Continuing Education for Advocates and Priests METROPOLITAN TRIBUNAL - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Continuing Education for Advocates and Priests METROPOLITAN TRIBUNAL AND OFFICE OF CANONICAL AFFAIRS SEPTEMBER 2017 Very Rev. Giovanni Capucci, JCD, JV, Mr. Carlos Venegas, JCL Mr. Steven Hancock, JD, JCL, Mr. Anthony St. Louis-Sanchez, MA, JCL
Very Rev. Giovanni Capucci, JCD, JV, Mr. Carlos Venegas, JCL
Sister Francisca Igweilo, OP, JCL
I. State of the Tribunal
T he Me tro po lita n T rib una l is the vic a ria te e sta b lishe d b y Ca no n L a w a s the judic ia l a rm o f the Arc hb isho p’ s Go ve rnme nt
the Arc hdio c e se . As suc h, it is the c o urt syste m o f the Churc h a nd the c a no nic a l fo rum fo r the re so lutio n o f le g a l q ue stio ns a rising fro m the a c tivity o f the Churc h a nd o f the F a ithful. T he Me tro po lita n T rib una l ho use s the first I nsta nc e Co urt o f De nve r, a s we ll a s the a ppe a ls c o urt fo r the pro vinc e , whic h inc lude s the dio c e se s o f Che ye nne , Pue b lo a nd Co lo ra do Spring s. By de le g a tio n, the trib una l a lso ha ndle s a ll ma tte rs
ma rria g e .
T he Me tr
r ibunal
T he Offic e o f Ca no nic a l Affa irs a dvise s the a rc hb isho p, his sta ff a nd c le rg y o n a ll o the r ma tte rs pe rta ining to Ca no n L a w, inc luding b ut no t limite d to c le rg y issue s, sa c ra me nta l la w, te mpo ra l g o o ds, a nd pe na l la w. T he missio n o f the Me tro po lita n T rib una l a nd Offic e o f Ca no nic a l Affa irs o f the Arc hdio c e se
individua ls a nd the c o mmo n g o o d, to se e k truth a nd justic e in a ll judic ia l ma tte rs a nd to upho ld the supre me la w o f the Churc h, the sa lva tio n o f so uls.
Offic e of Canonic al Affair s
NE W ST AF F ME MBE RS
ST AF F
We ar e c ur r e ntly staffe d in- house with: 4 Judge s 1 De fe nde r 1 Pr
2 Auditor s 1 Mode r ator of the T r ibunal 1 Case Pr
1 Re c e ptionist/ Mar r iage F ile s 1 Se c r e tar y for JV 1 T r ansc r iptionist & Summar y Wr ite r Se ve r al E xte r nal Judge s and De fe nde r s Judge In- house T r ansc r iptionist Case Pr
(Based on a report produced by the AOD on the number
the Tribunal receives 466% more than the average for all other departments, not counting the direct dial calls to our office.) (Considering that there are two parties plus advocates and 3 or more witnesses in formal cases, two parties in the lack of form cases with an advocate, one party contacting us for Marriage files, dispensations and permissions, we are always in potential communication with ~ 10,000 people…)
10K Interested Parties Any Day/ Any Time Tribunal receives 466% more calls than the average for all the other AOD departments
Preliminary Questionnaires for Declaration of Nullity
Type of Case (PQ)
As of End
Year End Projection
Formal Briefer
4 6
Formal
180 250
Ligamen
4 7
Pauline
4 7
FF
4 7
Rogatory
3 5
Lack of Form
136 189
Total 335 471
Marriage Cases From Jan – July ‘17 Year End Projection Marriage files (Nihil Obstat & Visums) 327 453 Permissions and Dispensation 342 474 From Jan – Sep ‘17 Year End Projection New Formal Cases Accepted
160 222
To Date we have protocoled 1071 Tribunal Service Requests
Cases Closed as of End
Year End Projection Abated 5 7 Death 2 3 Affirm 162 224 Negative 8 11 Total 177 245
RESTRICTIONS
Petitioner Respondent Monitum 30% 39% Vetitum 4% 27% None 66% 34%
78 CASE S ADJUDICAT E D UNDE R 1 YE AR
Average time for Formal Cases accepted in and after 2015 is 1 year and 3 months
CTRL-CLICK TO FOLLOW LINK
Ar e we de aling with a Jur idic al Inc apac ity or anothe r de fe c t of c onse nt?” OT HE R DE F E CT S OF CONSE NT JURIDICAL INCAPACIT Y
following are incapable of contracting marriage:
§ 1 those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
§ 2 those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed
§ 3 those who are not able to assume the essential obligations
causes of a psychic nature.
Simulations (1101)
Total Simulation CBF, CBC, CBP Contra Bonum Sacramenti Contra Bonum Sacramentalitatis
Errors (1097, 1098, 1099)
1097
1098 Imposed Error 1099 Determining Error
Conditioned Consent (1102)
§ 1 Future Condition § 2 Past/Present Condition
Force or Fear (1103) Ignorance (1096)
JURIDICAL INCAPACIT Y
following are incapable of contracting marriage:
§ 1 those who lack the sufficient use of reason;
§ 2 those who suffer from a grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed
§ 3 those who are not able to assume the essential obligations
causes of a psychic nature.
OT HE R DE F E CT S OF CONSE NT
Simulations (1101)
Total Simulation CBF, CBC, CBP Contra Bonum Sacramenti Contra Bonum Sacramentalitatis
Errors (1097, 1098, 1099)
1097
1098 Imposed Error 1099 Determining Error
Conditioned Consent (1102)
§ 1 Future Condition § 2 Past/Present Condition
Force or Fear (1103) Ignorance (1096)
: It’s All about CONSE NT
a ) Conse nt ma ke s ma rria g e , a s c a no n 1057 sta te s: “T
he c o nse nt o f the pa rtie s, le g itima te ly ma nife ste d b e twe e n pe rso ns q ua lifie d b y la w, ma ke s ma rria g e ; no
huma n powe r c a n supply this c onse nt.”
b ) T his c o nse nt is a huma n a c t whic h re q uire s the a c tio n o f b o th the inte lle c t a nd the will. T his e sse ntia l inte rpla y b e twe e n the c o g nitive , e va lua tive a nd vo litive func tio ns fo rm the e sse ntia l a xis fo r the c o mmissio n o f a truly huma n a c t. One
c a nnot will wha t one doe s not unde rsta nd a nd one c a nnot e va lua te wha t one doe s not know.
"I, _ ___, t , take y e you, _ , ___, f , for m my lawful w wife/husband, , to h to have a and to h to hol
from
this d day f y for
for r better, r, f for r worse, f for ri r riche her, r, f for r poorer, in n sickness a and nd in n he health, t to l love a and nd to c che heri rish until d deat ath d do us s par art
a b stra c t c o nc e pt.
Speculative Intellect Practical Intellect
(Critical Faculty)
INTERNAL FREEDOM
ac tic al Inte lle c t: Ma rria g e c o nside re d a s
so me thing to do . I nvo lve s the “c ritic a l fa c ulty”
va lua ting
nal & E xte r nal F r e e dom
re e do m fro m impulse s
re e do m fro m F
e a r
re e do m c a n b e c o mpro mise d e ithe r fro m a n e xte rna l sourc e (ab e xtrinse c o ) o r fro m a n inte rna l
sourc e (ab intrinse c o ). I
f fre e d o m is c o mpro mise d fro m a n e xtrinsic so urc e , the n the pro pe r c ano n is fo rc e o r fe ar, c . 1103. Ho we ve r, if the lo ss o f fre e d o m is d ue to pre ssure fro m fa mily a nd frie nds, a nd/ o r imma turity, a nd/ o r a n Juridic a l I nc a pa c ity to de a l with stre ssful situa tio ns, e tc ., the n the pro pe r c ha pte r o f nullity is c a no n 1095, 2°
Inte rna l F re e dom a nd Psyc hic Anoma lie s
a nd pro pe r func tio ning o f the c ritic a l fa c ulty is da ma g e d.
e ss se ve re diso rde rs do no t c o mple te ly de stro y the c ritic a l fa c ulty, b ut the y ma y c o mpro mise the pe rso n’ s inte rna l fre e do m.
indispe nsa ble for ma king we ig he d de c isions c onc e rning importa nt ma tte rs a ffe c ting one ’s life (suc h a s ma rria g e ).” 4
4 Me ndo nc a, A. & Mo rris, P.S., “Pa tho lo g ic a l Ga mbling a nd
Ma rita l Co nse nt,” in Ca no n L a w So c ie ty o f Gre a t Brita in & Ire land Ne wsle tte r, 143 (2005), p. 34.
Canon 1103: “A ma rria g e is inva lid if e nte re d into b e c a use o f for c e or gr ave fe ar fro m
without, e ve n if uninte ntio na lly inflic te d , so tha t a pe rso n is c o mpe lle d to c ho o se ma rria g e in o rde r to b e fre e fro m it.” T he pro b le m is a la c k o f fre e do m o f c ho ic e . We re a d in o ne d e c isio n fro m the Ro ta : “the re a so n fo r the nullity o f a ma rria g e e nte re d b e c a use o f g ra ve fe a r is b a se d no t so muc h o n the re pa ra tio n o f g ra ve injury, b ut o n the la c k o f suffic ie nt fre e do m o f c ho ic e ” (Co ra m Bo c c a fo la , 21 F e b rua ry 1991, n. 5).
Canon 1103 implie s a distinc tio n b e twe e n “fo rc e ” a nd “fe a r”. Altho ug h this distinc tio n is
lo g ic a l, the pra c tic a l use fulne ss o f the
c anon pe r tains to fe ar or c oe r c ion to e nte r into mar r iage . F
c e = E
xte rio r pre ssure fro m a g re a te r thing tha t c a nno t b e re siste d (i.e ., physic a l/ a b la tive fo rc e ). An e xa mple o f fo rc e d c o nse nt wo uld b e whe n a pa rty is induc e d b y hypno tism o r so me c he mic a lly induc e d sta te to g ive ma trimo nia l c o nse nt.
F e ar = A tre pida tio n o f the mind c a use d b y a n imme dia te o r future da ng e r o r e vil (i.e .,
c o e rc io n). An e xa mple o f c o e rc io n thro ug h fe a r is whe n c o nse nt is induc e d fro m the thre a t
T he jurisprude nc e o f the Ro ma n Ro ta ha s ide ntifie d thre e type s o f fe a r whic h c a n inva lida te ma trimo nia l c o nse nt. I nva lida ting fe a r c a n b e (1) Co mmo n, (2) Re ve re ntia l o r (3) Mixe d.
Common fe ar is tha t whic h a rise s fro m a thre a t o f vio le nc e . Re ve r e ntial fe ar is tha t whic h a rise s fro m the thre a t o f indig na tio n fro m tho se who m o ne
e a r o f a pa re nt o r supe rio r (re spe c te d pe rso n).
he so urc e o f fe a r is the pa re nt’ s o r supe rio r’ s indig na tio n.
he indig na tio n must b e fo re se e n to b e g ra ve a nd lo ng la sting . I t c a n b e diffic ult to disting uish re ve re ntia l fe a r fro m pa re nta l he lp in ma king a de c isio n. We re a d in o ne de c isio n: “But it ha s to b e no te d tha t ple a s o r pe rsua sio ns a re ina ppro pria te , if the y do no t a llo w spa c e o r q uie t a nd a re so insiste nt tha t the y ha ve the e ffe c t o f o ppre ssio n a nd ve xa tio n o r e xto rtio n” (Co ra m Bo c c a fo la , 21 F e b rua ry 1991, n. 7).
(E xa mple s: Girl is pre g na nt a nd ma rrie s o ut o f re ve re ntia l fe a ra ltho ug h she ha s a n a ve rsio n to the g ro o m)
T he re a re se ve ra l fa c to rs to c o nside r whe n e va lua ting the g ra vity o f fe a r. T he fe a r must b e b a se d o n a n o b je c tive fa c t fo r it to b e g ra ve . F
e ar whic h is base d
ave fe ar .
T he g ra vity o f fe a r must b e e va lua te d b o th in te rms o f its obje c tivity and subje c tivity.
thre a te ne d.
he g ra vity o f the fe a r “must b e de rive d fro m the sum o f the o b je c tive a nd sub je c tive e le me nts” (Co ra m Bo c c a fo la , 21 F e b rua ry 1991, n. 6). Also , the c ha ra c te r o f the o ne ma king the thre a t must b e e va lua te d . T
he fe ar is gr ave if the one making the thr e at is c apable of e xe c uting the thr e at. Also, the r e must be c e r tainty or pr
e ats will be fulfille d.
T he re must b e a sub je c tive ly pe rc e ive d thre a t o f e vil fr
nal sour c e. If the fe ar or iginate s only fr
son, the n this should be c onside r e d unde r c anon 1095.
T he e xte rna l so urc e must b e fre e , i.e ., it pr
e a r o f a na tura l disa ste r o r a n illne ss do e s no t q ua lify a s fe a r unde r c a no n 1103.
A
E x me tu = fro m fe a r Cum me tu = with fe a r
Ave r sion is the b e st indic a to r o f e x me tu c o nse nt. A pro ve n a ve rsio n to ma rria g e
sug g e sts tha t the ma rria g e wa s mo tiva te d fro m fe a r. Ho we ve r, “the pre sumptio n whic h a rise s fro m a ve rsio n do e s no t le a d to c e rtitud e unle ss the c o ntra c ta nt is pro ve d to ha ve c o nse nte d to ma rria g e unwilling ly b e c a use o f g ra ve e xtrinsic c o e rc io n” (Co ra m De Ang e lis, 5 No ve mb e r 2003, n. 6). F e a r inva lida te s ma trimo nia l c o nse nt whe n it le ave s the pe r
son with only one viable solution: ma rria g e . I
f the re is so me o the r o ptio n a va ila b le o the r tha n ma rria g e , the n the c o nse nt wa s c um me tu. “F e a r is the e ffic ie nt c a use o f the ma trimo nia l c o ntra c t o nly if it ha s the fo rc e o f the mo tiva ting , princ iple a nd do mina nt c a use in the c ho ic e
it is pe rc e ive d to b e the o nly po ssib ility o f e sc a ping the thre a ts” (Co ra m Bo c c a fo la , 21 F e b rua ry 1991, n. 6).
“Ac c o rding to the e sta b lishe d jurisprude nc e o f this Apo sto lic T rib una l, the e le me nts o f pro o f o f the nullity o f ma rria g e o n the g ro und o f fe a r se e m to b e the fo llo wing : a ) T he c re dib ility o f the pe titio ne r; b ) T he c o ntra c ta nt’ s a ve rsio n to his/ he r spo use o r to c o ntra c t ma rria g e with tha t spo use ; c ) T he de po sitio n o f the vic tim o f fe a r; d ) T he de po sitio n o f the pe rso n inflic ting the fe a r a nd his/ he r c ha ra c te r; e ) T he de po sitio n o f witne sse s who ha d the kno wle dg e o f the c o nse nt g ive n unde r fe a r; f) T he c irc umsta nc e s whic h re nd e r c re dib le the c o nse nt g ive n und e r fe a r” (Co ra m De Ang e lis, 5 No ve mb e r 2003, n. 8). T he re a re two b a sic a rg ume nts in a fo rc e a nd fe a r c a se : the dire c t a rg ume nt (pro ving c o e rc io n) a nd the indire c t a rg ume nt (pro ving a ve rsio n).
. WHAT IS NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE FORCE & FEAR FEAR MUST BE: 1) grave, 2) from an external source, 3) and cause the marriage
she do e s no t the y will c ut he r o ff fina nc ia lly a nd ne ve r spe a k to he r a g a in. She ha s no inc o me o the r tha n he r pa re nts’ fina nc ia l suppo rt, a nd he r pa re nts’ lo ve a nd a ppro va l me a n e ve rything to he r. She is a fra id to lo se the m a nd a fra id o f e nding up o n the stre e ts with a b a b y, a nd so she c ho o se s to ma rry b e c a use it is the o nly po ssible a lte rna tive to a vo id he r pa re nt’ s re je c tio n a nd po ve rty.
a c o nse q ue nc e he r mo the r thre w he r o ut o f the ho me . T he g irl we nt to sta y with this b o yfrie nd te mpo ra rily a nd so o n she b e c a me pre g na nt. Whe n she to ld he r pa re nts tha t she wa s pre g na nt, he r pa re nts ha d the po lic e a rre st a nd de ta in the yo ung ma n until he a c c e pte d to ma rry the ir da ug hte r. Sub se q ue ntly the yo ung ma n a c c e pte d to ma rry the g irl a nd the we dding fo llo we d.
wo pe rso ns who a re in lo ve a nd wa nt to ma rry g e t pre g na nt. T he y de c ide d to g e t ma rrie d b e fo re ha ving the b a b y.
wa nt to do the “rig ht thing .”
Although, at times, the Tribunal may propose Grounds that are different from what the advocate proposed in the Libellus , this does not imply that the initial grounds were wrong, but that they may not fit the existing facts
T he ne c e ssary e le me nts o f a L ib e llus and the ir purpo se :
Initiating the Cause
ask the tribunal to adjudicate the controversy; (only the parties and the Promoter of Justice have standing)
Competence
jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate the controversy;
Grounds (Fumus)
the facts of the controversy; and
Proofs
facts necessary for the Tribunal to evaluate the facts in light of the law and come to a decision resolving the controversy at issue.
The Facts section concerns the issues of Standing, Jurisdiction and Competence. Accordingly, the section should contain the identity of the parties, their dates of birth, address/domicile, baptismal status, religious affiliation, date and location of the marriage at issue, identify prior marriages or subsequent attempted marriages, and salient facts from the backgrounds of each party and of their life together. The In Facto section should briefly include argument applying salient facts to the law in support of the alleged grounds of nullity. In this section, the Petitioner should also identify necessary proofs to demonstrate the alleged cause of nullity, which are not presented with the Libellus, but which the Petitioner agrees to provide to the tribunal as requested throughout the pendency of the case. The In Iure section should simply identify which canons of the Code of Canon Law the Petitioner and the Petitioner’s Advocate believe provide the basis for the Petitioner’s claim regarding the nullity of marriage, and the basis for the tribunal’s jurisdiction Finally, the “Wherefore” section, completes the Libellus by requesting judicial intervention and resolution of the cause of nullity of marriage and the legal basis therefore.
Denveriensis Nullitatis Matrimonii PET Maiden Name – RESP Maiden Name LIBELLUS
with [Respondent Name], a [baptismal status, religion ex. baptized Catholic], born on [Date of Birth], and who is domiciled in [City, State, Zip]. In this Section include a short description about when and how they married, time of engagement and if they cohabitated or not and
[ Church/Place of Marriage] in [City, State, Zip]., on [Date]. [EXAMPLE: We dated about one year and were engaged for about that long, during which time we cohabitated for about one year. This cohabitation was a deliberate and conscious decision so that I could get to know her and this supported my decision to marry]. In this Section include some brief information on family of origin on the PET and RESP, note differences between families. Note specific information important for proposed ground. 3.[EXAMPLE: I was raised in a family of four which included my parents and two siblings. Monica was raised in a family of four which included her parents and a sister. She was raised and schooled in France before the family moved to Southern California. There was some turmoil and dysfunction in the family history. The main difference between our families of origin is that marriage and fidelity is valued differently. In this Section please include some brief information on how they met, their married life and problems leading to divorce. Note also some specific information important for proposed ground. 4. [EXAMPLE: We met when I was 24 and the Respondent was 26 while taking a business class together during graduate schooling. The relationship was interrupted after about eight months of dating, due to the matriarchal tendencies I noticed in her family but we continued after several months and I realized I was in love with her. Despite the warning signs of her matriarchal tendencies and her financial insolvency, I decided to proceed to marriage. We had a financial pre-nuptial agreement due to the Respondent’s expressed desire for a “safety net” should the marriage fail. After we married, the problems centered on finances, anger, love and practice of religion. We entered into marital counseling to try to overcome these problems. I intended for this to be a lifelong union, but the Respondent expressed her opinion that a marriage should end should either party be unhappy. As regards fidelity, she ultimately changed from being a monogamous partner, to choosing another person to invest her time with, with complete disregard to morality. I abhor the destruction and infidelity she caused through the divorce. I have learned to forgive the person whom I loved more than any other, despite her expressed desire for a divorce at the end.]
https://archden.org/tribunal/advocate-page/advocate-resources/
5.The following canons are applicable to the present case: [EXAMPLE: a) Canon 1056, which reminds us that one of the essential properties of marriage is indissolubility, without which it would not be a true marriage. b) Canon 1101, §2 affirms that the person who celebrates marriage having excluded with a positive act of the will the property of indissolubility does so invalidly. c) This Tribunal is competent in accord with c. 1673, §1, since this is the place where the marriage was celebrated.]
In this Section offer a couple of points that support the ground. 6.Further, in accord with c. 1504, 2, I have agreed to present those elements of proof that will support my contention that this marriage is invalid, which includes witnesses as noted on the included witness list. [Example: I propose that the remote causa simulandi is found in the values she received in her family upbringing where marital indissolubility was not valued or taught; the proximate causa simulandi is found in the fact that she engaged in infidelity before and after the wedding; the causa contrahendi is found in her desire to maintain normal appearances, but her immoral behavior during the marriage and her unwillingness to change her behavior, I believe, speaks tomes. These facts, along with her premarital statement that divorce is acceptable, her insistence on a prenuptial agreement and her decision to divorce me despite my wishes, all indicate her exclusion of indissolubility at the time of the wedding].
marriage.
[Advocate Name], as my Advocate. All pertinent documentation is also included. Wherefore I, [PET name], now turn to this Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Denver and asks that this marriage with [RESP name] be declared null and invalid due to [Example: the exclusion of the indissolubility of marriage, c. 1101, §2 [Ground],
Fort Collins, Colorado [city, State] 14 April 2014 [Date] __________________________ [PET Name]
https://archden.org/tribunal/advocate-page/advocate-resources/
A NATURAL INSTITUTION
Marriage in accordance with Natural Law was instituted by God when He created Eve as a companion to Adam. “It is not good for man to be alone; let us make him a help like unto himself” (Gen. 2:18). “Increase and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28).
A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to each other and be
(4) their consent is given in the canonical form, i.e., in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority.
THE CANONICAL FORM AD VALIDITATEM FOR CATHOLICS
The canonical form of marriage began to be required with the decree Tametsi issued by the Council of Trent on 11 November 1563. The decree Ne Temere of Pope Pius X in 1907 made the canonical form a requirement even where the decree of the Council of Trent had not been promulgated. While allowing for exceptions, the canonical form of marriage, as laid down in canons 1055–1165 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law and canons 776-866 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, normally recognizes marriages of Catholics as valid only if contracted before the local bishop or parish priest or a priest or (in the Latin Church only) a deacon delegated by them and at least two witnesses. At earlier times, validity was not made dependent on fulfilment of this condition.
NATURAL MARRIAGE This occurs when neither party is baptized or one party is baptized non-Catholic. LACK OF CANONICAL FORM or “LACK OF FORM” This occurs when one of the parties is Catholic and hence bound by the law of the Church - fails to ensure that the proper Catholic form for the marriage existed
was dispensed by just authority. SACRAMENTAL MARRIAGE This occurs when both parties are baptized. Parties may be Catholic or non-Catholic.
PRESUMED VALID – May be investigated as a FORMAL, Pauline or Favor of the Faith case. NOT VALID in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Nullity can be declared via the documentary
PRESUMED VALID – This may be investigated as a FORMAL case. Lack of Form Process (2 weeks to approve) A Requisite of the American Church
CONVALIDATION
IS NEEDED
WHEN THE CATHOLIC PARTY(IES) DID NOT FOLLOW CANONICAL FORM. WHEN PARTIES THAT HAVE A PRESUMEDLY VALID MARRIAGE ENTER INTO THE CHURCH – THEN A CONVALIDATION IS NOT
NEEDED.
CONVALIDATION
Convalidation is not simply a “blessing” of an existing union. It requires that a new, free act of consent be made.
“It is the presence of the Lord, who reveals Himself and the gift
marriage full and profoundly true.” – Pope Francis.
Capacity
maturity and stability)
prior marriage, vows in a religious
Consent
children
Canonical Form
presence of a Catholic bishop,
delegated by either the pastor or bishop, and two witnesses according to the Order of Celebrating Matrimony
A CONVALIDATION IS A MARRIAGE AND MARRIAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AOD MUST BE FOLLOWED. Dispensations may be requested by the Priest or Deacon preparing the couple.
consent to grounds
forth by the Holy Father (manifest)
Conditions Met
(Proofs)
Libellus Introduced
Process
moves to Instruction Phase
JV accepts or moves to Formal (instruction phase)
from the Parties and Defender’s and Advocate’s brief
votums
Accepted into the Briefer Process
time for the AB to reach this decision
certainty, it is moved to the Formal Instruction Phase.
Final Sentence from the Archbishop
Abbr e viate d Pr
T he fo llo wing is the info rma tio n a nd ne c e ssa ry pa pe rwo rk to b e g in the pro c e ss fo r the inve stig a tio n fo r a d e c la ra tio n o f nullity in a c c o rd a nc e with Ca n. 1683 o f the Co d e o f Ca no n L a w pro mulg a te d o n the 15th o f Aug ust 2015 b y Po pe F ra nc is thro ug h the Muto Pro prio Mitis Iud e x.
F
mal Br ie fe r Matr imonial Pr
De c lar ation of Nullity – Che c klist Jo int L
ib e llus, o r L ib e llus with Re spo nd e nt’ s Sig ne d Co nse nt
Ma nd a te fo r Ca no nic a l Ad vo c a te Pe titio ne r’ s Sta te me nt o f Ag re e me nt L
ist o f Witne sse s
Pro o fs (Pa rish Inve stig a tio n) Ma rria g e Ce rtific a te Divo rc e De c re e Ba ptisma l Ce rtific a te s o f the Ca tho lic Pa rty(ie s) Pa yme nt a g re e me nt
T he Par ish inve stigation
In the Brie fe r Pro c e ss Ca n. 1684 Sta te s tha t “T he lib e llus intro d uc ing the b rie fe r pro c e ss, in a d d itio n to tho se thing s e nume ra te d in c a n. 1504, must:
1° se t for th br ie fly, fully, and c le ar ly the fac ts on whic h the pe tition is base d; 2° indic ate the pr
3° e xhibit the doc ume nts, in an attac hme nt, upon whic h the pe tition is base d.”
Pro o fs c a n b e in fo rm o f:
Below are some questions that were not answered in the Presentation:
1. Feedback from Judges and processors about quality, effectiveness of Libelli & Advocate Briefs? 2. I would like to know if 100 questions are required of both parties going through the abbreviated process – if one agrees with another why are we asking for a separate 100 questions to be filled out? 3. I would like to hear some insights on establishing grounds for cases that are driven by infidelity. Petitioners who have experienced infidelity in their marriage have a difficult time seeing anything else that could have led to the problem due to the deep hurt that they experience. This is especially true when the infidelity was ongoing and the petitioner was blindsided with the sudden reality.