Canonical urban legends: annulments cost a fortune, & your kids will become illegitimate.

Oh, and you have to know someone. And it'll take ten years.

Okay, so “no” and “no” and “no.” (As for “ten years,” more below, but also “no”). Since the early ‘70s in the US, declarations of nullity have been subsidized by all the faithful of the diocese, a small fraction of each dollar in the Sunday collection basket going toward paying for everyone else’s annulments. The low cost or complete absence of cost is part of why there are comparatively so many nullity cases in the US. In much of the rest of the world people are charged what the process really costs. In countries were corruption is a pervasive problem in society, there are also well-founded tales of “extra money” changing hands for “extra help” in these cases.......as Pope Francis once mentioned.* In Italy it is certainly more in the realm of “big business,” and canon lawyers are usually fairly wealthy. But then in Italy and Spain, an annulment from the Catholic Church has civil effects, unlike anywhere else in the world.

For the last few decades, or however long dioceses have had websites, most Catholic diocesan tribunals — at least in the English-speaking world — have posted somewhere on their websites the cost of an annulment. It’s often not easily findable, but if you dig for it you can locate it. Or, alternatively, people could always just call the local Catholic tribunal and ask how much they charge.

When Pope Francis promulgated Mitis Iudex in 2015, he mentioned, almost as an aside, that he would like to see the process offered for free. At that point, most US arch/dioceses dropped whatever fees they had (most, but not all).

And until fees were generally dropped in 2015 nationwide in the US, the most “expensive” annulments were in the Archdiocese of New York (*) and the Diocese of Rockville Centre: they both asked for a $1,200 flat fee, and if people truly could not afford it, they did not have to pay it. The Diocese of Brooklyn was next, with a fee of $1,100. The Archdiocese of New York dropped their fee, but has since reinstated about half of it. Rockville Centre, as far as I know, now asks only for a 100 dollar filing fee. And Brooklyn kept its $1,100 fee. A handful of other larger dioceses in the US have fees of about 500 dollars. Again, this information can be found via their websites.

These amounts covered a process which could take a year or two (or more).

But in the majority of US dioceses at this time the process is free. The amounts previously charged were always only a fraction of the real cost anyway — sometimes only 10 or 20 percent of the real cost, the rest being paid for by other members of the Catholic faithful. Now the faithful cover the full cost for annulments (again, in all but a small number of US dioceses).

The real world of tribunals — at least in the US — is a very small world. Most of us know a fair number of other people in other tribunals — as there are only two canon law schools in English (three if you count Leuven), and many of us studied together, or know the same professors, and have connected colleagues. If someone was routinely accepting “charitable contributions” it would probably be found out. It would be obvious. And I do know of people who gave a donation to this or that Catholic charity and also obtained a declaration of nullity and were convinced that their donation got them the annulment — but I can assure you that the tribunal did not even know about the person's donation to whatever charity it was.

There are a handful of tribunals which — if a marriage is declared null and the case is over — suggest to the petitioner that he or she consider making a donation to the diocese so that the tribunal can be adequately funded. But when an application for an annulment comes in with a check, the check is returned. When I personally received unexpected gifts from grateful parties, I sent them the check back, or if it was cash I turned the money over to the diocesan finance office and wrote to the petitioner to tell them the money has been given to the diocesan general fund and had not been used for the tribunal's purposes (and certainly not for myself). I once even had to refuse a box of Krispy Kremes.

If people had bothered to check those publicly posted amounts, maybe it would have helped to beat the “urban myth” that “annulments go to the highest bidder.”

~

As for knowing someone…

No, it does not matter who you know. In fact, if any tribunal personnel know one of the parties to a case, or if they know both the Petitioner and the Respondent (this can sometimes happen in small dioceses), they are obligated to recuse themselves from the case.

I do know of two cases — out of hundreds — where someone called the bishop. One was an annulment case that was moving along but which needed more evidence; however, that would also involve more time and thus, with the parties having already set a wedding date — which they had promised they would not do until the case was over and the Petitioner would be declared free to marry — they prevailed upon a family member who knew the bishop socially to call and ask that the case be sped up. It was leap-frogged over other cases, and concluded in the Petitioner’s favor in a matter of a few weeks. Some of the judges on the court privately lamented among themselves that there were numerous cases at the tribunal at the time which were from poor people, who did not have the luxury of being able to call the bishop and effectively demand this favor, some of whom were up in age and had been waiting a long time already, and that this was in fact a little too close to one of the “urban legends” of needing to know someone to get an annulment — that is, the person who called might be able to regale others in the future that “Becky’s case was dragging on and on, but one phone call from me to the bishop fixed all that.” Another case was one where there simply did not seem to be enough evidence to prove the marriage was null and void at the moment of the wedding, and the Petitioner — finally, and sadly, having worked closely with the tribunal, sparing no effort to find and provide sufficient evidence of the nullity of the marriage — withdrew the petition and renounced the case. Then, seeing how deeply depressed by this the Petitioner was, a close family member — who also happened to be a friend of the local bishop — called and insisted that “something be done.” The case was reopened and concluded in the Petitioner’s favor in record time — though again, this was something that a person who did not know the bishop could not have thought to ask for (plus it occasioned some highly irregular procedural steps, to say the very least…).

But once again, these are two out of hundreds of cases known to me personally (probably closing in on a thousand cases at this point).

People sometimes bring up the Kennedy family in the US, when it’s a matter of who can “get an annulment.” But Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II was not able to obtain a declaration of nullity for his marriage to Sheila Rauch Kennedy, as she recounted in her book Shattered Faith (though, to be frank, I think she’s an Episcopalian, so I am not sure about the faith that was seemingly shattered).

Annulments cannot be bought, nor are they given to wealthy donors just because they have been generous to the Church — at least not here.

“Knowing someone” is not the key. The key is supplying the kind of information and evidence a tribunal asks for. I hope to post on that soon.

~

As for making any children somehow retroactively illegitimate, that is not the case, as is clearly shown in canon 1137 of the Code of Canon Law: “The children conceived or born of a valid or putative marriage are legitimate.” And that does not change, even if the marriage is declared null or invalid. End of story.

Even if it were the case — which it is not — there is not much that being born to unmarried parents prevents one from doing in the Catholic Church. It’s not like such a person could not receive the sacraments, etc.

It was once the case that to be admitted to seminary one’s parents needed to be married, but even then that was something which could be dispensed. And now there is no formal prohibition for such a man who wishes to enter seminary.

~

As for time…..at least in the US, most matrimonial nullity cases (formal cases) take a year or so, maybe a year and a half to two years, though sometimes a bit longer.

There is one constant that a person will find at all tribunals, and it is this: no one at the tribunal can ever give any estimates about the time a case will take, nor any assurances as to whether the declaration of nullity will in fact happen.

These are the two most often asked questions, and the two things which are the most difficult for a Petitioner to have to bear.

Formal nullity processes are labor-intensive and time-consuming, but a serious matter is at stake: the status of the parties and their marriage.

Formal cases could be done in perhaps six months, but that would take a very proactive judge and a bishop who understands how to staff his tribunal properly.

The so-called “short process” or “briefer process before the bishop” has turned out to be something that most people are simply not eligible for. I know of only one diocese where it is being used with any frequency, and I am honestly not sure about how they are going about it.

People would ask me if they were eligible for the shorter process, and I would explain why they weren’t, with the assurance that if they had been eligible for it, I would have informed them immediately of it (and would have cleared my desk of yet another case all the sooner!).

The biggest delays in annulment cases involve the lack of timely responses. It is sometimes a challenge to get witnesses to respond and send in their witness questionnaires in a timely manner. That, and sometimes it takes time — often months — to secure a report from a mental health professional (and the majority of nullity cases require the testimony of just such Expert Witnesses). Also, when people call or e-mail for status updates, that just slows everyone’s cases down. I always enjoyed taking people’s calls and tried to reassure them, but was acutely aware that as much as I liked talking to people about their case, I would vastly prefer working on it so as to get them an answer as quickly as possible.

In 2015, when asked why he promulgated the reform of matrimonial nullity procedures and abolished the automatic appeal process, Pope Francis seemed to express frustration with tribunals when he stated:

This was called for by the majority of the synod fathers in the synod last year: streamline the process because there are cases that last 10-15 years, no? There’s one sentence, then another sentence, and after there’s an appeal, there’s the appeal then another appeal. It never ends.

(https://www.ncregister.com/news/full-transcript-of-pope-francis-in-flight-interview-from-philadelphia-to-rome)

(N.B.: I have yet to see a document that indicates that the majority of the Synod Fathers called for this, so if anyone can find it I would be appreciative of a message to that effect!)

It was a perplexing statement, as the scenario the Holy Father outlined truly would be exceptionally rare.

I suppose the best way to try to understand what he said is that this was perhaps the Holy Father’s experience in Argentina. Perhaps in Argentina, things are like this — and perhaps not just with annulments. At least that was the consensus among my colleagues.

What I can say, as a former appellate judge, is that the automatic appeal process did not add that much extra time, at least in the US and other English-speaking countries. And removing the automatic appeal has not necessarily increased the overall speed of cases.

Indeed, in Italy things seem to be about the same. Pope Francis even set up a………uh….commission…..….to look at, you know, the “implementation” of the nullity reforms. Because…….uh…….things don’t seem to be moving along at the pace the Holy Father desires.

(https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2021-11/pope-francis-italy-marriage-annulment-motu-proprio-commission.html)

Yes, I know of a few botched cases here and there that dragged on for far too long. But they are not the norm.

A case that started in the Midwest of the US got an affirmative decision in favor of nullity, but was appealed to the Roman Rota by the Respondent, with the decision being overturned after some years in Rome — and then it started over again in a different diocese, again after some years, this time of different grounds, which the Respondent appealed again — and by the time it went for the second appeal, the overall efforts of the Petitioner to have the marriage declared null had been going on for about 20 years………….

Another case started out wishing to spare the feelings of the Respondent, and thus when the marriage was found to be null on grounds set on the Respondent, the Respondent appealed to the Roman Rota — and the Rota, seeing that the Respondent had not been given access to some evidence that described certain afflictions of the psyche, and therefore denied the right of defense, overturned the decision; and at that point a new case started with grounds set on the Petitioner. But all in all, the case took over fifteen years.

There was the case of Sheila Rauch Kennedy, mentioned above, that took about eight years — an initial year or two, then about five or six in Rome, and then some time again in the Boston tribunal, apparently for lack of finding a translator for the Latin decree and Rotal sentence that got sent back, if memory serves from reading her book.

One Rotal appeal case I heard of took 22 years, and even then the Rota simply wanted more information.

One case was quickly declared null at the local diocesan tribunal and appealed to the Rota by the Respondent. But after the initial notifications from the Rota to the parties that the appeal had been accepted, there was no further notice. The Petitioner repeatedly wrote, e-mailed, faxed, called, and finally went to Rome in person. All to no avail. Eventually the Petitioner renounced his case and withdrew his original petition.

On the other hand, a well-instructed case, with all the elements being adequately prepared, went to the Rota and back in about nine or ten months.

So these other unusual cases are just that — unusual.

~

(*) In one interview the Judicial Vicar at that time said that the real cost of cases was about 5000 dollars per case — but in a later interview, I seem to recall him mentioning the cost was about 7500 dollars per case. At tribunals I am familiar with, the cost can inflate to more than that, depending on how much it takes to run the court — but, happily, modern cost-saving measures can considerably reduce the cost per case to perhaps around 3000 dollars for each (e.g., an automated transcription service, the Defender of the Bond being a retired priest-canonist or a member of a religious community who would only need to receive a modest honorarium per case instead of a full salary, etc.).