Return to Home Page

What Religious Liberty?
The Incredible Ever-Expanding Dead End
Anti-Cure, Anti-Life
Whose Values in Education?
Toppling Dominos
Anti-Christians don't have to be Hypocrites but Many Volunteer
Intolerant Tolerance
The Emperor's Clothes or a Cheap Tuxedo
The Myth of Hitler's Pope, Part I
The Myth of Hitler's Pope, Part II
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Again
The Madness of Secularism
"Don't Impose Your Religion on Me"
Dictatorship of Relativism
Two Babies at Christmas
Living Will or Death Warrant?
Court Ordered Slow Motion Torture-Death Sentence
Men in Black
A Lot of Hot Air
The Culture War Battles
"Stay with us, Lord"
Secular-to-English Dictionary
Moral Guidance for Catholics in this Election
Christians Losing America
Stem Cell Wars
Catholic Pro-Abortion Politicians and Communion
Useful Idiots
Who Killed Jesus?
A Primer on Gay Marriage
Whose Side are You on?
Vouchers Revisited
Real and Fake Cloning Bans
Broken Compasses
No Room in the Inn
Killing Fields Revisited
Gay but not Merry
Adam and Steve?
The Battle for the Court
Victimless Crimes
More Salt, Please
The Next Big Fight
When Religion Becomes Evil
Virginity Making a Comeback?
You've Come a Long Way, Baby
The Incarnational Approach
The Many Meanings of ACLU
Things Your Media Never Told You
A Nasty Little Secret
Two Points of View on the Birth of Jesus
You Gotta Kill Them.  How Else Are They Going To Learn?
Perplexing Christmas Questions
How Do You See Christ Today?
Now that there is Another Ewe, will there be Another You?
What is Conscience Anyhow?
Divorce of Love and Life
What Counts as a Mass?
What is a Covenant?
I Wish I had Your Faith
Are there Too Many Decrees of Nullity?
Dutch Treats
Ecumenism
Going from Baby Doe to Granny Doe
Comments of Evangelium Vitae
The Exception Corrupts the Rule
Good Morality or Good Medicine
Generation-X'ers Smart in Every Way But One
A Matter of Good Breeding
Herod and Pontius Pilate at the Polls
Hitler's Pope or Righteous Gentile?
The Unknown God
What exactly is wrong with homosexuality?
Ideology Trumps Science, Reality, and Common Sense
What Exactly is an Indulgence?
Infallibility and Error in the Church
Pilate Asked, "What is Truth?"
The Truth about Families
New Killing Fields
Choice of Language and Language of Choice
A Lexicon for Our Day
Why are there so many bodies?
Marijuana, Medicine or Menace?
Medical Research and Ethics
Meditation
"You Taught me well, Mommie dearest"
Moral Fallout
Neutral on the Wrong Side
"These are the Nineties After All"
Many are Wed but Few are Married
"...Prepare him for additional obligations"
A Useful Lie
A Partridge in a Pear Tree
Religious Persecution in the U.S.?
What Makes a Person a Person?
The Point of a Point of View
Politically Correct, Morally Depraved
Population Controllers out of Control
Practical Dreamers
Social Progress through Immorality
Shall we Do Evil for Goodness Sake?
Reason and Faith
Resurrection Glory
Same Sex Marriages?
Pearl of Great Price
"I used to be schizophrenic, but we're all right now"
Sexual Morality Irrelevant in Judging Public Officials?
Undesirable Side Effects
Some News is Good News
SOSSLQ's, not POSSLQ's
Spoils of Splits
Why Attend Mass Every Sunday?
Is it All Right to Pull the Plug?
An Appeal for Intolerance
Topics Catechetical
A Voting Catechism
A Moral Guide to Voting
Vouchers: Has Their Time Come?
What Child is This?
What did they die of?
You are the Man
You may be a liberal if...
Get Rid of that Worthless Relative
Planned Un-Parenthood
Weighing Pro-Life Issues Prior to Voting

by Monsignor James C. Brunner	Faith Points

In a recent conversation on the news program This Week aired May 4, 1997 the question of decrees of nullity arose. The context was a book written by Sheila Kennedy, divorced from Joseph Kennedy II of Massachusetts, in which she takes exception to the grant of a decree of nullity by the Church from their marriage. In the exchange among the commentators the following questions and points were raised:

1. Annulments appear to be "like a charade, a sham." Does an annulment mean it never took place in the eyes of God? Or just in the pope’s eyes? (Sam Donaldson)
2. "What we are dealing with here is a degree of hypocrisy which I think is useful." It upholds the value of indissoluble marriage, "but in individual cases making it possible for people to get out of harmful and difficult marriages." (Cokie Roberts)
3. "If you look at the trend lines, annulments were about in the hundreds thirty years ago, now 50,000 a year. If you get enough annulments then you have a policy of divorce by another means." (George Will)
4. "Do they [couples in broken marriages] have to go through all these contortions?" "Her [Sheila Kennedy] point is–well–it is insulting. You’re forcing me to say that this was never a marriage. That’s a lie." (George Stephanopoulos)

This is a good time to discuss what the Church calls decrees of nullity. The first essential is to use correct terminology. The Church does not annul marriages. It issues decrees of nullity concerning individual marriages. This is not just quibbling over words. The distinction is important because the Church does not break valid marriage bonds, which is implied in the use of the word "annulment." In the case of a decree of nullity what the Church says is that for reasons of defects in the persons or consent there never was a valid matrimonial covenant resulting in an unbreakable bond. In issuing a decree of nullity the Church is not saying that she is dissolving a bond. She is saying that, after an investigation conducted by a tribunal with sworn witnesses, she has judged that there never was a marriage bond to begin with, that the marriage was fatally flawed from day one. There was indeed a wedding but never a real marriage. The Church does not give decrees of nullity merely because marriages turn out unhappily after a few years. Decrees of nullity are for fatal defects present in the beginning.

Let me give some examples of what the Church and, I think, all rational persons would consider marriages flawed from the beginning. Suppose two people become pregnant prior to marriage and their families compel them to marry. These marriages are sometimes called "shotgun weddings." Marriage is a covenant that requires free consent. A marriage at the point of a gun is no more a valid covenant resulting in an unbreakable bond than a car stolen at gunpoint is a valid contract. Or take the case of someone that is psychotic and it becomes evident only after the marriage. The Church could look at such a union after it broke up and judge that the mentally ill person lacked sufficient discretion and ability to enter into a valid contract. Suppose a bride is twelve years old. In these cases there was indeed a wedding but nothing that would qualify as a contract of a real marriage that results in an unbreakable bond. These are not the only grounds for decrees of nullity. My point in mentioning them is that clearly there are unions that do not qualify as real marriages and that is a matter about which Church tribunals make a judgment. If a tribunal issues a decree of nullity in these cases it is not dissolving a valid marriage. There was no real marriage present to dissolve.

Are these marriages invalid in the eyes of God? Of course. The same would be true of a contract that one signed under a pointed gun or by one who did not have the mental capacity to enter a valid contract. It is hard to understand why a judgment of this sort should be characterized as a charade or sham or a useful bit of hypocrisy. Why should anyone consider judgments that contracts entered under force and fear were invalid an insult and a lie? It is possible that a tribunal could be in error in its judgment because all human judgments are prone to error. The Church has a system, however, for doing all that is humanly possible to avoid error in its tribunal practice. That is why it requires sworn testimony from witnesses and not just assertions by interested parties. That is the reason for the "contortions" about which some complain. If the Church were less careful in this matter than it is, then a criticism that it is not serious about the indissolubility of marriage might be valid. It is hard for the Church to please some people. If it requires rigorous proof substantiated by witnesses to establish that the marriage was defective and non-existent it is accused of putting people through "contortions." If it failed to do that it would be accused of not taking marriage permanence seriously.

The large number of decrees of nullity, while unfortunate and–to my mind–largely avoidable, does not justify a statement that decrees of nullity are divorce by another means. To argue that the quantity of decrees of nullity makes them equivalent to divorce is like maintaining that if you pile up a sufficient number of kittens you have a tiger by another means. Decrees of nullity are not dissolutions of a marriage bond. They are not divorces by another name. The problem is not that the Church issues too many decrees of nullity, but that there are too many foolish unions that cannot pass muster as real marriages.

Some things can be learned from this. There was a time when decrees of nullity were much fewer. Why is this generation less able to keep marriage vows than other generations? Many marriages that eventually collapse are entered because of premarital pregnancy. They follow the lead of their hormones rather than their heads. Instead of being the light of the world they are part of the moral blight of the world. They take their moral cues from the barnyard and not the Bible. Other marriages that fail are those entered into with incredible stupidity, e.g., marrying known alcoholics, addicts, abusers, persons already disloyal in courtship, marrying after a courtship the duration of a weekend, etc. Why is this generation so clever in other areas so dim-witted in the choice of marriage partners? If alien scientists visited our planet would they find in the younger generation evidence of intelligent life? Why does this generation not adopt as its ideal for their marriages mirroring the eternal and sacrificial love of Jesus for his Church? As long as there is no improvement in morality, common sense, and in an attitude of respect for the sacredness of marriage the Church will be compelled to balance Christ’s law of permanence with the pastoral needs of those who err. There is indeed hypocrisy and sham involved in the issuance of decrees of nullity. They are present in those who solemnly vow before God’s altar to love until death while keeping one eye on the escape hatch. Persons who serve on the tribunal would gladly give up their positions. That will happen only when this marrying generation cleans up its act.