From a priest/marriage tribunal judge re "annulment: the kangaroo court".

(C.I., Nov. 2006, pp. 35-36)

Pat MacLeod's item is easily one of the most unfortunate articles to appear on the pages of Catholic Insight anytime recently. One might wish that the editorial board would exercise greater caution in accepting such articles.

As a Judge for one of the Regional Marriage Tribunals elsewhere in the country, I can say in all honesty that I have never heard of MacLeod's case and am totally unfamiliar with it, but I truly believe that the vast majority of personnel working in the Tribunals are doing a superb job with completely inadequate resources. These people (many of whom are not priests) are highly skilled professionals who are trying to balance justice and compassion which should not be at odds but often seem to tug the heart in slightly different directions.

To deal thoroughly with the errors in MacLeod's article would require a book. The simplest example might be the writer's protest that Halifax and Ottawa are not in the area of the same Bishops' Conference. In fact they are; it's called the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Granted, this is just one silly, obvious, little point but it is fairly representative of the whole article. The writer gives the impression of being an expert in the field when such is clearly not the case.

What is, perhaps, most upsetting about this article is the numerous accusations of improper procedure hurled against a certain Judicial Vicar who would be fairly easy to identify. If MacLeod has complaints about procedure, let proper appeals be filed. Badmouthing somebody in the media is not the best way of doing this.

Unfortunately, the entire article is little more than poorly disguised anger. The author fails to understand that the Marriage Tribunal judges a doubt raised by the Petitioner as to the validity of a specific marriage. It is, in essence, a dispute between the Petitioner and the Church; the Petitioner contends that the marriage may have been invalid for some serious reason while the Church presumes that it was valid and needs to be convinced otherwise. Pat MacLeod, like too many other Respondents, is of the mistaken impression that it is a fight between the Petitioner and the Respondent, and has taken the matter rather personally. Of course marriage is always personal, but this investigation is not about whether one person was right or wrong, good or bad, but rather is about whether a true and valid marriage ever existed in the first place.

None of which is to say that Pat MacLeod has been through a fair and useful experience. There may well have been irregularities in the handling of this particular case, but airing them in a magazine is unlikely to result in greater justice. Nor am I saying that the article is completely lacking in thought-provoking issues--the overuse of Canon 1095, S. 2 as grounds, for example.

All in all, however, I'm afraid this article may have been more harmful than helpful with regard to the common perception of annulments.

Name, location withheld