By Sheryl Temaat  tmsharel@aol.com

Review of
Annulments and the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions
by Edward Peters, J.D., J.C.D.;
Ascension Press, West Chester, Pennsylvania; 2004
 
It has been the argument of some that the annulment process as it is
conducted in American diocesan tribunals is facilitating and promoting
divorce and remarriage among Catholics at an unprecedented rate.
 
Some examples from Peters’ latest book supports that argument in the following ways:
 
Terminology
 
Peters constantly uses the terms “former spouse,” “ex-husband,”
“ex-wife,” “former wife,” “ex,” in referring to what actually are
separated spouses when the marriage is considered valid until proven
null.
 
He is not using canonical language when he uses these terms.  Dignitas Connubii (the Dignity of Marriage, 2005) uses the terms “spouse” or “party” when referring to the petitioner and the respondent in a nullity case.  Peters’ use of civil terminology gives the person in the pew the
idea that civil divorce actually dissolved the marriage when no such
thing is true.
 
St. Paul said that those who separate are still married and must either
live alone or reconcile (1 Co 7:10-11). Peters use of the same
language used in civil law to refer to separated spouses is, in my
opinion, a serious scandal and a source of excruciating pain to
rejected spouses and children forced to live with the separation of
their parents.
 
There are six canons that urge separated spouses to reconcile.  No reference is made to these canons in Peters’ book or in the literature generally published by American tribunalists.  The six canons are:
 
     Canon 1152.1 which urges a spouse, out of Christian charity, to pardon an adulterous partner.
 
     Canon 1153.2 which instructs spouses to restore their common conjugal life when the reason for separation ceases. 
 
      Canon 1155 which urges the innocent spouse to laudably readmit the other spouse to the conjugal life, in which case he or she renounces the right to separation.
 
     Canon 1446.2 which encourages a tribunal judge to exhort and assist the parties to reconcile and to indicate to them serious-minded persons to mediate for them.
 
     Canon 1676 which instructs the judge, before he accepts a case and whenever they appears to be hope of success, to use pastoral means to persuade the spouses to resume conjugal life.
 
     Canon 1695 also urges the judge to induce the parties to be reconciled and to resume their conjugal life.
 
Capacity and Consent
 
Peters notes that 25% of petitions turn on documentary form. The other
75% deal with issues of capacity and consent which he repeatedly
mentions but does not explain.
 
As far as I know, Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn is the only canonist who has
written extensively on how evidence for incapacity and lack of consent
is gathered and evaluated, and much of what Wrenn considers evidence is what normal married couples have traditionally considered difficulties like, for example, a husband complaining about his wife showing the baby the attention he used to get. (Judging Invalidity, 2002, p. 16).
 
I’ve written about Fr. Wrenn’s use of questionable evidence elsewhere,
and will use only this one (silly) example here.
 
However, Peters’ referring so often to issues of capacity and consent
can only mean that individual tribunals decide, based on the evidence,
and many of them rely on Fr. Wrenn as a guide where evidence is
concerned, on flimsy grounds that marriages are null. I have no choice
but to conclude that Peters does not reject these weak grounds because
he makes no mention of questioning them. His objective is to “help”
people understand their options.
 
Where capacity is concerned, Cardinal Edward Egan wrote, as a member of the Sacred Roman Rota, that there are only two groups of psychic afflictions so far established by canonical jurisprudence by which a diocesan tribunal may declare a marriage invalid for reasons of incapacity.  They are satyriasis in males and nymphomania in females causing incapability of fidelity and sexual dysfunctions which cause one or both parties to be incapable of the marriage act.
 
Fr. Wrenn, on the other hand, adds the personalist obligations to the procreational obligation, which is his own invention.  It is not established by canonical jurisprudence.  He discusses the personalist obligations, for example, in his book The Invalid Marriage (1998), p. 45, “The Object of Incompetence,” #3: “These essential obligations of marriage are basically twofold: procreational and personalist,” and, according to Wrenn, they include self revelation, understanding and loving elements which give tribunals much leeway in deciding the nullity of marriages. 
 
If Peters is aware of Egan’s contribution to what constitutes nullity of marriage as a member of the Rota and as a reviewer of the new Code of Canon Law with His Holiness Pope John Paul II, he shows no evidence of it.  His writings support the procedures of American tribunals which rely on Fr. Wrenn’s views, not those of Rome.
 
Questions and Answers
 
Peters’ book is written in question and answer format.  Following are a few examples of questions and the answers he gives which are slanted toward helping spouses successfully petition for nullity.
 
Question 37 asks about the fact that two divorced people are engaged
and are wondering if that fact will affect their opportunity to receive
a declaration of nullity. Peters advises not to hide that fact. He
says, “In reality, most petitioners in tribunal cases are either
already remarried or hoping to remarry in the near future.”
 
Here is where I am again appalled by the attitude of so many Catholics,
including Peters. Don’t tribunals have a responsibility to warn people
about the eternal danger the divorced have been putting themselves in
when they date?  They aren’t free to date much less be engaged.
 
Question 43 is from someone divorced/annulled/remarried/divorced again, and wants to know if he or she can get another annulment.  Peters
answers that there is no canonical restriction on the number of times
one can apply for an annulment.  My reaction to this answer is, “How appalling.  Why tell people such a thing?  Don’t these people have any shame?” 
 
Question 68 asks what kinds of people make good witnesses. In his
answer to this question, Peters says that witnesses should be honest but that they lie every day to Church tribunals.  He also says that “yes” and “no” answers to questions cause many petitions to fail. He advises that more careful thought in answering questions is more likely to result in an affirmative decision (the marriage is declared null).
 
Sheryl