New annulment norms (issued today) lack hoped for reforms

National Catholic Reporter ^ | 2/8/2005 | John L. Allen

[old and tired]

I don't know too much about annulments. Is this "defender of the bond" something new? The few people I know who've gotten annulments never mentioned anyone who was defending their marriage. And a friend of my wife's received an annulment although she'd been married for many years and had five children. (Husband had a girlfriend, of course). This woman very strongly believes her annulment is not valid in the eyes of God, but we don't recall her ever mentioning that the diocese had somebody helping her defend her marriage.

[Notwithstanding]

Defense of marriage ping.

[Notwithstanding]

Its a simple straightforward process the goal of which is to respect (or defer to) a marriage that has/had the appearance of legitimacy.

Money is not the key - as the disgruntled or cynical often complain.

Sadly, those with power often get the annulment they want - but often those with no power also get the annulment they want.

The other ridiculous and tired canard is that the children of an annulled bond are made illegitimate as a result of the annullment - which is not true.

Marriage is gravely serious, lifelong, and sacramental. To treat it otherwise is to mock the most solemn vows.

[madprof98]

Though roughly 50,000 cases for annulment are processed annually all over the world, almost 70 percent, some 33,000, come from the United States. That's a remarkable change from just 35 years ago; in 1968, only 338 annulments were granted in the United States.

Astonishingly, some people regard this as progress.

[DBeers]

One expert who worked on Dignitas Connubii told NCR that the aim of the document was to avoid pointless delays and objections, but at the same time to ensure that the outcome is not automatic, and that a serious judicial process is observed.

One example of how Dignitas Connubii tries to avoid a rubber-stamp approach, experts say, comes in article 209, which attempts to limit the tendency of parties to cite minor psychological disturbances that many people experience, such as stress, as grounds for incapacity.

Appears a tightening up of tribunals is coming...

-link to other news on same subject for any interested

Vatican updates rules on marriage annulment

[sinkspur]

Is this "defender of the bond" something new?

Nope. The Defender has been around since at least the first Code of Canon Law was issued, in 1917. He doesn't actually work with the respondent to "get another side" of the case. In fact, the Defender has no contact with the parties at all. He examines the final case, with all the witness testimony, and raises objections to an annulment (such as: length of time married, no obvious difficulties until recently). However, given the psychological grounds which form the basis for 99% of the cases presented, it is very difficult to argue length of time married if the husband was a lifelong alcoholic, for instance.

The court of second instance will usually look very hard at the Defender's case. (I was a Defender in a couple of cases, and had to write up a case just as the Procurator did).

[madprof98]

Appears a tightening up of tribunals is coming...

Clearly, this is going to be a major task for the next pope, but only part of the larger task of cleaning up the mess in the Catholic Church in this country (and a few others as well).

[onyx]

So the Church didn't cave to American wishes, is that the sum of it?

[sinkspur]

In general, experts told NCR that the instruction gives more power to judges to limit procedural appeals that have the effect of unnecessarily slowing down the process. One canonist said this provision is intended in part to streamline cases such as that of Sheila Rausch Kennedy, who pursued a lengthy appeal of an annulment granted after a 1993 request from her husband, Joseph Kennedy.

If anything, the new norms will reduce the endless appeals kicked up by some respondents.

[sinkspur]

Well, supporting testimony is still required to build an annulment case; some bishops wanted just the petitioners' word to suffice. OTOH, the "substantial conformity" issue could be huge. There is often disagreement between the tribunal of appeal and the original tribunal as to the points of law in a case. Now, they don't necessarily have to agree on the point of law for the annulment to be granted.

IMO, this document won't have any impact whatsoever on the vast majority of marriage cases. There certainly won't be fewer, as none of the substantial psychological grounds were altered.

[DBeers]

If anything, the new norms will reduce the endless appeals kicked up by some respondents.

Yup -I agree; however, I think the procedural appeals are probably the exception; e.g. cases in which respondents actually employ thier own hired gun (Canon Lawyer advocate)... I tend to think (without having seen the document yet) that the guidelines are going to be very restrictive up front as to what objective criteria and requirements must be in place to even take a case...

[DBeers]

Also on the subject of the search for truth in hearings on the nullity of marriage, Archbishop Angelo Amato S.D.B. highlighted the fact that article 65, para. 2 of the Instruction states that the judge must urge the parties to a sincere search for the truth. If he does not manage to bring the spouses to validate their marriage and re-establish conjugal life "the judge is to urge the spouses to work together sincerely, putting aside any personal desire and living the truth in charity, in order to arrive at the objective truth, as the very nature of a marriage cause demands."

-in reference to my prior post -FYI -from the article linked on post #6

[sinkspur]

I tend to think (without having seen the document yet) that the guidelines are going to be very restrictive up front as to what objective criteria and requirements must be in place to even take a case...

The grounds for annulment are clearly laid out in Canon Law and there is no indication that any of the grounds have been changed.

If the basis for an annulment is there in law, I don't see how "objective criteria" can be restricted unless the psychological definitions have changed.

[sinkspur]

If he does not manage to bring the spouses to validate their marriage and re-establish conjugal life

Well, by the time a case reaches the judge, several years have usually passed since the civil divorce. I suppose anything is possible, but this Archbishop is engaged in wishful thinking.

[St. Johann Tetzel]

it falls short of reforms that many American bishops and canonists hoped for which would have made an annulment faster and easier to obtain.

Deo gratias.

[St. Johann Tetzel]

If the National Catholic Reporter and certain members of the USCCB are deeply saddened, then real Catholics must have real cause to celebrate.

[DBeers]

but this Archbishop is engaged in wishful thinking.

Shepherds tend to be wishful when guiding their errant sheep ;)

[DBeers]

If the National Catholic Reporter and certain members of the USCCB are deeply saddened, then real Catholics must have real cause to celebrate. LOL You got that right!!! NCR did not waste any time getting this version of the news out...

[sinkspur]

Intervention in troubled marriages usually needs to take place before a civil divorce. Annulments are typically pursued when one of the parties wishes to remarry somebody else in the Church.