The annulment game: let's pretend.

I am a divorced Catholic. I also have an annualment and am remarried in the church. In spite of this happy resolution in my own life, I believe the church's present policy on annulments is causing distress to many serious, well-informed, and loyal Catholics. For some, it creates a crisis of faith; for others it initiates tension and intellectual conflict that ultimately drive them from the church. Still others feel that it asks them to compromise their integrity, a compromise they are unwilling to make. I am not referring to those who are afraid they cannot get an annulment, or to those who shrink from such a technical and legal approach to what they experience as a deeply personal and emotional pain. No, I am concerned here with people who do understand the process and are willing to undertake it, but who nonetheless are troubled by what the church is saying concerning the annulment process and feel it is finally dishonest.

The difficulty starts with the word itself: annul. The word derives from the Latin annulare, to make [into] nothing. But in what sense does an annulment declare a marriage to have been a nothing? The Catechism of the Catholic Church notes that if consent was impaired by coercion or fear, or if there were other reasons that could render the marriage null and void, then the church "can declare the nullity of a marriage, i.e., that the marriage never existed." The Encyclopedia of Catholicism (HarperCollins, 1995) adds that an annulment does not say "that a marriage never existed between the parties, but only that the marriage was not a canonically valid one (in church law, a marriage which is de facto invalid which was entered with at least one party being in good faith, is known as a `putative' marriage...)." But according to Annulment: Your Chance to Remarry within the Catholic Church by Joseph Zwack (Harper & Row, 1983), "an annulment declares that there never was a valid union, despite appearances to the contrary." As in much of the current literature on the subject, Zwack places a great deal of weight on the concept of sacrament. Thus, he writes that "an annulment does not dissolve a marriage. It simply means that in the eyes of the church there never was a sacramental marriage at all" (emphasis added).

But the terms valid, canonical, putative, sacramental not only fail to clarify the issue for most people, but seem to obfuscate it. To the popular mind, the Catholic church, by granting an annulment to John and Betty--who were legally married for twenty-two years, had four children, suffered through a difficult pregnancy, a critical auto accident of one of their children, and the deaths of two parents--is saying they were never really married. But when challenged with the absurdity of such a notion, the defenders of annulment invoke the concepts of sacramentality and canonical validity.

Again, according to the Encyclopedia of Catholicism, "A marriage may be invalid according to the church for one of two reasons: because of a law, or because of a consent that was in some way defective." Various impediments make a marriage invalid by law: a prior bond, abduction, holy orders, or impotence. Failure to observe the proper forms, such as not marrying before two witnesses, can also render a marriage invalid by law. In Catholic teaching, sacramentality is linked to validity. An article titled "Why the Church Is Granting More Annulments" in the Catholic Update series, (Saint Anthony Messenger Press), says that "any valid marriage between baptized persons, Catholic or Protestant, is a sacrament as well as a natural bond." But the term sacrament proves to be problematic, particularly when it is invoked to justify an annulment.

The Catholic Update article explains that "a declaration of nullity is a judgment by the church that what seemed to be a marriage never was in fact a true marriage." It states that "church law today reaffirms the personal relationship, the intimate partnership between the spouses, as a crucial, basic dimension of marriage." Furthermore, an essential part of the sacramentality of a marriage is the quality of the consent at the time of the wedding. What happened afterward in the relationship is important, but only as it sheds light on the state of mind of the two people at the time they were married. That is why, after investigating the matter, the church insists that a valid or sacramental marriage never existed: "A declaration of nullity is granted when it can be shown that some essential or juridical defect made a particular marriage invalid from the beginning despite outward appearance, despite even the good faith of the partners or the establishment of a family" (Catholic Update).

But if matrimony is one of the seven sacraments, it must share certain fundamental characteristics with the other six. Baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, and the others are considered to be sacraments if the proper matter and form are present. This includes that the proper rite is used and the minister acts with the correct intention. Although the sacraments "do not cause grace magically," as Richard McBrien points out in Catholicism, and the reception depends on one's disposition, the common understanding among most Catholics is that if the proper procedure is followed and the minister and recipient have the proper intention, the grace of God is present and the sacrament is conferred. Is baptism not a sacrament if the infant does not have the conscious intention of being baptized? Is confirmation not a sacrament if the thirteen-year-old in the pew is there because his parents told him he had to attend all the Monday-night classes and be confirmed with the other thirteen-year-olds, and that he really didn't have a choice about it? Does the distracted young mother who approaches the altar, her mind filled with the chores waiting for her at home, and who mindlessly swallows the eucharistic bread, not truly receive the sacrament?

Most Catholics would insist that such instances do constitute sacraments. But the sacrament of matrimony--as it is described in the current literature on annulment--seems to be of an entirely different order. Here, as in holy orders and adult baptism, validity is linked to the nature of consent:

Consent must be free and discerning. External or internal pressure, which significantly reduces freedom or undermines critical judgment, could impair consent to such a degree that common-sense requirements for such a binding decision as marriage are not fulfilled....[Also] both partners must have the maturity to establish and sustain a mutually supportive communal relationship with one another (Catholic Update).

What other sacrament is dependent for its validity or sacramentality on such tenuous, intangible, and psychologically complex factors? Furthermore, if the only people who are validly, sacramentally married are those whose choice was perfectly free, who completely understood what marriage is and what it entails, then very few--if any--were sacramentally married at the time they exchanged nuptial vows.

Although I am not a theologian, the distinctions concerning sacramental and canonically valid marriage invoked in the annulment process strike me as mystifying and even offensive. Ask the children of divorced parents who are seeking annulments what they think about it. They find it hurtful. No matter how patiently and carefully one goes over the civil marriage/sacramental marriage distinction, basic good sense, honesty, and primordial family loyalty rise up in revolt when children learn their parents were never sacramentally married. It is not that they necessarily want to see the parents together: In many cases they sincerely believe that the divorce was for the best. But they are offended by the declaration that their parents were not truly married.

Many Catholics remember being taught, clearly and definitively, that a marriage could be ended only by death. Although some clear impediments could annual a marriage, these were so rare and peculiar that they did not ordinarily apply. Today, however, according to Zwack, "in many jurisdictions, more than 95 percent of the petitions [for annulment] accepted for consideration are ruled upon favorably." The increased frequency of annulments heightens the sense that the sacrament of marriage is singled out for peculiar treatment, and that unlike most sacraments, it is unduly dependent on the disposition of the recipients at the time of reception. But in keeping with the way we usually think of sacraments, would it not be consistent to say that there was indeed a sacrament, but that ultimately it was not fruitful?

It is true that the strict practice of the pre-Vatican II church with regard to divorce and remarriage left many people trapped in miserable marriages; and if they separated, there was no hope of remarriage within the church as long as the first spouse was alive. In its present practice of granting annulments, the church seems to be trying to be pastorally humane, allowing Catholics a way to disengage from hurtful, destructive marriages, to have a second chance at marital happiness and still remain in full communion with the church. Bishop Walter Kasper, writing in America (February 10, 1996), acknowledged a "split between official teaching and pastoral practice" in regard to divorced and remarried Catholics receiving the Eucharist. That same split is evident in regard to the church's position on annulment. The church desires to be humane and compassionate, but its need to be consistent and coherent is paramount. This dilemma, I submit, is the genesis of the murkiness that surrounds the annulment issue, its repudiation by many Catholics, and the incredulity and stupefaction it elicits from others.

The annulment process itself, however, can, as many will testify, be healing, clarifying, and therapeutic. In requiring divorced Catholics to undertake such a challenging process before the marriage is declared null, the church sends an important message that marriage is not to be undertaken lightly, and that before one approaches the altar it is imperative to look into one's own heart and enlarge as far as possible one's understanding of the reasons for the first failure. This is a message that the world-at-large would do well to consider. I am proud of the church for taking marriage so seriously.

I had thought about these issues when the time approached that I would be eligible to apply for an annulment (six months after the granting of the legal divorce). I sought the advice of a priest whom I very much respect. He agreed with me that the church's pastoral practice seems out of sync with its doctrinal statements. He encouraged me to begin the process only if I felt I could do so without compromising my integrity.

Although I had some reservations, I decided to go ahead with the annulment. I feel a love for and loyalty to the religious tradition which nurtured my faith. While I had no plans to marry again, I hoped that I might, and I wanted to have my options. I also believed that the process would help me achieve insight and closure.

When I began it I was not dating anyone. By the time the annulment was granted, a year later, I was engaged to a divorced Catholic who had received an annulment a year-and-a-half previously. We were married at a nuptial Mass and were gratified that we could witness to the possibility of divorced persons being married within the Catholic tradition and with the loving support of fellow Catholics.

Again and again I have heard Catholic friends who have sought an annulment say with resignation, "Of course, I was married. I would never say I was not. But the church says I must do this if I wish to remarry in the church. So I will do it." Although the literature on annulment is very insistent on the point that annulment is by no means "divorce, Catholic-style," that is, in fact, what it is. The church must be more explicit and honest about the extent to which its annulment policy represents a change.

Of course the church has changed her mind before. History provides numerous examples: usury, slavery, and religious freedom, among others. Can it do so in regard to the indissolubility of sacramental marriage? Some theologians now argue that Jesus' prohibition of divorce should be interpreted as an ideal rather than a literal and absolute ban, but this is still not the church's teaching.

So today, when the church declares that a sacramental marriage never existed in a specific case, many--including the participants themselves--are skeptical. They need support and guidance as they try to live up to the ideal of Christian marriage in a culture that militates against it. But they also need help in rebuilding their lives when those attempts fail. Yes, fail. Because that is what such marriages are--failures--not marriages that never really were.

This is not a trivial argument over semantics, but a serious plea for an end to language that many divorced Catholics, their children, and loved ones find humiliating, embarrassing, and patently untrue. Much about the present annulment process is good. But in too many cases it has forced those involved in it to act disingenuously. The church's teaching and practice ought to reflect the truth that divorced remarried Catholics already know: We worship a compassionate God who does not exclude us from the joy of fulfilling married love, despite the fact that we tried and failed before. God not only allows us to try again, but is our loving support as we try to make our lives an imitation of perfect love.