(EDITOR’S NOTE: Father Edward J. Dillon, Officialis of Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Atlanta, recently spoke at the annual training convention for priests of the province held in Raleigh, N.C. The title of his talk was “How Tribunals Can Work More Efficiently Under the Present System.” This is the last of a three-part series on the procedure Father Dillon would like to implement in Atlanta beginning this summer.)

There are several different ways the parish priest can obtain testimony under the present law. One would be to write directly to the witness, sending the necessary questionnaire and asking that the witness complete it and return it to him. When this method is used, it is important to ask the witness to have his or her signature at the end of the testimony witnessed. That can be done by a priest, minister, or notary public (NOTE: cf F.F. instruction). Lacking that notarization of signature, the completed questionnaire is merely a private letter which, while it is not without some value, lacks the probative value of a sworn deposition.

The second alternative for obtaining testimony would be to call the witness by telephone and conduct the interview personally, either recording the conversation on tape or handwriting the answers. Obviously, this is the quickest method although it requires some investment of time by the priest. When you know what you are looking for, it is often possible to elicit information in a conversation which would not emerge in a questionnaire completed by the witness alone.

There are a number of cautions, however, which must be kept in mind in using this method. The first relates to secular law. When you record a telephone conversation, you are required to advise the person on the other end, before you begin recording, that you are going to record the conversation. In some states the equipment you use for this must also emit a periodic electronic “beep” which, in itself, is an indication that the conversation is being recorded.

Secondly, it is necessary to insure the identity of the person you are talking to. In conjunction with the point I will mention next, you can do this by asking some questions such as: What is your relationship to NN? What is your date of birth? Testimony taken over the phone like this is a private conversation. Of course, in doing so YOU are acting as an official Auditor in the case, so information given you in this capacity may be admitted into the testimony on that basis alone. The normal method of validating the testimony, however, would be to make a copy of the tape transcript or the handwritten notes you made during the conversation and send this to the witness, requesting that they be reviewed, amended if necessary, signed and returned to you. With your signature, that becomes a formal deposition. On the other hand, if the witness will not cooperate in this or delays unnecessarily and unreasonably you will have your own notes of the session and these can be admitted to the record of the case.

There are several points I would mention in regard to this. The first regards the Respondent. It is not uncommon for the Petitioner to say the Respondent will not cooperate. Such a statement should not be taken at face value since experience shows that the Respondent’s testimony can frequently be obtained. Further, if the Petitioner says he or she does not know where the Respondent presently is, you may be able to obtain information about the city or general area of the country in which he or she was last known to be; you may be able to obtain the names and address of the Respondent’s (you should try for these people as witnesses anyway) and use this.

Above all, it is necessary to be cautious in a case where the Petitioner tells you that the Respondent is not to be contacted at all. The Respondent has A STRICT RIGHT to be heard in connection with the petition and it is only in a very few, limited, and defined circumstances that a case can proceed without this contact. That is not the same as saying that the Respondent must cooperate or else the case can go nowhere. The Respondent’s right to be heard is preserved by offering him or her an opportunity to testify. If that opportunity is refused, the responsibility belongs to the Respondent, not the Tribunal or the parish priest, and the case can proceed. If that situation arises, it would be advisable to contact the Tribunal before going any further with the case and get specific direction.

I might mention in passing that it is not necessary to obtain voluminous testimony in any given case. There is no absolute minimum number of witnesses, although it is recommended that there be at least two witnesses besides the parties to the marriage; that is only a recommendation and not a requirement. In some cases, a few witnesses will be sufficient, depending on the amount of information they can offer; in other cases, it may be necessary to piece the case together by using a lot of witnesses, each of whom can only give small amounts of information. It is very much an individual thing.

When the case is developed to the point that the parish priest, in his judgment, believes that the grounds alleged for nullity are reasonably well established, he writes his recommendations on the case; and brings that along with the testimony he has obtained to the Tribunal. In doing this, he is acting as Advocate for the Petitioner – so in writing his recommendations he should take into account the grounds alleged for the case, what the testimony obtained says about those grounds, the status of the Petitioner’s present marriage. It should generally, be a pastoral recommendation on the case. So it need not be a lengthy detailed, or scholarly work.

The Tribunal will arrange for a Defender of the bond on the case, as well as an oral discussion if the priest wants it; at that point, he will have the opportunity to explain in more detail any points he thinks should be considered before judgment is made. In many cases he will know, then and there, what the decision is and will be able to communicate it to the Petitioner right away. There are, of course, a number of other formalities involved, such as writing a sentence on the case, appeal and so forth. But the Petitioner knows the answer in First Instance.

There are several very obvious advantages which flow from this kind of approach to the Tribunal process. The first relates to time involved in a case. I don’t think that absolute speed is necessarily a value in a marriage case, but certainly it is an injustice to protract a case unnecessarily. At the present time, in Atlanta, the average length of time involved in a formal case is 6-7 months. In the cases which have been worked by parish priests, according to the system I have outline, that has been dropped to 1 month for First Instance with about another month for appeal, giving a total of 2 months. That in itself, is a tremendous advantage.

Additionally, this system creates the possibility for more cases to be handled. I don’t need to tell you of the numbers of divorced Catholics or of divorced persons wishing to marry or already married to Catholics. Using this proposed system would allow for more cases to be processed. For example, let’s say you have 60 priests in the diocese who are willing to work on cases from their own parishes in this way, and each one handled 5 cases a year. That means that 300 cases are processed, in addition to those which the Tribunal can continue to work on. That automatically doubles the number of cases we are presently handling; and the figures I mention are, I would guess, minimal ones. At the very least, the system allows for a vast increase in the number of people assisted.

Perhaps the more important advantage stemming from this is the close PERSONAL and PASTORAL contact which the parish priest has with the people involved in the case. It’s hard to overestimate the value of this, the value to the people of knowing that a priest – the Church, in effect – is PERSONALLY interested in them and willing to help them in every way possible.

The system will generate mistakes. Not every priest will become an overnight expert, problems will develop with individual cases. But that needn’t be an obstacle either – such problems can be resolved and, with time and experience, the likelihood of problems will diminish anyway. As the process develops, the parish priest who is involved in it will gain a greater facility, through experience, for handling cases with less and less need for support from the Tribunal in the early stages. That, in turn, allows for greater numbers and more efficient handling of cases. I think, perhaps, it has an added side benefit too, in that it provides the priest with a more varied experience in dealing with marriages. You see marriages which failed, you see the problems which arose in them and led to the failure. That insight is invaluable in dealing with marriage in general; for example, in your premarital instruction of couples, your counseling people who are having marital difficulties.

I realize that the kind of proposal I have outlined here is somewhat idealistic, that it will require a fairly good response from parish priests in terms of their investment of time and effort for their people. I fully realize that it will give rise to problems of one kind or another as we go along with the program. I realize that it will take time to work out this kind of system. But I believe it can be done – in fact, it has been done in a number of dioceses already; and I believe that by utilizing a system such as this, the Tribunal and the parish priest can combine together to the greater service of people. That makes the attempt worthwhile.