Help with annulment process

After being turned down for the annulment and the appeal, is there another step I can take to get the annulment? Please help!

I have no idea but tonights first hour on CA Live was on the annulment process. The show should be up on the web site sometime on Monday.

PF

[quote=irishpaddy]After being turned down for the annulment and the appeal, is there another step I can take to get the annulment? Please help!
[/quote]

Did you apply for an annulment and the Tribunal investigated and said Nope valid marriage…or is it that they would not even consider it ?

REVIEW/APPEAL
Church law requires that every case which received an affirmative decision after the formal hearing must be reviewed by a Court of Appeal. The case is examined by a new group of three judges and a Defender of the Bond. When the Court of Appeal concludes its work, the Judicial Vicar informs the parties of the decision. Two affirmative decisions resolve the question of nullity.

If one of the parties or the Defender believes that the judgment in the first instance was unjust, the case may be appealed to a higher court. The only recourse possible after two agreeing decisions is an appeal to the Roman Rota, the highest court of the Catholic Church. This can only be accomplished by submitting new evidence. However, if the Court of Appeal opposes the original decision, the case must be sent to the Roman Rota for final settlement.

In informing both parties of a confirmed affirmative decision, the judge may find it necessary to recommend counseling or impose a prohibition. The recommendation is based on the hope that the person will pursue adequate counseling for the well-being of all parties to a subsequent marriage. A prohibition is given when there is serious doubt that a person is capable of entering a binding union. This restriction requires consultation with the Tribunal before another marriage can be celebrated in the Church.

. rcan.org

I’ve responded privately to the poster.

Further steps depend on precise details of fact.

But for general information, there is also the possibility of introducing a new libellus with a different ground of nullity. This depends on the situation.

The reason for this is that the status of a person never becomes a res iudicata or “settled issue” in canon law according to canon 1643.

[quote=cameron_lansing]I’ve responded privately to the poster.

Further steps depend on precise details of fact.

But for general information, there is also the possibility of introducing a new libellus with a different ground of nullity. This depends on the situation.

The reason for this is that the status of a person never becomes a res iudicata or “settled issue” in canon law according to canon 1643.
[/quote]

His advisor should of gone over this with him/her.
The advisor should of also made sure that he/she had enough proof to back whatever claim was originally made so this was not an issue.
But in the end I hope the OP can work it out if not I hope that they can accept the decision made by the Tribunal and make it work.

[quote=Karin]His advisor should of gone over this with him/her.
The advisor should of also made sure that he/she had enough proof to back whatever claim was originally made so this was not an issue.
But in the end I hope the OP can work it out if not I hope that they can accept the decision made by the Tribunal and make it work.
[/quote]

I don’t want to discount what you’ve posted. Yet, pursuing an appeal or introducing a new marriage case to the same tribunal but on a different ground involves complex aspects of procedural law, certain time limits in which one must act or lose the right to act, and an expert knowledge of matrimonial jurisprudence. One would want to know that a procurator or advocate would have counseled a party rather than an adviser. The competent exercise of the first two roles would seem to require the service of a licensed canon lawyer, and we don’t know whether this was the case or not.

Still, a broader issue remained to be addressed . Cases concerning the status of persons, such as causes of the nullity of marriage, never become “res iudicata” that is, adjudged or settled matters (canon 1643; Dignitas connubi art. 289 §1,3). So a matrimonial cause which has been judged by one tribunal can never be judged again by the same or another tribunal of the same grade. But this applies only if it is a matter of the same cause, namely, the same marriage and the same ground of nullity (DC art. 289 §3). Thus it is possible for the same tribunal to judge the same marriage but on another ground of nullity.

While the indissolubility of matrimony, instituted by God and imbued with sacramental dignity for the baptized by Christ, must be protected, the law of the Church admits the right treated in canon 1673. Where a person has a right in the Church, there is a corresponding right to know what that is. Canon lawyers have an obligation to educate other members of the Christian faithful about those rights.

Hence my public post for general information, and due to the right of the poster to protect his privacy and good reputation, I also gave a private response.

All of us certainly share the same hope you have expressed so well.

[quote=cameron_lansing]I Thus it is possible for the same tribunal to judge the same marriage but on another ground of nullity.

.
[/quote]

So what you are saying is shop around till you can find something that the Tribunal will say made your marriage in-valid or nonscramental?
Does not sound right…but then I am not a Cannon Lawyer or a member of a Tribunal.
Either way I hope that the OP gets it worked out!

[quote=Karin]So what you are saying is shop around till you can find something that the Tribunal will say made your marriage in-valid or nonscramental?
Does not sound right…but then I am not a Cannon Lawyer or a member of a Tribunal.
Either way I hope that the OP gets it worked out!
[/quote]

Karin,

I did not and would not say that at all. That would not sound right to a canon lawyer, a member of a tribunal, or any other member of the Christian faithful. We would all consider that sort of behavior abusive and deceitful. The purpose of canon law in part is the proper protection of rights and not the creation of loopholes.

What I believe I did say is that the Church established the legal right to take a certain action for the proper vindication of rights. It is based on Canon 221.

§1. The Christian faithful can legitimately vindicate and defend the rights which they possess in the Church in the competent ecclesiastical forum according to the norm of law.
§2. If they are summoned to a trial by competent authority, the Christian faithful also have the right to be judged according to the prescripts of the law applied with equity.

Accordingly, Dignitas connubi art. 92 - §1. The following have the ability to challenge a marriage: 1º the spouses, whether Catholics or non - Catholics (cf. cann. 1674, n. 1; 1476; art. 3, §2).

Since it was established in canon law, promulgated by the Supreme Pontiff, it is a proper right.

If a case involving the same marriage is submitted on different grounds, it pertains to the tribunal to accept or reject the petition (called a libellus) in the same way it would the earlier case.

Canon 1505 2 says that A libellus can be rejected only: 1º if the judge or the tribunal is incompetent; 2º if it is undoubtedly clear that the petitioner lacks legitimate personal standing in court; 3º if the prescriptions of can. 1504, nn. 1-3 have not been observed; 4º if from the libellus itself it is certainly obvious that it lacks any basis whatsoever and that it is impossible that any such basis would appear through a process.

If it tries the case, it pertains to the tribunal to either uphold the presumption of validity (canon 1060) or overturn it according to the norms of law. This requires moral certitude (canon 1608),

Again, these are laws are established by the Church.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.