Dear Mrs. Benkovich,
 
I heard you on EWTN Live radio Nov. 9, 2005.  On the show you advised a woman who was married to an addict.  The woman did not want a divorce and had been praying rosaries for her husband's conversion.  From what I remember you said God did not intend the marriage covenant to be this way.  You advised her to talk to her local tribunal and made the comment that he probably had these problems before the marriage and therefore was likely not emotionally capable of marriage. 
 
I was quite saddened that you would give this woman this advice.  Of course God did not intend for sin to be in marriages.  But marriage enjoys the favor of the law no matter how sinful a spouse is acting and therefore we must assume this marriage is valid.  So where do you draw the line?  Is it a valid marriage covenant if the husband uses drugs once, twice, stops after a decade, etc.?  We should not tempt spouses by telling them it is likely their marriage is not valid.  Why did you not advise this woman to consult her pastor about a separation?  Separation has always been an option in the Church for grave circumstances such as these.  It is likely her tribunal (if it is a tribunal in the U.S.) will not even discuss the likelihood of the validity of her marriage without a civil divorce first (even though this is not required by canon law).  John Paul II was very critical of the handling of annulments by certain tribunals in his yearly addresses to the Roman Rota.  In Robert Vasoli's book, What God Has Joined Together, it describes how the Roman Rota overturns over 90% of U.S. tribunals' decisions for nullity on psychological grounds, when they are brought to the Rota for second or third instance review. 
 
I am personally in a situation similar to this woman's.  Most of the advice I have received is similar to what you given this woman. I was told by many that there was no way my marriage was valid because of my husband's psychological and addiction problems.  Because of the Catechism's description of the gravity of divorce, I was very hesitant to heed this advice.  I did my own research.  I read articles from a scholarly canon law journal (Studio Canonica) written by a former member of the Roman Rota (Cardinal Egan) on the inability to assume the essential obligations of marriage and on psychological problems.  The more research I did, the more I found that it was probably likely my marriage was valid, despite my husband's very real and serious problems.  My husband may never be a good husband or even a decent husband, but we are validly married.  He IS my husband.  We are separated.  I encourage you to read these same articles, especially if you are going to be in the situation of giving out advice to spouses.  They and others are available here http://www.marysadvocates.org/reasonnull.html 
 
John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consortio, "But it is also proper to recognize the value and witness of those spouses who, even when abandoned by their partner, with the strength of faith and of Christian hope have not entered a new union: these spouses too give an authentic witness to fidelity, of which the world today has a great need.  For this reason they must be encouraged and helped by the pastors and the faithful of the Church."  The focus on annulment often weakens the resolve of the separated and even those who are still living with their spouses to be faithful to their vows.  I certainly wish the faithful would heed John Paul II's exhortation and do more to encourage spouses in difficult situations instead of thinking it is charitable to fish for grounds for an annulment.
 
SIncerely,
 
Jodi Wagner
 
cc:  Defending Marriage Yahoo group