Folia Canonica 8. (2005)
STUDIES - Wojciech Kowal: Norms for Preparing the Process for the Dissolution of the Matrimonial Bon din Favour of the Faith
110 WOJCIECH K.OWALOMI The Instruction Ut notum est, art. 4, § 3, required in addition, that whenever the parties or the witnesses spoke about facts which they did not know first hand, their depositions and testimonies should indicate the source of their knowledge and the time when that knowledge had been acquired.111 This is no longer mentioned in the procedural norms but it seems to be perfectly reasonable that the Congregation would expect this kind of information. The new Norms order the instructor to administer the oath to tell the truth about what is to be stated or the oath about the truth of what was stated by the parties and witnesses. However, if someone refuses to take the oath, the person should be heard unsworn.112 The examination of the parties and witnesses is to be carried on by following a questionnaire prepared beforehand either by the instructor or by the defender of the bond. Of course, other questions can and should be added, if necessary.113 Indeed, another complaint from the Congregation touches precisely on this issue: sometimes instructors do not ask other pertinent questions which would follow the indications given in the answers of the witnesses. Article 4, § 3 of the Instruction of 1973 articulated this demand even more clearly: “The ordinary or his delegate will ask the prepared questions and will add others, which he judges opportune for better cognizance of the matter, or which the responses given suggest.”'14 The appropriate training and preparation of the persons instructing the case are essential in this regard. Those who are not acquainted with the process frequently do not ask further pertinent and necessary questions, sticking slavishly to the prepared questionnaire. A competent instructor could follow an important “lead” offered by a witness or correct some initial internal incoherence of a deposition by asking additional questions. On the other hand, great sensitivity is required on the part of the instructor when interviewing the parties and witnesses, who might not be familiar with the teaching on the power of the Church over non-sacramental marriages. Especially non-Catholics Admittedly, in this particular situation, the requested evidence is rather limited in extent as it refers basically to two questions concerning the desire to receive baptism and to live peacefully with the baptized party without offence to the Creator. Also, as the baptized party has the right to contract a new marriage with a Catholic if the unbaptized party has replied in the negative to the interpellation (c. 1146), the law should facilitate the exercise of this right even if the unbaptized party is uncooperative. 111 See in LE, vol. 5, col. 6703-6704 (English translation in Woestman, Special Marriage Cases, 132). 112 Potestas Ecclesiœ, art. 14, § 2, 12. 113 See ibid., art. 14, § 3, 12. 114 “Ordinarius vel eius Delegatus interrogationes iam paratas proponat, aliasque adiungat, quas ad res melius cognoscendas opportunas iudicet, vel ipsa responsa iam data suggerant” (in LE, vol. 5, col. 6703-6704 [English translation in Woestman, Special Marriage Cases, 132]). 115 See Woestman, Special Marriage Cases, 65.
