The Roman Catholic Diocese of BrooklynAbout the DioceseOur BishopsOur ParishesOur MinistriesCatholic EducationCatholic CharitiesThe Tablet
DonateHomeVocationsHuman ResourcesDevelopmentDonate
he Annulment Process
he Annulment Process
Myth Two
Myth Three
Myth Four
Myth Five
Myth Six
Myth Seven
Myth Eigth
Myth Nine
Myth Ten

Myth No. 6:
"Annulments exclude the other party"

Just as marriage without two parties is self-contradictory, so, too, is an annulment process without the other party. Canon law requires tribunals to make every reasonable effort to secure the participation of the other party or the entire process is invalid! First of all, an annulment is a search for the truth. Thus the testimony of two chief witnesses (the parties) logically tends to give a more complete picture. Second, the two chief witnesses have equal rights as in marriage, no less than in the annulment process  to be informed and listened to.

Sometimes, the other party has, for a number of possible reasons, become (or made himself or herself) unavailable. Maybe he or she just refuses to cooperate. In that case, options to procure participation are limited. Occasionally, the whereabouts of the respondent are truly undiscoverable, though the Internet will doubtless render such mysteries rarer. At any rate, the case does not die if all reasonable efforts to engage the respondent have failed.

Respondents might be more disposed to participate if they realized that tribunals try to avoid destructive, confrontational scenes. Parties are almost always seen separately and privately. Where there exist possibilities of violence, such that court orders of protection have been issued, or of incompetence to undergo legal process, or of inaccessibility because of imprisonment or some other impairment, the law provides for the appointment of guardians and proxies.

A vindictive or capricious party is not permitted to "shut down" the process for personal reasons, thus depriving the petitioner or his or her right to it. However, neither will it advance the petitioner's interests to attempt to "freeze out" the other party. Such "bad faith" behavior by either party will jeopardize not only the process of seeking the truth but, in all likelihood, prompt the Court to take further salutary measures, even should an annulment be granted, to ensure such behavior would not affect a future union. Such means may include mandatory counseling or a stay (vetitum) on an intended marriage.