The Roman Catholic Diocese of BrooklynAbout the DioceseOur BishopsOur ParishesOur MinistriesCatholic EducationCatholic CharitiesThe Tablet
DonateHomeVocationsHuman ResourcesDevelopmentDonate
he Annulment Process
The Annulment Process
Myth Two
Myth Three
Myth Four
Myth Five
Myth Six
Myth Seven
Myth Eigth
Myth Nine
Myth Ten

Myth No. 1:
"An Annulment is just a Catholic Divorce"

Some critics go so far as to say that the annulment process is really just a sneaky way of trying to get around the clear teaching of Jesus against divorce. "Catholic gobbledy-gook" is what Sheila Rauch Kennedy says her husband Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr. called it, deriding a process he initiated to benefit from. Even those who respect the Church's commitment to uphold marriage and the teachings of Jesus, may feel Catholics should at least tolerate divorce like many other Christians do, albeit reluctantly, as a more sincere, less tortuous way of interpreting a broken union. The charge is that annulment is too radical a theory, less than honest in its implication that a marriage never existed. What does it mean?

First of all, an annulment granted is not a conclusion that no kind of marriage ever existed. Obviously, there had to a wedding. Every wedding involving at least one Catholic, in a ceremony sanctioned by church (canon) law, is recorded in an official marriage register kept in each parish or, in some cases, the Chancery office. An annulment is not a holy eraser. Following it, the marriage record remains intact; a notation of its annulment is entered alongside it, in another column.

An annulment  more accurately, a "declaration of canonical invalidity"  neither erases a wedding, nor alters its civil effects. It does, however, let go of a presumption in canon law that the wedding instanced a permanent and binding union. In other words, the marriage is said to have been short of a quality (or validity) that would make it a sacred bond, a sacrament for Christians. This quality must include the capacity to endure faithfully and intimately, as a partnership for life between a man and a woman, disposed towards the vocation of responsible parenthood. These are the essentials. Other individuals, societies, religions and civil jurisdictions may envision marriage differently. But this is the standard by which Church law presumes every marriage, freely entered, is to be measured. A marriage may be held non-binding for not being grounded on this standard.

Are arguments for divorce really less tortuous and more honest? Grounds vary from state to state, but usually litigants must allege and prove some serious fault, which tends to expend energies and resources on airing the vices and abuses of the accused spouse. Adultery, cruel and inhuman treatment, and abandonment are common allegations in divorce suits. All deal with explosions after the wedding, neglecting to account for the emotional and psychological landmines, laid long before it, that may have sabotaged the union. Personal histories - familial, relational and occupational  contain valuable clues for embittered couples that divorce proceedings rarely touch.

Annulment procedures, by contrast, try to get at the roots of a relationship that soured, concentrating on the foundational decision to get married in the first place. Rather than accuse and deny, couples are invited to reflect on their own history, taking responsibility for their own decision, expectations and presuppositions in entering the union.

In canon law, the grounds for annulment focus on the partners at the time of the wedding; not their sins and faults, but their decision. If someone goes through a sham ceremony just to get a green card, for example, it is possible that a Church tribunal may be able to declare the marriage invalid on the grounds of simulation. In other words, the marriage itself was never intended, only its legal benefits, in this case permanent residence or citizenship.

People may be tricked into marriage, led on by deceit or a cover up about a critical quality of a marriage partner. Civil law also follows an annulment theory to invalidate a marriage induced through some kind of fraud or misrepresentation.

Besides simulation and fraud, other factors can affect free consent to a marriage. Teenagers who elope just to escape the depredations of a violent parent or the embarrassment of a pregnancy may not be looking at other issues like their ability to accept the considerable responsibilities of marriage. Moreover, if their judgment is compromised by gross immaturity or a serious psychological condition, it may be that a Church court could conclude that one or both of the spouses lacked "due discretion" of judgment at the time of consent. Such a psychological condition might be temporary, such as intoxication from alcohol or other drugs. It may also be more permanent, like a serious personality disorder. So long as it was clearly present at the time of the wedding, it might mean the marriage was never properly validated as a free and conscientious decision proportionate to the key rights and duties of married people.

Divorces, unlike annulments, rarely invite people to consider their own decisions and responsibility. In fact, they have been known to fan the flames of anger, resentment and even hatred toward the other spouse. Couples may resort to finger-pointing, or sometimes even consort to tell the judges lies, black and white, whatever will expedite a judgment or construct a basis for one where there may be none. A Church annulment, on the other hand, is primarily a search for the truth. There need be no coaching from a lawyer to color the story or to withhold information. Obviously, someone inclined to deceive a civil magistrate can also lie to the Church. However, it will serve little purpose except, perhaps, to increase the likelihood of incurring restrictions on a future Church wedding, considering a demonstrable lack of respect for civil and Church institutions. Parties are expected to tell neither more nor less than their honest experience.

Many people are surprised to learn that grounds for divorce are not grounds for annulment. Divorce grounds may well be reasons for a Tribunal to put a hold called a "vetitum" on a future marriage, but they do not mean the marriage was not valid.

Even more surprising to some is that the Church acknowledges the legal reality of divorce and its civil effects. Catholics who must seek divorce to protect their legal rights and their children are in no way relegated to second-class status. In the past, excommunication was never incurred by a divorce itself, but only through another attempt at marriage without a Church annulment. Today, Catholics living in civil marriages are invited to explore the possibility of "convalidating" their union according to church law. A simple call to a local tribunal will often unload mounds of misinformation and end years of living in doubt.

Both in principle and practice, as we have seen, the Church clearly distinguishes between the meaning of divorce and annulment, as well as their effects. States claim authority to terminate marriages by granting divorces; the Church does not. A divorce puts a power to dissolve in the hands of a human judge. The Church does not believe it has this power. So it is clear that an annulment cannot even be called a "Catholic" divorce.