The Canon Law Society of America (CLSA) is incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia as a nonprofit corporation.  The Board of Governors, composed of elected officers, exercises oversight over the operations of the Society.  The work of the society is done by committees, an annual convention and other symposia. (see structure)  As a non-profit incorporation, the magisterium of the Catholic Church has no authority over the work of the CLSA other than the authority exercised by bishops over the individual members in their home states.  CLSA was receiving free office and storage space from Catholic University of America, but they were asked to leave, and they moved out in April of 2004.

Its Mission Statement is, "The Canon Law Society of America is a professional association whose members are dedicated to the promotion of the study and application of canon law in the Roman Catholic Church. The Preamble of the Society's Constitution states, 'Mindful that church laws ought to be pastoral in character and made only to serve the people of God, we accept our responsibility as Christians trained in canon law to continue research and study and to assist any member of Christ's Body singularly or collectively, laity or clergy, who will welcome the deliberations, research and common opinion of this Society.'" Membership in the Canon Law Society of America is open to interested persons who wish to collaborate in the promotion of the pastoral ministry of the Church within the context of the legal/canonical structures of the Roman Catholic Church. Membership of non-Catholic persons is also welcomed.

Of the CLSA work accomplished by committee, the first two titles on their list of Former Committees is Academic Freedom (1970) and Alternatives to Tribunal Procedures(1973-1978).  On CLSA's homepage, there is one scripture quote, "in Christ Jesus the life-giving law of the Spirit has set you free from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8:2)."  CLSA states that its members and its Publications Committee create texts for the English speaking readers of canonical materials.  "...  the creative work of producing new CLSA books remains a volunteer effort under project and task committees" (see publications).

The first two books sold by CLSA's on-line bookstore in their Marriage and Tribunal's Section are by Fr. Wrenn. His book  Judging Invalidity, by Lawrence G. Wrenn, ©2002  is described as being, "Designed as a practical companion to the author's previous volume, The Invalid Marriage, this resource for tribunals, students and pastoral ministers contains 15 fictional marriage cases. These reflect the basic grounds for marital nullity established in the 1983 Code of Canon Law."  In Wrenn's other book, named Decisions(© 1983),  "a series of individual decisions are presented as examples for applications of grounds for specific cases involving marital invalidity"

Following are examples of evidence used in lack of due discretion and lack of due competence cases that resulted in decrees of nullity being granted.  These examples are from Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn, tribunalists with the Hartford, Connecticut, diocese and speaker and writer for the Canon Law Society of America.   We must keep in mind that Fr. Wrenn and the tribunal are not describing people who are mentally retarded or ill, stone drunk or out of their minds on drugs.  They are describing people who have what they call personality problems and are incapable of an interpersonal relationship with a spouse.  Most of us would call that the "worse" as in for better or for worse. Fr. Wrenn's list contradicts Vatican authoritative teaching and is DISSENTING.

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002,  By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
Working out a couple of hours a day in the gym.
Being described as arrogant and selfish with an "I don't need anyone else" attitude.
Saving one's salary in a personal account.
Seeming to be obsessed with one's body (personal appearance).
Ignoring one's parents on one occasion when they came for a visit.
Seeing the world as his apple.  (Psychiatric expert's term)
Having a moderately severe Narcissistic Personalty Disorder (Psychiatric expert's diagnosis).  (page11)

Being traumatized by father's death at age five.
Being belittled by a stepfather.
Still yearning for a father's love.
Feeling deprived of the love and affection that other couples had.
Complaining about the attention a wife gives the baby that husband used to get.  (page 16)

Never being satisfied with a gift given by one's spouse.
Feeling chronically disenfranchised in one's (spousal) relationship.
Not achieving the desired companionship and intimacy one wants in marriage.
Suffering abandonment issues over a father who died.  (page 17)

Protecting herself by putting a hard shell around herself.
Suffering from low self-esteem, self-absorption, and a need for attention.
Lacking emphathy and fearing intimacy.
Comparing oneself to others and always finding them happier.  (page 18)

Reasons for annulment listed in Judging Invalidity ©2002,  By Fr. Lawrence G. Wrenn
The petitioner's mother always resented her.  The mother was unreasonably strict and hypercritical.  (P. 18)
The petitioner's motive for marrying was to get back at his overly protective mother.  (P. 25)
The petitioner said that at the time of marrying there was bombing all around her and she was confused.  (P. 31)
The petitioner was overweight, obese, unpopular, lonely, immature, pathetic and extremely self-conscious.  (P. 35)
The petitioner was just a little girl on her wedding day and she remembers feeling kind of sad and crying as she drove off on her brief honeymoon.  The psychiatric expert observed that she was emotionally impoverished in terms of her own needs being met throughout her childhood.  (P. 39)
She was like a robot, like in a daze, mummified, just numb, in a fog.  (P. 45)
About a month before the wedding he drove his mother to a family reunion, leaving her all alone to make preparations for the wedding.  (48)
The psychiatric expert described the respondent as porcupinish.  He didn't want people near him; surprises he liked even less.  It was noted in the proceedings, however, that he was in love with another woman.  (P. 53)
Witnesses regarded the respondent as resentful, jealous, inconsiderate, self-centered, unethical, immature, irresponsible, heartless, disagreeable and even delusional.  (P. 58)
The respondent was described by witnesses as paying little or no attention to domestic chores and the house was a mess.  (P. 61)
The respondent's problems began early in life; his father drank to excess and was not a steady worker, while his mother was always very protective of him, assuring him that he was a good boy but that other people were not always nice to him.  (P. 73)