If anything, the new norms will reduce the endless appeals kicked up by some respondents.
Yup -I agree; however, I think the procedural appeals are probably the exception; e.g. cases in which respondents actually employ thier own hired gun (Canon Lawyer advocate)... I tend to think (without having seen the document yet) that the guidelines are going to be very restrictive up front as to what objective criteria and requirements must be in place to even take a case...
This is actually a good thing, something which I made a case for in my response (differing grounds than what the petitioner plead).
Unfortunately, the first instance declaration I recieved is bogus and I wouldn't trust the second instance court here in NY with a 10 foot pole.
What would be great is if the Rota were able to expedite second instance cases.
I don't think this will stop second instance appeals to the Rota...
People go to the Rota because of baseless decisions for nullity, a lack of conformity to canon law, et cetera. This won't change. If the Rota overturns the first instance, it's a moot point and the petitioner has to start again.
In theory, what this could do is allow a second instance court to address any canonical problem of a first instance court. In theory, it should be a positive thing for a respondant.
The unfortunate thing is, in theory, this should already be happening. Instead, a majority of the time the second instance tribunals rubber stamp the first instance sentences.
This is actually a good thing, something which I made a case for in my response (differing grounds than what the petitioner plead).
Unfortunately, the first instance declaration I recieved is bogus and I wouldn't trust the second instance court here in NY with a 10 foot pole. (The problem is systemic, and second instance tribunals are not exempt.)
What would be great is if the Rota were able to expedite second instance cases.
Another positive aspect is that the Rota could determine nullity on other grounds (for a second instance).. Then a third instance tribunal would make the final decision and a couple could obtain an declaration for/against nullity which has solid grounds.
Why anyone would throw up endless appeals if a solid decision is reached is beyond me. This is good news to me as I know the reasons the first instance tribunal used in my own case were a joke.
My own case is at the Rota now, and I myself was dreading having to go back through the process when the Rota overturns the case (which they will). Now, hopefully the Rota will consider my own response, which has a much better basis for nullity, and make a decision that has "legs" so to speak -- regardless if it is for or against nullity. (I'm not sure if my arguments rise to the level of being "grave" -- that's for the Rota to determine, I just gave them my story.)
Who knows, I could be the first second instance case that the Rota has which finds grounds for nullity based upon the respondant's testimony...