Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New annulment norms (issued today) lack hoped for reforms
National Catholic Reporter ^ | 2/8/2005 | John L. Allen

Posted on 02/08/2005 9:50:13 AM PST by sinkspur

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.

************

Annulment Step-by-Step

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.

6. If the two courts are split, the case goes to the Rota in Rome.

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.

That instance concerns a canonical principle known as "conformity."

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."


TOPICS: Catholic; General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: annulment; canonlaw; catholicchurch; holymatrimony; marriage; matrimony
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: sinkspur


Thanks for your reply.
You write clearly. :)


41 posted on 02/08/2005 3:00:50 PM PST by onyx ("First you look to God, then to Fox News" -- Denny Crane, Republican...lol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: onyx

Thanks. I try.


42 posted on 02/08/2005 3:03:07 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Thanks for posting.


43 posted on 02/08/2005 4:09:10 PM PST by visualops
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The whole annulment process is such BS! It has nothing to do with God, The Church or marriage and everything to do with money, power and position. My wife was granted a quick annulment on form because she and her first husband who she married at 18 were never married in a church, so thirteen years later when we married we had no problem marrying before God's altar.

On the other hand, I have known friends who were abused by drunken first husbands who ultimately found and married men who truly cherished them, but could not get an annulment without first getting a note from God signed in blood, or so it seemed.

My sister's husband married way to young to a woman who didn't want children and they ultimately went their separate ways. A decade later he married my sister and they have two really good kids. Unfortunately, my sister was not able to marry in the church.

Kerry's and Kennedy's and numerous High Holy Catholic New York and Boston politicians seem to be able to get very quick annulments even as their children from their first marriage turn the age of majority. What's wrong with this picture? The church.

Which is why I have gladly joined the largest growing relgious organization in the world, Irish Catholic Non Practicing.
44 posted on 02/08/2005 5:20:10 PM PST by markedman (Lay me down to a watery grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markedman
You have a distorted view of annulments. It is not about money, or power.

Catholics who marry in the Church (or non-Catholics who marry in their Churches) are presumed to be validly married. If a divorce occurs, and one of the partners desires remarriage, that first marriage has to be investigated for validity.

It is not true that the Kennedy's get "quickie" annulments. Robert Kennedy's annulment took over two years, which is about the average time for a case to work its way throught the process.

I suspect you're not practicing for other reasons, and use this is a convenient foil.

45 posted on 02/08/2005 5:26:33 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"You have a distorted view of annulments. It is not about money, or power."

That's nonsense, and naieve! And widely joke about in the Boston Arch Diocese. I've been around The Church my whole life. My Sister is an SSND and my parents are deacons. I was educated at the undergraduate level by the reverent and revered RHSM and at the Graduate level by the Jesuits, both organizations who practice what they preach, unlike the majority of Diocese.

Sure I have plenty of bones to pick with The Church and those who supposedly act in their name. Yes I was severely abused by Charity nuns in grammar school like many who studied under them. And I have been read last rites twice by priests who seemed more interested in the more prurient aspects of my "last confession" as I was a Navy Sailor in the 7th Fleet. My grandfather was in the Irish Republican Army which helped free Ireland so that The Church could put a strangle hold around the neck of the country, despite the fact that they had initially agreed to excommunicate all members of the IRA.

So yeah, I have my issues as well good memories of those that practice what Jesus taught. But as far as marriage and annulments go, It IS all about money, position and power. Maybe you are not aware of, or are unfamiliar with experiences of those of lesser fortunes or breeding who try to seek annulments, but I'm not, nor is God or I fooled by this Roman mumbo jumbo. It has no more validity than Limbo.

Jesus knows what's in the hearts of men, that's good enough for me.
46 posted on 02/08/2005 5:45:10 PM PST by markedman (Lay me down to a watery grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: markedman
My Sister is an SSND and my parents are deacons.

Your mother can't be a deacon.

I am a deacon, and worked in the marriage tribunal of my diocese for ten years. I can't speak to your tribunal; I can only speak to mine.

You are associating the Church with sinful human beings instead of associating it with the Eucharist and the Good Lord.

Perhaps you'll return some day.

47 posted on 02/08/2005 5:49:29 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Sorry I believe the PC term for women on the altar now is Eucharistic Minister. And yes, my sister, Sister Mary is SSND. I forgot to add that my older brother did study in the minor seminary at Seton Hall.

"You are associating the Church with sinful human beings instead of associating it with the Eucharist and the Good Lord."

No, sinful human beings are associating themselves with The Church. God is God no matter what man says or does, and God makes the ultimate rules, not man, not the Tribunal.

To be honest, we had absolutely no problem getting an annulment. My wife's first husband was not Catholic and they were married in a Civil Service. The Arch Diocese of New York never even batted and eye. My friends who I attended the RSHM College with were dragged through the mud and numerous letters, papers, essays and what nots. They gave up on the church, but not God.

After the recent abuse scandal and all of the Bishops complicity in these crimes (My local parish here in South Jersey actually helped their little pedophile escape to the Philippines) and John Kerry's annulment, I'm done with Rome. Like my friends I have not given up on God and did not give up on the church, they gave up.
48 posted on 02/08/2005 6:24:38 PM PST by markedman (Lay me down to a watery grave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: markedman
No, sinful human beings are associating themselves with The Church. God is God no matter what man says or does, and God makes the ultimate rules, not man, not the Tribunal.

Well, The Church was made for man, not man for the Church.

And God uses sinful human beings to represent Him, and to stand in His place in the Church.

There's something else going on with you, and I will pray for you.

49 posted on 02/08/2005 6:34:31 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; All

>>There's something else going on with you, and I will pray for you.

Apparently, sink is the only sane one here and is glad to make a psychological diagnosis via threads.


50 posted on 02/08/2005 7:27:01 PM PST by 1stFreedom (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
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.

What? Still no drive thru annulment windows? How out of touch with our Amrican cuture, fast food and convience.

51 posted on 02/08/2005 7:28:42 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Route-82.blogspot.com - "I can't help it, there I go again" and you should go there too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom

This guy left the Church. You think it's OK to leave the Church?


52 posted on 02/08/2005 7:34:41 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

No I don't...

But you do have a habit of analyzing people's problems.....

My mistake for jumping the gun..


53 posted on 02/08/2005 7:36:49 PM PST by 1stFreedom (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom
But you do have a habit of analyzing people's problems.....

I've encountered enough ex-Catholics to know that those who say they've left because of annulments didn't leave because of annulments.

I also know that people who contest annulments usually do so to get back at their ex-spouses.

That's not "analyzing problems." It's experience.

54 posted on 02/08/2005 7:50:09 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom; sinkspur

">>There's something else going on with you, and I will pray for you.

Apparently, sink is the only sane one here and is glad to make a psychological diagnosis via threads."

Since when does a comment such as the above constitute a psychological diagnosis?
Although I frquently disagree with the Deacon. He is right on target with the annulment issue. I get really tired of the b.s. that people say about annulments being linked to contributions and all the other crap.I have known several folks who have received annulments who were asked for a $300 contribution if they felt they could afford it.
My brother-in-law (a highly educated professional) works his posterior off gratis in the evening and weekend to provide essentially free services to help folks whose future in the church is in large measure decided by the folks who work these tribunals. These folks do not deserve the bad-moulthing they get from people who should know better.


55 posted on 02/08/2005 8:54:11 PM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rogator

Thank you.


56 posted on 02/08/2005 9:17:03 PM PST by sinkspur ("Preach the gospel. If necessary, use words.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: rogator; All

This document was created due to the many problems which happen at the local tribunals. It wasn't created becasue things were going smoothly -- it was created because all kinds of shanangans which ocurr on the local level.

Many people have worked long hard hours, free of charge, to push baloney cases through tribunals.

Hopefully, this document will provide much needed guidance to make sure things run smoothly. But something tells me that things should be running smoothly already, but they aren't. If someone doesn't want to follow canon law, why would they follow this document?

The problem is systemic and the Vatican is spinning it's wheels trying to make 1095.2 work, but instead they should just drop 1095.2. Not that it isn't good, but it has provided the biggest loophole on earth for annulments. (Ie, it's a good law but highly abused.)

Better to close it off than to have unjust declarations of nullity. (Supposedly, section 209 of this document deals with this problem, but I suspect many tribunals will ignore it.)

I wouldn't say sink is "right on" about annulments -- I'd say he's 75% there. (I recall him NOT telling a woman who wasn't annuled not to get remarried...she did remarry as far as I know... That's not right on, is it? Jesus didn't think so..)


57 posted on 02/09/2005 4:54:00 AM PST by 1stFreedom (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: 1stFreedom

"I wouldn't say sink is "right on" about annulments -- I'd say he's 75% there. (I recall him NOT telling a woman who wasn't annuled not to get remarried...she did remarry as far as I know... That's not right on, is it? Jesus didn't think so..)"

I presume the comment to which you are referring occurred some time ago in another thread.
This being the case, I cannot comment on what I have not seen.
The fact that some marriages are not annuled shows that the process is not merely a rubber stamp.
The allegation that tribunals are influenced by contributions is (at least as far as the several folks I know who have been involved) total b.s.

There is much to criticize regarding the way our church is operated by the many false shephards who occupy positions of power and I would certainly concede the possibility of some tribunal irregularities in some dioceses. However, unlike the rampant liturgical abuse, pervert padres and bishops, and sorry state of Catholic education which I see continuously, I have seen no evidence that the tribunal process is intrinsically corrupt. Considering the lack of knowledge displayed by today's Catholics regarding marriage and the sacraments in general as well as the prevailing societal ethic regarding the procreation of children, I am surprised that there are not more annulments.


58 posted on 02/09/2005 8:32:19 AM PST by rogator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rogator; All

>>The fact that some marriages are not annuled shows that the process is not merely a rubber stamp.

It depends on the Diocese. In some dioceses, it is hard to get an annulment, in others it's very easy. Some people have been known to change the diocese when persuing a declaration of nullity, their petition having been denied in their own.

The rubber stamping typically occurs in dioceses where the standards for getting one are lowered (aka the generic "lack of discretion" loophole). The policy the Bishop chooses to implement is enforced at both the first and second instances. Rubber stamping is merely a symptom of a diocesan policy. (If a Bishop want's a low standard for annulments, the second instance will follow his lead..)

Don't think for a minute the Bishops don't know what is going on or that they don't try to effect change locally despite Canon law. It just isn't made public, but it is put into practice.

>>The allegation that tribunals are influenced by contributions is (at least as far as the several folks I know who have been involved) total b.s.

This I cannot address other than to say to my knowledge this is baloney. We agree on this point.

>> I have seen no evidence that the tribunal process is intrinsically corrupt.

The process isn't corrupt -- the policy and people are. Big difference. The process on paper, is just fine. It's those who by practice, pervert it.

>>Considering the lack of knowledge displayed by today's Catholics regarding marriage and the sacraments in general as well as the prevailing societal ethic regarding the procreation of children, I am surprised that there are not more annulments.

I'm not. Most people sign Catholic premarital pre-nuptual papers in which they agree with the required essential obligations of marriage. If they didn't know them before, they do once the sign the papers. (This eliminates a 1095.2 claim, but leaves open a claim on simulation.)

Think of the reformation (Catholic, not Luthor's) -- there were tons of corrupt people corrupting the practices of the faith. The practices themselves were not corrupt, just those who implemented them.


59 posted on 02/09/2005 8:47:10 AM PST by 1stFreedom (1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson