[sinkspur]

The Church must assume that those who present themselves for annulment are acting in good faith.

If only the petitioner is acting in good faith, it doesn't matter what the other party does. The annulment is still valid.

The Church does everything it can to assure that the truth is being told, which is why three witnesses are required on each side.

People lie in all kinds of things. The Church is not responsible for the internal motivations of those who seek annulments; that's between them and God.

The annulment, nevertheless, is still valid.

[1stFreedom]

>>The Church must assume that those who present themselves for annulment are acting in good faith.

Really? Hmm. Intersting. The Church must assume that, but on the other hand it mut not assume that the marriage is valid in the first place? ;-)

>>If only the petitioner is acting in good faith, it doesn't matter what the other party does. The annulment is still valid.

That's not true. If the petitioner acts in good faith, meaing no self deception, willfull ignorance, self induced doubt, and is objectively truthful, then there is no guilt in obtaining an invalid declaration.

Howoever, the anullment is not valid if it was granted on non-canonical grounds ("emotional immaturity", for example). The grounds, and not the petitioner's faith, are what makes an anullment valid or not.

Having said that, I'd say that if an invalid anullment was granted and the respondant didn't know it was invalid, there is no guilt in remarriage for the resondent (until they find out the truth and continue to have sexual relations)

>>The Church does everything it can to assure that the truth is being told, which is why three witnesses are required on each side.

No it doesn't, and you know that. Witness are biased and not objective (in most cases) or don't know those involved well enough.

Plus, there is witness coaching that occurs before the process. It may not even explicit or intentional. Merely discussing one's view of why the marriage is invalid poisons the witness.

(I know that in my situation, my wife hasn't been truthful with her relatives concerning our marriage. I'm not talking about anullment issues either, just the civil and relationship part. Do you think her relatives would be objective if put on a witness stand in court after such witness tampering?)

Some form of cross examination is needed -- not the same type used and abused in civil court, but a respondant should be able to pose questions to a petitioner and challenge their claims. (I'm not talking about Cross Examinations used to humuliate the other person).

>>People lie in all kinds of things. The Church is not responsible for the internal motivations of those who seek annulments; that's between them and God.

That's true. While an invalid anullment may not have been appealed and overturned -- one has to remember that they can fool a tribunal, but they can't fool God.

>>The annulment, nevertheless, is still valid.

No, it is not valid. If I received an anullment because I bribed a judge and blackmailed a 3 panel tribunal, it is not valid. It does have the appearance of being valid unless it's overturned on appeal. But in order for an anullment to be valid, one has to remember what an anullment is and isn't about: it's not about the decision of the tribunal, it is about the discovery of the in/validity of the marriage.