The judgements of tribunals are fallible judgements. A Catholic who receives an erroneous annulment is absolved from culpability unless they themselves firmly believe their annulment to be erroneous, that they "put one over" on the tribunal. Otherwise, how could the couple be held responsible for the error of the tribunal if they're obeying duly appointed authorities and if it's impossible to know with a high degree of probability whether their annulment was valid?
I don't think the Catholics in question are generally sophisticated enough to think about the annulment process that way. Whenever I hear anyone speak of it, what they really say is that they talked the Church into giving them a divorce--a "Catholic" divorce. A while back, one of the Kennedys was quoted in a thread here saying that annulment was just some "Catholic mumbo-jumbo." I think that pretty much sums up the contemporary Catholic position.
BTW, I am DELIGHTED that the Holy Father is speaking out against the abuse, but I'm afraid it will be a long, long time before we turn the corner on this one.
Isn't that what virtually every couple is trying to do? Theoretically, they're not supposed to even consider an annulment if the former couple have gotten together with someone else. Until the annulment is officially approved, the couple are still married in the eyes of God, and any sexual activity, even dating, is a form of adultery.
how could the couple be held responsible for the error of the tribunal
Weren't they directly culpable in the error of the tribunal? Wasn't this the precise result the couple requested from the tribunal? Wasn't the "instrumental" decision rendered by the tribunal -- rightly criticized by pope JPII -- done specifically to meet the request and the "pastoral needs" of the couple?
if they're obeying duly appointed authorities
Obeying authorities does not absolve someone from following their own conscience. If they know that they made valid marriage vows, but now they want to get out of it to be with someone else, then no "authority" in the world can absolve them of their individual guilt. Just like the jury's verdict did not make O.J. objectively innocent. Whatever verdict the jury rendered will not change O.J.'s culpability before the only tribunal that really matters.
if it's impossible to know with a high degree of probability whether their annulment was valid?
Here is where the pope deserves real credit -- because he did not buy this line of thought. He strongest criticism in the speech posted above was addressed to those who said that it was impossible to determine objective reality. This was the very line of thinking which he specifically condemned.
Although a civil courtroom is far from a perfect instrument, yet we continue to search for the truth of cases. And once we abandon that search, an imperfect instrument becomes a meaningless and arbitrary instrument. So much more so must a canonical court be determined to search for the actual truth.
And the couples bear the gravest responsibility in this regard. The tribunal might be fooled by their lies and their pretences, and the members of the tribunal might feel sympathy for the couple, but God's justice will not be fooled, nor will it allow sympathy to prevent the execution of His divine will -- an eternity of suffering in Hell. Those couples who think they are getting away with something will find that scrap of paper cold comfort.
The matter might come down to who is/are duly appointed.
Does scripture give us the duties and responsibilites of this tribunal?
Where and how does the tribunal establish their authority?