The Vatican announced Sept. 8 reforms of the process for petitioning for a declaration of marital nullity. These were welcome changes for many people, including those working in ecclesiastical tribunals.
Despite these changes, some things remain the same. Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, stated as his very first comment at the press conference announcing the changes: “One is dealing with the canonical process for the declaration of nullity of a marriage. Note well: for the declaration of nullity. One is dealing with a process that leads to the declaration of nullity: a process that leads in the first place to see if a marriage is null and, then when the answer is positive, to declare the nullity. Therefore, one is not dealing with a process that leads to the annulment of marriage. Nullity is different from annulment: to declare the nullity of marriage is absolutely different from decreeing the annulment of marriage.”
So at its essence, what is involved remains the same. It is still a legal process, evidence must still be collected, and there still must exist grounds of nullity which exist at the beginning of the marriage that prevent a valid marriage from taking place. The changes are primarily procedural changes that makes the process faster. Four are worthy of note.
First, the requirement of affirmative decisions by two tribunals has been eliminated. Only one decision is now required. This will save two to six months at the end of the process. This requirement had been meant to prevent the impression that a declaration of nullity was automatic. Yet it was a redundant protection also fulfilled by the role of “defender of the bond,” whose job it is to argue the weaknesses in a cause and why a declaration of nullity should not be granted. In my opinion, the greatest protection to prevent abuse is not cumbersome, lengthy procedures but having tribunal personnel of integrity.
Second, restrictions on jurisdiction have been simplified. This will sometimes save one to two months at the beginning of the process. When the current “Code of Canon Law” was promulgated in 1983, communication was much more limited than today, and certain provisions were included to guarantee the ability of the other party to participate. As a result, sometimes a person could not petition the tribunal where he or she lives but where the other party lives. This was difficult when the other party was in another country. With modern communication, it is much easier for both parties to participate no matter where they live. Now anyone who lives in Hawaii can petition the tribunal of the Diocese of Honolulu, regardless of where the other party lives.
Third, the process had been designed with the assumption that the parties were opposed to each other. After divorce, sadly this is often the situation. Yet occasionally the parties are in agreement and both want to petition for a declaration of nullity. The new procedures explicitly allow for this, eliminating the need for certain “waiting periods” given to the other party to respond. Also, in such circumstances, when facts supporting nullity are very clear, there is a new procedure for an expedited process where the bishop himself makes the judgment.
Fourth, the law on the evaluation of proofs has been clarified. Often it is difficult, when a marriage took place many decades ago, to find witnesses who knew the parties at the time. The changes now make it easier to rely on the statements of the parties themselves along with character witnesses who can testify to the honesty of the parties. This is good news especially for older persons whose first marriage took place many years ago.
Father Gantley is the judicial vicar of the Diocese of Honolulu.
