Canon 1592.1 informs us that when an effective respondent try summoned but fails to appear, and you may does not deliver the courtroom with a sufficient cause for which failure, the fresh new court should be to point out that people missing, while the instance is to try to move on to the fresh new definitive judgment.
It’s actually preferred sufficient you to definitely cannon legislation provides detailed information into just what a good tribunal is supposed to create whenever an excellent respondent decides to ignore brand new summons mentioned above
You don’t need a degree in canon law to appreciate that this is only common sense. After all, there are several parties to a marriage-nullity case-and if one party doesn’t feel like cooperating, that doesn’t mean justice is automatically going to be rejected to the other! It will base its decision on the evidence collected from the petitioner and his witnesses. So what Craig’s pastor and the tribunal official told him is correct. If Craig can show that (for example) his own consent at the time of the wedding was defective-a concept that has been discussed numerous times here in this space, in “Contraception and Marriage Validity” and “Canon Law and Fraudulent ong many others-then the marriage is invalid regardless of whether his ex-wife submits her own evidence or not.
Remember that it takes two people to marry validly. This means that for a valid marriage, both spouses have to get it right-but for an invalid great post to read marriage, only one spouse has to get it wrong. If the marriage is invalid due to defective consent on the part of the petitioner and he/she can prove it, then the tribunal can find it has all the evidence it needs to render a decision, without any input from the respondent.
Yet , even if the petitioner wants to argue that the wedding are invalid due to defective consent with respect to the fresh new respondent, it could be you’ll to prove it without having any respondent’s cooperation. There could be several witnesses-perhaps even in addition to bloodstream-friends of one’s missing respondent-that happen to be ready and you may ready to testify on tribunal in the the new respondent’s full conclusion, or specific measures, offering the tribunal making use of proof it takes.
Therefore the relationships tribunal will only just do it with no input out-of the brand new respondent
In the event your respondent is really so vengeful concerning think that low-cooperation have a tendency to appears the petitioner’s case, and then make your/their hold off lengthened to your wished annulment, that is not fundamentally so. According to individual products, the respondent’s inability to participate the process could possibly allow it to be the courtroom so you can material a decision even faster. In reality, periodically the fresh non-venture of a spiteful respondent may even help to buttress the newest petitioner’s states: imagine that good petitioner try claiming that the respondent features intellectual and/otherwise emotional issues, which eliminated your/their particular away from offering full agree to the marriage. The newest tribunal mails a beneficial summons on respondent… just who intensely runs new summons courtesy a newsprint-shredder and you will e-mails the fresh new fragments returning to new tribunal in response. Manage this kind of unformed, unreasonable decisions very hurt brand new petitioner’s circumstances?
Let’s say that the marriage tribunal ultimately gives Craig a decree of nullity, which will mean that he is able to marry someone else validly in the Church. So long as his ex-wife really was informed of the case by the tribunal, and knowingly chose not to participate in the proceedings, she will not be able to claim later that her rights were violated and have the decision invalidated as per canon 1620 n. 7. That’s because declining to exercise your rights does not mean you were denied your rights.