarried outside the Church and yet, few petitions have been filed.

What the Church in North America needs is proper catechesis on what marriage truly is…not Tiger Woods-style marriage. Sadly, that’s the kind of “marriage” which is quite common, although not so public and to that extreme.

AMEN!

 

[xpistou]

Dan,

Thank you. I appreciate your perspective. I am just trying to figure out the situation in the US. Concerning a certain tribunal with which I am very familiar…from 1984 to 2005 there were a total of 5 negative decisions given, and these 5 were all within a 2 year span when a certain judge was deciding cases. And this tribunal decided approximately 60 cases a year. If my math is correct this amounts to a .4% negative decision rate, and if the one judge is eliminated it becomes 0%. Also, prior to 2005 the only grounds that were ever applied to any case was canon 1095, 2.

I don’t know how many other tribunals operate like this, but I know that a few do for sure. It makes me angry. This is a total disregard for justice. A tribunal that operates in this manner is lying to everyone and totally degrading to human dignity.

Fortunately I am in a happy marriage. But if for any reason I got divorced and if I wanted the Church to declare my marriage invalid I would feel obligated to find a tribunal that I could trust would not lie to me. But I feel that many people approaching tribunals today could care less about the truth, they just want a slip of paper that tells them they can remarry.

I think what bugs me the most is that (some) people in our Church are not willing to conform their will to the Church, but rather want the Church to conform to their will.

 

[LilyM]

Dan,

Thank you. I appreciate your perspective. I am just trying to figure out the situation in the US. Concerning a certain tribunal with which I am very familiar…from 1984 to 2005 there were a total of 5 negative decisions given, and these 5 were all within a 2 year span when a certain judge was deciding cases. And this tribunal decided approximately 60 cases a year. If my math is correct this amounts to a .4% negative decision rate, and if the one judge is eliminated it becomes 0%. Also, prior to 2005 the only grounds that were ever applied to any case was canon 1095, 2.

If that’s the only grounds that were ever used for 20 years then you are in an incredibly INCREDIBLY unusual - in fact entirely and absolutely out-of-this-world unique - situation. So unbelievably so that I really have to bite my lip to not give into my first temptation to accuse you of either making stuff up or being dead wrong.

Are you honestly saying that there was not a single petition granted, for example - not one in those entire twenty years - on grounds of improper form? That means a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic without dispensation, or marrying in a non-Catholic ceremony? Not one granted for a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic who had a pre-existing valid marriage? Not a single solitary case where either of these grounds were employed?

Logic would dictate that such would be at least as common a grounds as any other in this day and age, and a lot easier to prove, and hence must’ve been utilised by the relevant tribunal at least on occasion. This would be particularly so in America, the land of the quickie wedding in the non-denominational Vegas chapel or registry office.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that any tribunal would operate in such a manner, unless there was only one judge or something. And it would be as near impossible as makes no difference for more than one tribunal to operate in such a way.

 

[xpistou]

If that’s the only grounds that were ever used for 20 years then you are in an incredibly INCREDIBLY unusual - in fact entirely and absolutely out-of-this-world unique - situation. So unbelievably so that I really have to bite my lip to not give into my first temptation to accuse you of either making stuff up or being dead wrong.

Are you honestly saying that there was not a single petition granted, for example - not one in those entire twenty years - on grounds of improper form? That means a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic without dispensation, or marrying in a non-Catholic ceremony? Not one granted for a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic who had a pre-existing valid marriage? Not a single solitary case where either of these grounds were employed?

Logic would dictate that such would be at least as common a grounds as any other in this day and age, and a lot easier to prove, and hence must’ve been utilised by the relevant tribunal at least on occasion. This would be particularly so in America, the land of the quickie wedding in the non-denominational Vegas chapel or registry office.

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that any tribunal would operate in such a manner, unless there was only one judge or something. And it would be as near impossible as makes no difference for more than one tribunal to operate in such a way.

I’m sorry, I was not accurate. Yes the tribunal did quite a few documentary cases…lack of form, and prior bond. They even did a few pauline cases. But when a documentary case was not possible, and when the pauline privilege was not possible, and when they were faced with initiating a formal case and identifying grounds they fell back on what they knew (or what they thought they knew). Canon 1095.

I am not wrong and I am not making this up. You call this incredibly unusual but my question is, “Really???” I hope I am wrong.

 

[dans0622]

Dan,

Thank you. I appreciate your perspective. I am just trying to figure out the situation in the US. Concerning a certain tribunal with which I am very familiar…from 1984 to 2005 there were a total of 5 negative decisions given, and these 5 were all within a 2 year span when a certain judge was deciding cases. And this tribunal decided approximately 60 cases a year. If my math is correct this amounts to a .4% negative decision rate, and if the one judge is eliminated it becomes 0%. Also, prior to 2005 the only grounds that were ever applied to any case was canon 1095, 2.

I don’t know how many other tribunals operate like this, but I know that a few do for sure. It makes me angry. This is a total disregard for justice. A tribunal that operates in this manner is lying to everyone and totally degrading to human dignity.

Hello again xpistou,

Unfortunately, the only statistics I have are based on regions (North America, Europe, Asia, etc…) so I can`t give more specific, nation-based numbers.

Anyway, while I haven`t had the same experience you have had, a certain professor of mine has said that he was told by certain tribunal personnel to only talk to them (the professor was giving a workshop on the various grounds for nullity) about c. 1095 since that is the only ground they use. This is certainly a problem…and I agree with your concerns.

Phemie–I can`t give any answer to your questions except to say that the total number of cases in North America was about 3/5 of the world-wide total. So, 3/5 of the cases and 2/3 of the declarations of nullity. Not too far from proportionate.

LilyM–Tribunals would not categorize lack of form cases along with formal processes (meaning, a full-blown trial). So, you are certainly correct that any tribunal would deal with these lack or form cases or other impediments and would happily do so whenever possible, since they are simpler and faster. But, they would put them in the documentary processes category. At least, that`s how I have seen these things organized.

Sadly, I have to say that xpistou`s experience is not imagined or the product of exaggeration.

Dan

 

[chevalier]

I’m sorry, I was not accurate. Yes the tribunal did quite a few documentary cases…lack of form, and prior bond. They even did a few pauline cases. But when a documentary case was not possible, and when the pauline privilege was not possible, and when they were faced with initiating a formal case and identifying grounds they fell back on what they knew (or what they thought they knew). Canon 1095.

I am not wrong and I am not making this up. You call this incredibly unusual but my question is, “Really???” I hope I am wrong.

It does make one wonder when one looks at the statistics. I don’t mean precentage asked, percentage granted etc., because those can simply mean there were more invalid marriages somewhere than elsewhere (or that people elsewhere didn’t bother to petition, true), but I remember reading somewhere that American nullity sentences had a 90% reversal rate in the Rota and that can’t really be a product of difference of opinion on matters of form or delegation or whatever procedural concerns. At least a large share of it has got to be substantive and it’s hard to think it’s impediments, I guess. So I suppose that’s a lot of canon 1095 sentences getting overturned. To do American tribunals justice, it must be pointed out that the Rota isn’t infallible, even though the Rota is more likely to be right than a diocesan tribunal (more expert, more authoritative, charism of function as the Church’s normally highest tribunal on marriages (the Signatura sometimes does something in those areas and the Signatura is higher than the Rota)).

 

[Phemie]

It does make one wonder when one looks at the statistics. I don’t mean precentage asked, percentage granted etc., because those can simply mean there were more invalid marriages somewhere than elsewhere (or that people elsewhere didn’t bother to petition, true), but I remember reading somewhere that American nullity sentences had a 90% reversal rate in the Rota and that can’t really be a product of difference of opinion on matters of form or delegation or whatever procedural concerns. At least a large share of it has got to be substantive and it’s hard to think it’s impediments, I guess. So I suppose that’s a lot of canon 1095 sentences getting overturned. To do American tribunals justice, it must be pointed out that the Rota isn’t infallible, even though the Rota is more likely to be right than a diocesan tribunal (more expert, more authoritative, charism of function as the Church’s normally highest tribunal on marriages (the Signatura sometimes does something in those areas and the Signatura is higher than the Rota)).

90% reversal on appeal sounds huge but how many are actually appealed to the Rota? Maybe those that are appealed to the Rota are those that have the strongest likelihood of being reversed. It might be significant if all or most were appealed but if they are vetted so as to submit those that have the best chance of reversal then the high percentage is much less significant.

Or is it, as I suspect, that they are rarely appealed unless a decree is denied or the decree is granted contrary to the wishes of the respondent such as we saw in the Joe Kennedy case where his non-Catholic wife fought the annulment tooth and nail from the get-go.

 

[chevalier]

90% reversal on appeal sounds huge but how many are actually appealed to the Rota? Maybe those that are appealed to the Rota are those that have the strongest likelihood of being reversed. It might be significant if all or most were appealed but if they are vetted so as to submit those that have the best chance of reversal then the high percentage is much less significant.

Yeah, I think I’ve said that before in this thread and I’ve definitely said it a couple of times on the boards. However, please note that lack of appeal to the Rota probably means both parties are happy being declared free to marry or one party does and the other party doesn’t care any longer. And some may be due to a party losing faith in winning or not knowing the appeal to the Rota can be made. I don’t think that being convinced of the merits of the sentence by its written justification is a huge factor.

Or is it, as I suspect, that they are rarely appealed unless a decree is denied or the decree is granted contrary to the wishes of the respondent such as we saw in the Joe Kennedy case where his non-Catholic wife fought the annulment tooth and nail from the get-go.

Unhappy respondents wanting to appeal are probably a rare occurrence. People who would unjustly abandon a spouse are generally not the people to lodge a claim of nullity. Practicing Catholics in full agreement with the Church on matters of marriage and sexual ethics are not the typical respondents.

By the way, in Kennedy’s case, the appeal to Rota was in the second instance, meaning before a party would be considered free to marry. Mrs Kennedy chose to appeal to the Rota instead of a domestic second instance, which was her right (and is everyone’s). It wasn’t a third instance proceeding.

 

[Phemie]

By the way, in Kennedy’s case, the appeal to Rota was in the second instance, meaning before a party would be considered free to marry. Mrs Kennedy chose to appeal to the Rota instead of a domestic second instance, which was her right (and is everyone’s). It wasn’t a third instance proceeding.

Isn’t that rather unusual? I was under the impression that any decision made at our local tribunal was routinely submitted to the regional tribunal for the second instance and that only then was the decision communicated to the petitioner.

 

[xpistou]

Isn’t that rather unusual? I was under the impression that any decision made at our local tribunal was routinely submitted to the regional tribunal for the second instance and that only then was the decision communicated to the petitioner.

Both parties are informed of the decision of the court of first instance. Once the decision of first instance is communicated to both parties, either can decide to appeal to the Rota.

If someone is unhappy with the sentence in first instance, I would always suggest that they appeal directly to the Rota. If the court of second instance overturns the decision of first instance then it will end up in the Rota anyway. If they don’t overturn the decision, the Rota might not accept an appeal after two conforming decisions unless there were some procedural errors.

 

[xpistou]

Anyway, while I haven`t had the same experience you have had, a certain professor of mine has said that he was told by certain tribunal personnel to only talk to them (the professor was giving a workshop on the various grounds for nullity) about c. 1095 since that is the only ground they use. This is certainly a problem…and I agree with your concerns.

Dan,

Are you a canon law student?

 

[xpistou]

Dan,

Are you a canon law student?

Sorry, stupid question after I looked at your profile.

 

[dans0622]

Sorry, stupid question after I looked at your profile.

Well, I will finish being a student on Monday at 9:45 am, provided I have passed my comprehensive exam which finishes at that time. I’d appreciate a prayer!

Dan

 

[xpistou]

Well, I will finish being a student on Monday at 9:45 am, provided I have passed my comprehensive exam which finishes at that time. I’d appreciate a prayer!

Dan

I will pray for you, and for your future ministry as a canonist. We are in great need of good canonists. Are you sponsored by a diocese?

 

[Phemie]

Well, I will finish being a student on Monday at 9:45 am, provided I have passed my comprehensive exam which finishes at that time. I’d appreciate a prayer!

Dan

Where are you studying Canon Law?

 

[cameron_lansing]

Well, I will finish being a student on Monday at 9:45 am, provided I have passed my comprehensive exam which finishes at that time. I’d appreciate a prayer!

Dan

Ah, I remember those sedate, serene and relaxed days prior to comps quite well. A time of more intense study when everyone blanked out at the simplest questions (how many books in the code? how many fingers am I holding up? is the pope Catholic?) I will remember you tomorrow morning in prayer. Since a number of years have passed for me since then, I will have to say that you will be just beginning to be a student after the degree is completed. Ad multos annos.

Blessed Advent,

John