Hey, I have question about my pending annulment as I am anticipating a sentence of nullity but think it will be erroneous.

I've been spending some time doing research based on annual statistics published by the Church on how annullments are handled in the U.S. as opposed to how they are supposed to be handled, as taught by our Holy Father and the Roman Rota. I've also been reviewing the results of the Roman Rota decisions involving defective consent anulments appealed out of the U.S.

The numbers pretty much say it all. And this is for data compiled through 2001 and is a national average only. This only applies to ordinary process annulments, that is relating to a marriage between two baptized christians (at least one being Catholic), in front of a Catholic priest and having two witnesses present.

Here 'tis.

If you are filing a Petition for an ordinary process anulment to a tribunal in a U.S. diocese, you have a 97% chance that that the Petition will be accepted and also be granted an anulment.

Now here is the real kicker.

Out of all ordinary process annulment decrees of nullity appealled to Rome from U.S. tribunals since Vatican II and have been decided already, (this is not a typo) 97% have been overruled as being erroneous sentences of nullity and these marriages are instead declared valid.

What does this mean?

Well, in the U.S. tribunal's perspective, implicit to this is the presumption that many, if not most, of all christian marriages in the U.S. are inherently invalid. This means, that despite the potential availability of the sacrament of marriage, that the church is recognizing in itself a complete failure in preparing the faithful to receive the sacrament and its grace. Thus the 97% annullment rate would be justified.

On the other hand, according to the Roman Rota, the American Tribunal system is overwhelmingly wrong in its evaluation of marriage validity and is undermining the sacrament of marriage under the pretense of of being pastoral in order to restore divorced and remarried Catholics to access to the other sacraments. Thus the 97% reversal rate by the Roman Rota is justified.

This bothers me to no end, as you simply cannot have it both ways. Something is terribly wrong here. I don't know about you folks, but I'm aligning myself with Rome on this one.

Any thoughts?

-Pat Delaney at patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003

Answers

You are right, Pat. The American ecc.tribunals stink. That's it.

-- Marv Engelhart (MarvEn8@hotmail.com), March 29, 2003.

Hello Pat, we can I get information on these statistics?

That sounds terrible! It does not make sense that 97% of marriages are not valid, and if so, the Church in American seems quite incapable of adminstrating this sacrament! Either that, or 97 percent of the people are lying to get married. You have to consider that angle, and that would not make it the Church's fault.

I would tend to side with Rome and think that most marriages in the Church are valid, if people are being honest about it.

You should appeal to Rome, if you truly believe your marriage to be valid!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), March 29, 2003.

"Annulment is now a form of divorce in every way but name, and the church [hierarchy] refusal to acknowledge this is deeply corrupting. Moreover, the Catholic annulment procedures hurt children, are cruel to former spouses, force applicants to misrepresent the past, mock well-meaning priests, and drive many thousands out of the church. It is a disaster."

- James Carroll,author of Constantine's Sword, (pub. 2001) Boston Globe, May 13, 1997

-- Hardy (hardy@har.har), March 30, 2003.

Hardy - I read Constantine's Sword and enjoyed it very much. Another by the same author is " How the Irish Saved Civilazation " I think was/is the title. Fascinating account of a period in history.

As to the stats on marriage - this does not make sense in any manner whatsoever. Often the deciding votes are personal and jaded. Our diocese is very hard on Catholics as our Bishop adheres to justified " laws " extending grief of a youthful decision by some.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), March 30, 2003.

Pat,

You must do what your heart tells you and pursue what is right irregardless of the obstacles. Truth will win out...

Take a look here for some enlightening commentary from 'insiders' regarding Tribunals: http://canonlaw.blogspot.com/2002_06_02_canonlaw_archive.html

FYI - A quote from the link

"You also failed to cover the "affirmative decision" mentality that pervades the Tribunals of the United States. The fact that respondents who wish to uphold the validity of their marriage (you know, the ones who believe in Church teachings) are treated like garbage by many Tribunals, and "managed" by most others - very few Tribunals tell Respondents all their rights, and very, very few tell them how best to contest an annulment. People wanting to uphold the validity of their marriage are almost universally treated as "trouble- makers" by Tribunals. I have been to workshops where the goal was to show you how to tell Respondents that an annulment was in there best interest!"

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 31, 2003.

(topping)

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 03, 2003.

Jmj
Ladies and gentlemen:

Many years ago, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (quoted later by Mark Twain) stated:
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
This thread is a perfect embodiment of Disraeli's comment, because Pat Delaney (probably accidentally) has used statistics to "prove" some non-truths, and others of you have fallen for the non-truths.

Before I explain why Pat's numbers can't be trusted, I want to start by expressing a healthy skepticism about the numbers themselves. Pat says: "I've been spending some time doing research based on annual statistics published by the Church on how annullments are handled in the U.S. as opposed to how they are supposed to be handled, as taught by our Holy Father and the Roman Rota. I've also been reviewing the results of the Roman Rota decisions involving defective consent anulments appealed out of the U.S.."

Pat then proceeds to give some numbers, but he never says where he found these things -- so that his work can be checked. None of us knows Pat (a new visitor to the forum), so, for all we know, Pat could have made these number up out of his head, simply because he has an agenda to make the Catholic Church look bad. [I'm not saying that this is true, but only that it could be.] Had he wanted to be seen as worthy of trust, it would have served Pat well to give the names/dates/authors of publications from which he got his numbers. [In almost 20 years of reading about such matters, I have not become aware of the publication of such statistics. If they are available, then I'd like to know where.]

Now, for the rest of my message, I will assume that Pat's two numbers (each 97%) are valid.
What do they prove?
Not what Pat alleges that they prove.

Here's what I mean. [Before I start, let me say that I will use the term "Catholic marriages" to refer to what Pat has talked about -- marriages of baptized persons, at least one of whom is Catholic.]
(1) He starts by saying, "If you are filing a petition for an ordinary process annulment to a tribunal in a U.S. diocese, you have a 97% chance that that the petition will be accepted and also be granted an annulment."

From these words, some people jump to the conclusion that U.S. tribunals think that 97% of all Catholic marriages are invalid -- and would be judged so if brought before them. That is a false conclusion to draw -- a conclusion that comes from reading not carefully enough!

The high percentage of Declarations of Nullity granted applies only to those cases that are actually brought to tribunals' attention. It has nothing to do with the millions of marriages that are not brought before tribunals. A percentage that would be meaningful, therefore, would be one that is derived from an equation involving (a) the number of nullity-declarations divided by (b) the number of all Catholic marriages entered into by people who are now living. If I had to guess, I would guess that such a meaningful percentage would be between 10% and 30% -- not the misleading 97%.

(2) The other area of deception in Pat's "statistics" is the second 97%, about which he stated: "Out of all ordinary process annulment decrees of nullity appealed to Rome from U.S. tribunals since Vatican II and have been decided already, ... 97% have been overruled as being erroneous sentences of nullity, and these marriages are instead declared valid."

This has obviously misled several people into thinking that tribunals are constantly being reversed, that they have no idea what they are doing, that the married laity are subject to abuse and injustice, etc.. These are all false conclusions -- again coming from not reading carefully enough.

The truth is this ...
----- When an original tribunal judges in favor of nullity, the case is automatically appealed to a second tribunal in another Catholic diocese.
----- If the second tribunal also judges in favor of nullity, the case is usually closed, with neither "spouse" exercising his/her right to appeal. (In rare cases, a party does appeal to the Vatican.)
----- But if the appeals tribunal judges in favor of validity (contradicting the original tribunal), the case is automatically appealed to the Vatican. THESE are the cases to which Pat is referring. In these difficult cases, which are quite limited in number, the "Roman Rota" almost always decides in favor of validity (if Pat's "statistics" are accurate).

From this, we can see that the tribunal system is working:
(1) rare errors made by the first tribunal are corrected by the subsequent two-stage appeals process;
(2) the vast majority of decisions made by the first tribunal are confirmed by the second tribunal (and are not appealed).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 04, 2003.

John,

Read this: http://www.familylifecenter.net/txt/annulments-in- america.html

-wake up...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 04, 2003.

John,

It is good to finally hear from you. But please, do not put words into my mouth. And I do not misrepresent the truth, either intentionally or out of accident.

The numbers I have given are completely true and derived from veritable sources. The Church herself, in Rome, publishes this information based upon the required reporting requirements. My numbers come from there and through various publications, including the works of Robert Vasoli who Dan has quoted in his "wake up" message.

Bob Vasoli, who is a friend, has a bit of an axe to grind, and appears a bit sarcastic. I won't succumb to that same sentiment. But his own statistical research is verifiable and authoritative.

I will be publishing my findings soon, so that they can be completely footnoted and attributed. I'm hoping that these numbers can be well scrutinized and appreciated by you and other "true believing" American canoninsts who appear to have lost your way a bit, most probably out of pastoral concerns.

But the road to hell is broad and wide, and paved with good intentions.

Our Lord himself has said "I am the way, the truth and the life." Our Holy Father John Paul, the only authoritative legislator, mirrored this teaching in his speach to the Roman Rota in 2002. He also reflects the need for pastoral concern, but only in the light of truth.

See Point 6 of the Rota Speech (2002)

"It is true that the declaration of the nullity of a marriage, based on the truth acquired by means of a legitimate process, restores peace to the conscience, but such a declaration - and the same holds true for the dissolution of a marriage that is ratum non consummatum or a dissolution based upon the privilege of the faith - must be presented and effected in an ecclesial context that is totally favourable to the indissolubility of marriage and to family founded upon it. The spouses themselves must be the first to realize that only in the loyal quest for the truth can they find their true good, without excluding a priori the possible convalidation of a union that, although it is not yet a sacramental marriage, contains elements of good, for themselves and their children, that should be carefully evaluated in conscience before reaching a different decision."

I am one of those spouses, and I have sought the truth. And given that my ability to make the most profound promise of my life has been questioned by an American Tribunal (the Arlington Diocese), I have made it my business to find out what the truth really is here.

What I have uncovered is, in my impression, a scandal of immense proportions. It strikes even deeper than the current scandal with homosexual priests abusing young boys. While the sins commited by those priests, and the sins of omission by their superiors in managing these priests, are basically failures of individual judgement, what I am finding here in american tribunals is a systematic failure in the administration of marriage among the faithful.

And it is a primary mission of the church to administer those sacraments.

So you WILL be hearing more of me. Perhaps not on this little forum, but among a wider audience. In the meantime, I know how difficult it may be to realize the work you have devoted yourself to, to some extent is misdirected. I will pray for you and hope you will find some consolation in considering the words of our Holy father, as I have.

Patrick R. Delaney

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), April 05, 2003.

John,

It is good to finally hear from you. But please, do not put words into my mouth. And I do not misrepresent the truth, either intentionally or out of accident.

The numbers I have given are completely true and derived from veritable sources. The Church herself, in Rome, publishes this information based upon the required reporting requirements. My numbers come from there and through various publications, including the works of Robert Vasoli who Dan has quoted in his "wake up" message.

Bob Vasoli, who is a friend, has a bit of an axe to grind, and appears a bit sarcastic. I won't succumb to that same sentiment. But his own statistical research is verifiable and authoritative.

I will be publishing my findings soon, so that they can be completely footnoted and attributed. I'm hoping that these numbers can be well scrutinized and appreciated by you and other "true believing" American canoninsts who appear to have lost your way a bit, most probably out of pastoral concerns.

But the road to hell is broad and wide, and paved with good intentions.

Our Lord himself has said "I am the way, the truth and the life." Our Holy Father John Paul, the only authoritative legislator, mirrored this teaching in his speach to the Roman Rota in 2002. He also reflects the need for pastoral concern, but only in the light of truth.

See Point 6 of the Rota Speech (2002)

"It is true that the declaration of the nullity of a marriage, based on the truth acquired by means of a legitimate process, restores peace to the conscience, but such a declaration - and the same holds true for the dissolution of a marriage that is ratum non consummatum or a dissolution based upon the privilege of the faith - must be presented and effected in an ecclesial context that is totally favourable to the indissolubility of marriage and to family founded upon it. The spouses themselves must be the first to realize that only in the loyal quest for the truth can they find their true good, without excluding a priori the possible convalidation of a union that, although it is not yet a sacramental marriage, contains elements of good, for themselves and their children, that should be carefully evaluated in conscience before reaching a different decision."

I am one of those spouses, and I have sought the truth. And given that my ability to make the most profound promise of my life has been questioned by an American Tribunal (the Arlington Diocese), I have made it my business to find out what the truth really is here.

What I have uncovered is, in my impression, a scandal of immense proportions. It strikes even deeper than the current scandal with homosexual priests abusing young boys. While the sins commited by those priests, and the sins of omission by their superiors in managing these priests, are basically failures of individual judgement, what I am finding here in american tribunals is a systematic failure in the administration of marriage among the faithful.

And it is a primary mission of the church to administer those sacraments.

So you WILL be hearing more of me. Perhaps not on this little forum, but among a wider audience. In the meantime, I know how difficult it may be to realize the work you have devoted yourself to, to some extent is misdirected. I will pray for you and hope you will find some consolation in considering the words of our Holy Father, as I have.

Patrick R. Delaney

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), April 06, 2003.

I too am one of those spouses, and I too have sought the truth.

What I have found and am finding in my experience with an American Tribunal (the Orlando Diocese) is much as both Pat & Bob state.

However, in my case the 'failure' is not just limited to the failure of the Tribunal. The failure in the administration of our marriage sacrament extends beyond the Tribunal to a failure 'prior' to our Civil Divorce -a failure that I consider the catalyst which led to our Civil Divorce...

Any one ever hear of 'bad therapy'? Feel good or individual therapy that by its very nature goes against God?

The 'church' has outsourced many activities, some of which are now done by Catholic Social Services. Catholic Social Services is secular in spite of its name... AND particular to my case I found that the church 'funded' Catholic Social Services does not screen or qualify its 'marriage' therapists to assure they contribute to or mirror the church in the administration of marriage/family etc.

One of these Catholic funded 'experts' destroyed my marriage - These phsychiatric/psychological 'experts', are also the same 'experts' that 'contribute' 'expert' testimony to Tribunals...

Read here about results of bad therapy/therapists: HOW THERAPY CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR MARITAL HEALTH http://www.smartmarriage.com/hazardous.html

I found it shocking that the 'church' in essence (albeit by negligience at a minimum) destroyed my relationship with my wife and I found it even more shocking that the Tribunal wished to 'rubber stamp' the destruction...

The more I find -the more shocked & disgusted I am becoming...

I too am sure I will have to appeal to Rome :)

I will be emailing you Pat.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 06, 2003.

Good luck to you, sir (Daniel/Pat).
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), April 07, 2003.

My ex-wife filed for an annulment and I chose to participate. Boiling down the statistics to meaningful numbers (working with a 95% affirmative rate) for every 20 petitions only 1 finds the marriage valid. Well consider the surprise my ex-wife had when her annulment petition determined our marriage was valid?

My annulment included several unique circumstances that all tilted the process into my favor.

1) My ex-wife was caught lieing in her questionaire. Nothing gray about it. It was a complete black and white lie. She had mentioned how her mother would pray for her soul every day if she ever remarried without getting an annulment first. She was engaged about two months after she filed the petition and married by a justice of the peace 5 months later. My part of the documentation involved at the Archdiocese highlighted that fact. And I made a note of how she married a client and that their relationship started long before our divorce was final.

2) The original administrator of the petition quit.

3) The person in the Tribunal that took over the petition was supposed to be my advocate, but she told me she would much rather be the administrator of the petition if that was okay with me. Of course...

4) My advocate wrote a very strong brief

5) For the last 6 months of the processing of the petition I let it be known at every possible opportunity that if the decision was made in the First Instance that our marriage was invalid I intended to have the Second Instance at the Rota.

In hindsight, my exwife's petition was hardly 'fair'. I bought a few books and read much on the internet. We discussed the annulment very briefly. I gave up after she was firm in her belief that two annulments were going on. One for her and one for me. She expressed dismay that she had to pay for hers and I got mine for 'free'. When I suggested we were sharing the same petition she told me I was wrong. Everything she and her witnesses wrote was under the assumption I would never see it. I even pointed out where her witnesses were lieing in my rebuttal.

In closing, don't wait until a Tribunal in the U.S. produces a second instance finding that your marriage was invalid. Do whatever you need to do to get the second instance at the Rota. The keyword is "aggrieved".

-- Lester Morgan (e5airforce@yahoo.com), April 24, 2003.

Amen Lester. Nice to hear some truth winning out. The certainty of a Rotal appeal puts some fear in those who find annulments so "healing"!

KArl

-- Karl (parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), April 27, 2003.

My opinion is that the 'healing' related to the annulment process is heaped upon the petitioner. In my case, the petitioner undermined her own healing process by wholeheartedly deciding to include lies in her testimony. My 'healing' came after the first instance confirmed the validity of our marriage in question.

I suppose I should clarify my number crunching and how it is important to individuals involved in the annulment process. I started the process myself armed to the teeth with statistics off of the internet. By city, by state, by region, by country, you name it I stumbled across it on the internet. Utterly overwhelming in terms of proceding through a process that seemingly has a predetermined outcome. But then again there was another way I choose to look at the annulment process.

I figured the large Archdiocese's jurisdiction I fell under initiated 40 new annulment petitions on a monthly basis. That being determined by my case number. So working with my ballpark figure that for every 20 annulments filed one marriage would be found valid, I figured two petitions in the month my ex-wife filed would be found valid. I decided to make my ex-wife's petition one of them. After removing myself from dealing with a scale involving hundreds and thousands of annulments, I gained a strange feeling of control.

I decided that of the pile of 40 petitions all sharing the same basic lifecycle I would make my ex-wife's the loudest and most squeaky wheel. This particular tribunal had to have known that I could have made them look like fools if they rendered the marriage invalid and sent it to the Rota for a Second Instance. The testimony I refuted was really, really pathetic. The folder my ex-wife's petition was in as it was being passed from desk to desk had 'doom' written all over it. Mainly because I made it so.

Blustering, posturing and a bit of luck managed to reject a 'search for the truth' that was built upon a pile of lies from my X.

-- Lester Morgan (e5airforce@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Daniel/Karl/Pat/etc.

Really, it's useless at this point. You are not dealing with some simpleton here. There is no use trotting out any more of these "incarnations" of yourself -- this time, Lester -- to try to fool people into thinking that your experiences and shenanigans are widespread. I can tell, from things you say (your "fingerprints"), that all these phony messages are coming from the same guy.

You may as well give it up. You will have no effect on anyone here. People can just sense that you are inventing all these stories (except the basic, original one that is your real life).

You are a very unwell man. May God help you to overcome your obsession.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.

John,

Have you read Robert Vasoli's book regarding annulments? Have you read some of Cormac Burke's works where he says that there are too many annulments being granted on the wrong grounds? He favors some investigations regarding simulation, rather than lack of discretion?

My first instance decision occurred in Iowa. It ruled in favor of nullity. Within six months, Msgr.Cormac Burke, Bishop Doran(when he was a rotal judge) and Msgr. Boccafola vacated that decision and convened a second instance hearing. In 1997 Burke, Daniel Faltin(in place of Doran who had been named bishop of Rockford, Ill.)and Boccafola ruled in favor of the sacrament. In 2002 December Msgr. Anthony Stankiewicz, Ponens, notified me that the third instance decision had been reached in favor of the sacrament. The decision was pronounced but is still awaiting publishing. You can check all the name out they are real as are the decisions. It is my experiences along the way that I speak from with certainty and from speaking with others with similar experiences. I PRESUME what they tell me is true. I attest to the veracity of my own experiences. I am not anyone but Karl and if there are people putting things in here under multiple names then I wish they would stop. I can only hope what is stated to be true, really is, but I have no way of knowing that except in the case where I speak from personal experiences. Personally, I believe each of the contributors which seem to be annoying to you John is a different person. If they are not then I have no knowledge of it. Thanks.

Karl

-- Karl (parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), April 29, 2003.

ONE CORRECTION:

Daniel Faltin replaced Bishop Doran between the 1994 vacating of the Iowan decision and the 1997 second instance decision. Sorry!

Karl

-- KARL (PARKERKAJWEN@HOTMAIL.COM), April 29, 2003.

John,

It's been a while since I have been a direct witness to a knowitall in a discussion that can determine "incarnations" by use of "fingerprints" and then procede to extend a blessing towards my being "unwell".

There is no invention in my story. My contribution here is to look at annulments in blocks of 20. Check my math...

Null Valid 19 1 19 1 19 1 19 1 19 1 ==== === 95 + 5 = 100

My point is to 'think locally, not globally' in terms of defending yourself in an annulment.

BTW - I have corresponded with Mr. Vasoli. Of course, that was with my real name. The pseudo here is for the sake of internet psychos like you John...

-- Lester Morgan (e5airforce@yahoo.com), April 29, 2003.

Lester,

I emailed you with a question.

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 04, 2003.

"If you are filing a Petition for an ordinary process anulment to a tribunal in a U.S. diocese, you have a 97% chance that that the Petition will be accepted and also be granted an anulment."

That is because, by and large, the USAmerican Catholic Church (as it should be called), is a laughing stock. The USAmerican Catholic Church would do just about anything to fill the pews. Our society (American in general) has lost the importance of quality and honesty, and looks only for quantity. This effects Catholics in the US. You can see this fact everytime you look outside.

"that the church is recognizing in itself a complete failure in preparing the faithful to receive the sacrament and its grace. "

Amen. That can't be screamed from rooftops loud enough.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 04, 2003.

I consider the American Catholic Church to be an annulment 'factory'. Each tribunal office has just so many 'workers' to produce either 'product-V' (any given marriage in question was valid) or 'product-I' (any given marriage in question was invalid).

Product-I is what each tribunal is tooled up to produce in large quantities.

Product-V is NOT what tribunals in the ACC like to produce.

If you were to divide the number of petitions that any given tribunal office processes in a year by the number of 'workers' Catholics would be amazed at the incredibly small number of 'man-hours' each petition consumes as the 'products' are produced.

In my opinion, in no way, shape or form is the ACC equipped to give each annulment petition the attention it deserves. Hence, appeals to the Rota are a must.

-- Lester Morgan (e5airforce@yahoo.com), May 05, 2003.

Very much agreed Lester.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 05, 2003.

-Just dusting this one off -never too much truth...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 19, 2003.

Better to have left this one in the dust, Mr. Dingleberry.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 19, 2003.

John,

Continue exposing your egotistical evil driven counter Church underbelly...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 20, 2003.

One of the Canon Laws states that a respondent can request a tribunal at the first instance, otherwise only one judge is necessary. The question is: since a decision in favor of nullity is almost certain by one judge would a three judge decision in favor of nullity be more detrimental to an appeal to the Roman Rota for the second instance?

-- David Neil (summertime@ns.sympatico.ca), June 23, 2003.

Speaking from experience, Rome, reviews the case to see if it follows the standards of authenitc canon law and then proceeds with the case. The number of judges has really nothing to do with the Rota's actions. It is the quality of the decision which it is concerned with. In my case, within five months the American decision was rejected by the Rota with a sizeable rebuttle then our case was heard completely, in the second instance, which took about three years. The first positive decision was countered when the second instance decision was issued in the negative. The third instance decision was reached in our case last year and pronounced as negative, in favor of the sacrament but we still await its publishing which I am told may take years.

But, although what is a sacrament has been completely obliterated at least its ghost remains, for what it is worth. It certainly means nothing to my children or their mother or the rest of the Catholic Church for that matter.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), June 24, 2003.

Pat Delaney here. Hello to all, including John Gecik (spelled it right John..God Bless you in advance).

Last April of this year, I had determined by myself that my sacramental marriage was valid. Being a lawyer and with sufficient resources in Roman Rota jurisprudence at the Catholic University of America, I did an analysis of Canon 1095 on the facts in my case. I drafted an amicus brief and submitted it to the collegiate panel at the Arlington Tribunal.

There is simply no way that my marriage is invalid. Both my wife and I are and were well rounded adults and highly educated. There are no other impediments and the marriage was examined under Canon 1095 for potential defective consent.

Still no news! I did ask to have the petition withdrawn last month since I already an answer, but the Arlington tribunal refused my request and said they will proceed, but still no answer.

My question is: "How much longer can they sit on this?" The petition was originally filed over two years ago, and the case has been complete and sitting on the judges list for almost six months. As an aside, my Bishop, Bishop Loverde, was actually publicly disgraced by a woman who wanted to complain about how long the Arlington Tribunal takes to come up with a decision. This happened just last month at this function called Theology on Tap in Arlington VA. I wasn't there, and I hear the woman was a bit of a nut. But I understand her frustration.

Any suggestions to get things moving? I'm actually going to Rome in November and would be willing to meet with the Dean of the Rota for intervention if that would be helpful.

Pat Delaney (me and only me..John)

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), September 02, 2003.

Pat,

I do not have a specific answer but do know that you always can petition Rome in such matters..

Is my understanding correct that US Tribunals usually just issue a 'not enough evidence' type of finding if a declaration of nullity can not be proven rather than a formal decision in favor of the marriage bond?

My understanding is that this non definitive type declaration (even though presumption is validity) leaves the door open to pursuit or pastorally suggested yet invalid 'internal forum solution'? As such, is it best to not only contest but also seek a formal decision in favor of the bond?

Additionally, I would not mind getting my hands on an expunged copy of your amicus brief as an example to pass on to my canon lawyer.

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 02, 2003.

Appeal to the Roman Rota does not cost too much but may take some time...

--

Just posting to add to the discussion - this regarding 'cost' & 'time' to appeal to the Roman Rota & to help dispell any myths that may be promulgated by some.

My hope -that justice is done...

Following is a link to a recent discussion on the subject that CLSA (CANON LAW SOCIETY OF AMERICA) Officers had with His Excellency Msgr. Raffaello Funghini, Dean of the College of Auditors of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota.

CLSA September 2002 Newsletter

And a pertinent quote: "Msgr. Funghini pointed out that there are two concerns about the Rota which appear in the press: cases before the Rota cost too much, and, secondly, cases take too long to process. The first complaint he considers inaccurate. 69% of cases are processed without cost to the parties. He is pleased with the arrangement with the United States' bishops whereby an ex officio Rotal Advocate is given to the parties without fee and the diocese contributes the US$800.00 to the Rota. He says that 70% of the parties do not pay a penny to the Rota. Often the Rota receives no payment at all for a particular case. For example, the Rota will only use psychiatrists (as opposed to psychologists). Each professional report done for a case at the Rota costs approximately US$750.00.

Concerning the second complaint about the Rota, the length of case, Msgr. Fungini pointed out that this was a practical and pressing problem because the judges are too few in number at the Rota. Length of time is also complicated by the nature of the work being undertaken. For example, article 126 of Pastor Bonus provides the Rota with its guiding principles. There small number of judges at the Rota must provide jurisprudence for other tribunals. Time is also affected by other factors: second and third instance cases are often more confusing to process. One party may be less than willing to participate and delay is inevitable. Secondly, Rotal judges do not travel; therefore, it is necessary to use rogatories to take depositions. The time involved to prepare questions and translate them into languages is significant. For example, there are a number of languages which cause extra time: Arabic, Polish, and Romanian. All of the above prolong a case. Today, there are 397 cases pending from America (United States, Canada, and Mexico) and 108 cases have already arrived in 2002, of which 35 of these were from the United States of America."

P.S. Thank you Pat!

Sincerely in Christ,

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 12, 2003.