New annulment norms (issued today) lack hoped for reforms

A new Vatican instruction on annulment is not expected to change existing practice in the United States dramatically, but it falls short of reforms that many American bishops and canonists hoped for which would have made an annulment faster and easier to obtain.

Those reforms were contained in a second draft of the document, which seemed on the brink of publication in 2003. After debates within the Vatican, however, the draft was sent back for revision, and in the end several significant provisions sought by Americans were eliminated or watered down.

The instruction, titled Dignitas Connubii, was issued Feb. 8 in a Vatican news conference. The Latin-and-English version runs to 226 pages, and is organized into 308 articles.

The document is the result of almost 10 years of work, and the version published Tuesday represents the third draft. Experts from five offices of the Roman Curia were involved: the Roman Rota and the Apostolic Signatura, the two chief Vatican courts that handle marriage cases; the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts, charged with interpreting church law; and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

1. One party presents a petition to the tribunal in the diocese in which he or she lives, or in which the marriage took place.

2.The tribunal screens the petition to determine if grounds for an annulment seem to be present, and if the evidence seems sufficient (some 20 percent of petitions never go forward for lack of grounds or evidence).

3. If accepted, a case normally goes before a panel of three judges, though in some instances one judge may decide. It's not trial by jury, but more like a review board sorting through testimony to reach a conclusion.

4. Both the party seeking the annulment and the other party to the marriage have a right to present testimony and other evidence. The diocese also has a canon layer called the "defender of the bond," whose job it is to defend the validity of the marriage.

5. In the case of a favorable decision, there's an automatic appeal to an appeals court in another diocese. Both decisions must be favorable, and based on the same grounds, for the annulment to be granted.

If all six steps are observed, an annulment case can sometimes take years before final resolution, though often it happens more quickly.

Typical grounds for an annulment include lack of due discretion, fraud, and psychic incapacity.

There are also simpler cases that generally do not require trial, such as "prior bond," where one of the partners had a previous marriage, or "defect of form," where Catholics were not married in the church. If one spouse was not baptized, then the other party can apply for a "Privilege of the Faith" case (or "Petrine Privilege") from the Holy See. If neither of the spouses was baptized, and now one of the spouses wishes to become baptized and marry a Catholic, a Pauline Privilege is possible.

The cost of an annulment ranges from $500 to $1,000, depending on the diocese, although these costs are generally waved if someone can't pay. Each year tribunals in the United States run deficits.

The purpose of the document is to provide a step-by-step guide for judges to use in processing requests for annulment, applying the principles of the new Code of Canon Law adopted in 1983, in light of the experience of the intervening 23 years. It plays a similar role to a 1936 document, Provida Mater, which did the same thing for the 1917 code.

"It's like a recipe book," one Roman canonist said. "If a judge follows all the steps outlined in the document, he can't make a mistake."

Unlike civil divorce, which simply acknowledges the failure of a marriage, annulment is a declaration that a sacramental marriage never existed, usually because one of the parties lacked the capacity to consent or due to impotence.

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. Some Vatican officials have long felt that American church courts are too hasty in granting favorable responses, though Americans argue that the United States is one of the few countries that invested seriously in tribunals and canon lawyers, and that the number of annulments is a tiny fraction of the estimated 8 million divorced Catholics in the country.

Some had feared that the Vatican might use this new instruction to crack down on American practice, but in the end most of the points are technical matters of procedure that are not expected to alter the outcome of most requests. In fact, in at least one instance, the instruction should make life easier for Catholics seeking an annulment.

Existing law requires an automatic appeal of a ruling in favor of an annulment, and the two findings must exhibit "conformity," meaning they have to be based on the same point of law. If one court finds in favor of annulment on the grounds that the wife was insane, for example, and another that the husband was impotent, that doesn't satisfy the requirement. In such a case, review by a third court would be required.

Article 291 of Dignitas Connubii, however, introduces the concept of "substantial conformity," which would allow an annulment even if the two decisions were based on different points of law, as along as they are rooted "in the same facts and the same proofs." For example, if one court finds the wife was forced into marriage out of fear, and another that she lied when she gave consent in order to avoid some danger, this would technically be two different grounds for annulment, but they could be seen as in "substantial conformity."

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.

Yet Dignitas Connubii falls well short of what many American bishops and canonists had wanted. The second draft of the document, circulated for comment in 2002, contained only 47 articles, and among them were at least two changes that theoretically would have made the process faster and easier.

First, article 35 of the 2002 draft would have allowed declarations of even one party, meaning the husband or wife, to constitute full proof of the nullity of the marriage. Under existing law, those declarations usually have to be supported by other proof, such as testimony from third-party witnesses. Many observers believe this reform would have been helpful especially in cases where the marriage dates back many years, and other proofs are hard to find.

In Dignitas Connubii, however, this provision is removed. One Roman canonist told NCR the logic was, "A marriage case is supposed to be about ascertaining the truth, and we all know that that the interested parties often have strong motives to lie."

Second, article 43 of the 2002 draft would also have dispensed with the requirement of a second finding in favor of annulment, most notably if the two parties and the church's own canonist were all in agreement. Dignitas Connubii, on the other hand, confirms the necessity of a favorable finding from a second court.

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.

Inside the Roman Curia, the evolution from the 2002 draft to Dignitas Connubii is seen as something of a defeat for Italian Cardinal Mario Pompedda, the head of the Apostolic Signatura, who spoke in favor of the earlier draft. Its revision in 2003 was instead entrusted to a group headed by Spanish Cardinal Julian Herranz, head of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts. Herranz is one of two Opus Dei cardinals.

At the Tuesday press conference, Herranz defended the church's right to subject failed marriages to a judicial examination before granting an annulment.

"Not to take an interest in this problem would be equivalent to obscuring in practice the sacramentality of matrimony," Herranz said. "That would be even less understandable in the present circumstances of confusion about the natural identity of marriage and the family in certain civil legislation, which not only welcomes and facilitates divorce, but in some cases puts in doubt heterosexuality as an essential aspect of matrimony."

Yes; however, divorces have been pursued because of the assured decree of nullity that is all but advertised by 'pastoral helpers'... Once the rubber stamp goes away people may be more likely to take up the cross in difficult situatins that often come to those who choose marriage as a vocation...

Precisely...when I read "lack hoped for reforms," I thought "too bad...they didn't crack down on this stuff." But, then I saw that the ones doing the hoping are the NCR staff...so it must be a pretty good document.

Once the rubber stamp goes away people may be more likely to take up the cross in difficult situatins that often come to those who choose marriage as a vocation...

But...but...but...THAT wasn't the "hoped for reforms" of the NCR and half the USCCB!

But...but...but...THAT wasn't the "hoped for reforms" of the NCR and half the USCCB!

LOL!

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."

It will be interesting to see how this all but rarely ignored but now stessed requirement will be objectively accomplished... It would appear that some actual marriage saving activities and efforts may have to happen within the typical family ministries that today seem pastorally preoccupied with only divorce, 'remarriage', step parenting, and 'annulment' preparation...

Yes; however, divorces have been pursued because of the assured decree of nullity that is all but advertised by 'pastoral helpers'...

The truth is, most Catholics know almost nothing about the annulment process, except that it is long and difficult. I disagree with your presumption.

This is actually a good thing, something which I made a case for in my response (differing grounds than what the petitioner plead).

Unfortunately, the first instance declaration I recieved is bogus and I wouldn't trust the second instance court here in NY with a 10 foot pole.

What would be great is if the Rota were able to expedite second instance cases.

I don't think this will stop second instance appeals to the Rota...

People go to the Rota because of baseless decisions for nullity, a lack of conformity to canon law, et cetera. This won't change. If the Rota overturns the first instance, it's a moot point and the petitioner has to start again.

In theory, what this could do is allow a second instance court to address any canonical problem of a first instance court. In theory, it should be a positive thing for a respondant.

The unfortunate thing is, in theory, this should already be happening. Instead, a majority of the time the second instance tribunals rubber stamp the first instance sentences.

This is actually a good thing, something which I made a case for in my response (differing grounds than what the petitioner plead).

Unfortunately, the first instance declaration I recieved is bogus and I wouldn't trust the second instance court here in NY with a 10 foot pole. (The problem is systemic, and second instance tribunals are not exempt.)

What would be great is if the Rota were able to expedite second instance cases.

>> assured decree of nullity that is all but advertised by 'pastoral helpers'...

This is all tooo true. The tribunal told the petition in my case that she had a slam dunk case. This emboldened her actions...

Having read the sentence, it was anything but slam dunk. Pure fabrication and judicial activism.....

Tribunal officals really need to stay neutral and simply process things, not advise petitioners.

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

The NCR types are not nearly sad enough. It's just like the declarations of horror from the abortion zealots that Roe v. Wade is in grave danger. They send up the distress signals whenever anyone so much as suggests that 12-year-olds should at least talk with their parents before the grandkids-in-the-womb are butchered.

Another positive aspect is that the Rota could determine nullity on other grounds (for a second instance).. Then a third instance tribunal would make the final decision and a couple could obtain an declaration for/against nullity which has solid grounds.

Why anyone would throw up endless appeals if a solid decision is reached is beyond me. This is good news to me as I know the reasons the first instance tribunal used in my own case were a joke.

My own case is at the Rota now, and I myself was dreading having to go back through the process when the Rota overturns the case (which they will). Now, hopefully the Rota will consider my own response, which has a much better basis for nullity, and make a decision that has "legs" so to speak -- regardless if it is for or against nullity. (I'm not sure if my arguments rise to the level of being "grave" -- that's for the Rota to determine, I just gave them my story.)

Who knows, I could be the first second instance case that the Rota has which finds grounds for nullity based upon the respondant's testimony...

The very same way it is addressed today.

Well -today the US Norm does not have a mandated positive requirement that must be objectively documented... SO maybe you suggest a new piece of paperwork that will be rubber stamped can effectively bypass such authentic activity?

Well -today the US Norm does not have a mandated positive requirement that must be objectively documented..

I doubt there's any requirement that a judge "objectively document" that he counseled a long-divorced couple to consider reconciliation, especially when it is the usual case that one party wants nothing to do with the annulment and has usually remarried someone else in a civil ceremony.

There are some that either by ignorance or defiance will persist in grave sin; regardless, the Church should not accomodate such activity upon moral relative basis that contravenes true justice... unjust divorce and subsequent 'remarriage' are but sin -period...

Well, true justice or not, it is folly to even pretend that most or even any of these marriages can be resurrected.

You may be right in a majority of these cases; however, there is eternal salvation or eternal damnation at stake -the Church must clearly show the proper path - more especially to the persistent sinners...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.