You people are very knowledgable about the annulment procedures. However, I have looked far and wide to find out the detailed, church sanctioned rights of the respondant at the point of the "First Instance" decision without success. The diocese here has said there is an "automatic" appeal to a tribunal in Ottawa. Now, how can I appeal to Rome after the First Instance to cut off this "automatic" appeal? or maybe I am not allowed to do this? Thank you very much for your help..........feel very sorry for Karl, good will come to him in the end. Thank you, Dave

-- David MacSween (summertime@ns.sympatico.ca), May 08, 2003

Answers

Dear David,

There is an automatic appeal built in to the system wherein your case is sent to a neighboring diocese for another hearing. It is usually just a rubber stamp decision.

Were you told of your right to appeal to the Rota?

If you were not your rights may have already been violated?

You must, at least, be told of this option when your 1st instance case is published.

Please let me know.

Have you seen all the evidence? It is your right? Have you met your advocate? What does he/she think of your case?

I am interested.

Thank you David

Karl

-- KARL (PARKERKAJWEN@HOTMAIL.COM), May 08, 2003.

David,

Get Robert Vasoli's book it may help.

There is a Msgr. Hettinger mentioned in it. Read where he is located and perhaps write to him.

Karl.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.

Thank you Karl, for the information. The annulment proceedings are just starting. I read the petitioner's (my wife) petition but was not allowed to get a copy of it, just read it in front of a woman at her Diocese Office. She wanted me to sign two papers (I didn't), one was to accept a "figurehead" (a form letter copy) with an old priest's copied signature on it.......... I guess he must be the expert in Canon Law? The other paper didn't look right. The lady at the office interviewed me (she took everything down in shorthand) but haven't heard anything from her since (two weeks). My wife got two witnesses (one was my sister-in-law and the other was also a friend) both said that they were going in but were not going to say anything bad about me. The sister-in-law lasted five minutes and was dismissed when she said that she had nothing to say about the marriage, just a character witness for my wife. I don't think the other one lasted either as she only came onto the scene in the last years of our marriage. I have one witness so far. I don't like the whole idea of annulments, seems to me there is too much "smoke and mirrors" put up by some parishes. However I do feel that my marriage was a sacramental one, I don't want this to change. One item on the petitioner's statement was that we were married 20 years, but it was nearly 30 years with periods of separation after 20. I still cling to the hope that the two of us will unite again someday, Dave

-- David MacSween (summertime@ns.sympatico.ca), May 08, 2003.

David,

You have a right to appeal the case to the "Roman Rota" - one of the two "Supreme Courts" of the Church - at any time during the process - even before the first instance court issues a decision. You also have the right to have an "Advocate" an expert in canon law to advise you and/or a "Procurator" again, presumably someone with knowledge of canon law but this person can act in your name before the Tribunal. Ask the Tribunal if they have a list of approved advocates.

If the first instance court were to reach an affirmative decision - i.e. find that your marriage was indeed null from the beginning - the decision would be automatically appealled to the second instance, or appeallate tribunal - usually the tribunal of the metropolitan see in your area.

If you have any other questions feel free to contact me.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 09, 2003.

Dear David,

Make sure you get to read everything that is regarding your case. I was not allowed to read my case, in two dioceses, for over about 2 1/2 years.

My advocate in my first instance case I honestly believe did what he could but the Judicial Vicar, who acted as the Ponens (the chief judge of the tribunal) had already determined the outcome before the facts were gathered. It was a simple matter of convincing the other two judges to parrot his decision, which he apparently did, as the evidence was primarily from a perjured witness. I was never convinced, however, that my advocate in that trial really understood what was going on, was willing to consider the charges I had already been leveling against the process or was heart and soul defending the sacrament. He did what he could as he believed.

That is why, since it is your case, you must take the lead and if the advocate does not follow your instructions, defend the case yourself. A half hearted advocate is no advocate, he/she is an educated obstacle.

I would like to thank the priest who responded to you for letting you know your right to appeal to thr Rota is immediate. That was nice to hear. But I do not know if that is a real possibility. The reason I say this is because I wrote to the Rota, as well as the Signatura to have my case ended as there was NO EVIDENCE but I was NEVER told by either of those courts or any courts in the US that I could appeal to the Rota from the git-go, or I certainly would have.

That is part of the big problems with the entire tribunal system. Respondents do not just fall through the cracks, they are pushed through them and the Church will do nothing to answer the charges.

When we see canonists, permanently barred from practice and removed from the priesthood(if they are a priest) for flagrant violations of Respondents' rights then I will BEGIN to believe the Church is serious about equity. I know of no such expulsions and that is witness enough for me to not trust the Church. The Church and this Pope talk a good deal about justice but do NOTHING to hold those accountable whose JOB it IS to ensure that justice is done.

I have made and substantiated my allegations for going on 13 years and not a single action to address my grievences has ever been taken to my knowledge. That is a dismal track record.

Your case is in your hands David. Good luck.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.

David and Karl,

Thank you for asking good questions and sharing good answers. I'm sorry that both of you have had to go through difficult processes.

It is also the case David that you have the right to see EVERYTHING having to do with your case. However, this usually means a trip to the tribunal and an opportunity to read the file in someone's presence. You may not be able to photocopy documents but you are absolutely within your rights to make your own notes - this helps to preserve your right to defense.

If you do approach the Rota be clear in what you want. Asking them to stop a process at a lower-level court won't work. You have to appeal the case - ask them to judge it themselves.

If there's perjury involved then you will have to offer some proof of that - either through "rebuttal" witnesses or through documents. Without any proof to the contrary the judge(s) weighs the evidence of any witness to determine their credibility - none are automatically accepted or rejected.

As for the "expulsion" of canonists who violate procedural norms. That option does exist for extreme or repeated cases. And that option to exclude someone from further canonical service has been applied in a few cases in the United States. However, it again requires that a case be appealed to Rome. If Rome doesn't find out about a particular case then they don't know that anything needs to be done. Here's the address for the Rota:

Rev. Msgr. Rafaello Funghini Tribunal of the Sacred Roman Rota Piazza della Cancelleria 1 Rome, Italy 00186

Appeals to Rome do take time and again you will need an advocate over there before the court. The Rota can supply you with a list of approved Rotal advocates. Many are, in fact, laymen for whom this is a full-time job. They are not subsidized by the court as many are in the United States. Some work on a flat fee, some work on an hourly fee.

Again, if I can be of any assistance please feel free to contact me.

Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 09, 2003.

Dear Fr. Mike,

A short story:

When my marriage was having great difficulty I approached a priest who I was told had some expertise in marriage matters. I did not know him from Adam but I was desperate to deal with my marriage situation.

I spoke with him on the phone and tried to briefly describe the situation. He was from the beginning not receptive to my entreaties. I persisted in the conversation becoming ever more frustrated and hurt as this man told me he saw no efficacy in trying to deal with this situation. Finally he just told me there was nothing more to say and hung up. I did not believe he thought the situation itself was without solution. My impression was that he did not care to be involved. My impression was based solely on the conversation. I called him back and told him I intended to speak with the bishop about his disinterest. He was not moved.

I called the bishop and to my great surprise he personnaly answered the phone. I believe I called him a day or two after I spoke with the priest because the bishop was not available when I called at first. After his greeting to me and mine to him I told him my name and asked for his help in my situation.

His reply to me was more or less "Why should I help a man who has abandoned his wife and children"? He refused to give me the opportunity to tell him the facts, to offer him proof of the falsehood of his statement or to challenge whomever it was who gave him such absurd lies. He would not even engage me in any conversation to sway his opinion.

When I received the notice that a petition had been accepted to investigate my wife's claim of nullity, shortly after our divorce, I noticed the name of the Judicial Vicar who signed and sent the letter.

It was the priest I asked for help, who would not even listen.

I drove the eighteen hours it took to get to that diocese and saw him in his office with in about a week. I told him that I had read the petition and that within one hour I could have three separate witnesses in his office who would swear that the petition was untrue in parts.

He NEVER called them. Nor has the Church dealt with my plethora of then-proveable allegations. The opening petition was a lie. And for the record, when Cormac Burke et al issued their second instance decision there was a paragraph which I had translated which directly confirmed what I had offered to prove, albeit six or seven years too late.

But if that perjury had been allowed to be proven from the start the rest of the testimony would have fallen apart and the petition would have been rejected when it was examined.

This case should have been rejected in 1991 and would have been with the main witnesses'testimony and veracity blown to bits.

For the record there was other perjury involved since the priest who cosigned the petition with my wife and testified to its truthfulness personally knew otherwise. I saw a note he had written to my wife which was later destroyed upon his written request. He knew of the adultery which had been hidden from the civil court and the Church in the opening petition, which denied the affair.

The burgeoning affair was the real reason for our divorce not any irreconcilable differences unless of course our differences were over this affair, which I did not know of until our divorce was nearly final although I dad some suspicions.

NOw the Church recognizes this "loving catholic couple" as husband and wife in all but a church wedding!

So much for a just Catholic Church.

That is the truth Fr. Mike.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.

David,

How is it going?

___________________

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

--

I posted this information on another thread and thought appropriate to post here as well - 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."

Sincerely in Christ,

Daniel

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), September 14, 2003.

-bump for Cynthia.

God Bless you Cynthia.

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 12, 2004.