In September, I interviewed an annulment tribunal judge who suggested that my next book should be entitled, Does the Catholic Church Believe in Marriage Anymore? Today, I am publishing an interview with a female psychologist who worked in an American tribunal and who also sees many problems with our current system.



Q. When we first emailed about this subject a while back, you told me you had been a psychological consultant for a tribunal on annulment cases. You mentioned, quite tentatively (it was very clear to me that you were not wishing to rock any boats), that some of what occurred at the tribunal was "unsettling." After that, we spoke on the phone and had a candid conversation; you then were willing to put your thoughts in writing for my blog. My question for this post: Can you tell us why you felt unsettled?

Before I begin to answer your question, I would like to set the stage for my comments. Before I am a psychologist, I am a daughter of the Church. I am interested in the Truth, and I pray that the Spirit of Truth would inspire all that I write. My intent is to shine light on issues that require further consideration in the tribunal process. To the bishops, clergy, judges, and laity involved in the tribunal who may read this, please know with certainty that Catholic psychologists want to work with you, not against you, to bring about the will of God in these matters.

I would also like to clarify from the start that I do not believe the entire annulment process is bad or unnecessary. The process is primarily a fact-finding judicial proceeding where truth is sought; when the truth of a case is found, there can be real emotional and spiritual healing that follows. Furthermore, I have seen cases for which the tribunal process is absolutely necessary. The following reflections are simply my honest assessment of certain issues and problems that I have noticed with the process. May the Lord bring good out of these words, according to His will, and may they facilitate a stronger relationship between the Church and the psychologists/laity who deeply care about Her.

Q. What was your role at the tribunal?

I am a licensed psychologist. In my time working with an American tribunal, my primary role was “psychological assessor.” It was my responsibility to meet with the petitioner (the spouse seeking the annulment) for roughly one hour and conduct an interview. Based on our interview and on the Acts of the case (the facts of the case and information about those involved), I would write a report in response to a number of questions the tribunal judge posed after his/her meeting with the petitioner. These questions would often ask for the psychologist’s “expert opinion” regarding the credibility of the petitioner, as well as whether or not the petitioner seemed to have knowledge of certain things before the marriage took place.

I was also involved in the tribunal as a psychologist and psychological expert. When a petitioner was given a vetitum (a prohibition from marrying in the Catholic Church—there is an expectation that the person heal psychologically before the vetitum is removed and the person can enter into another marriage), I would meet with him/her for therapy to work on the things that seemingly prevented the first marriage from thriving. After the required amount of time, I would offer my opinion to the tribunal regarding whether or not the person appeared more “fit” for marriage at this time; for example, does someone with narcissistic tendencies now demonstrate more capacity for empathy, thus making the future marriage less likely to fail?

In my initial stages of learning about the tribunal, I was present for the recorded interview of the petitioner. Also present during these meetings were the tribunal judge and the Defender of the Bond. I was required to read the Acts of the case, which included three witness testimonies (witnesses chosen by the petitioner), a history of the dating/courtship period, the circumstances of the marriage, family history, the spouses’ understanding of the marital covenant (i.e., permanency of marriage, exclusivity of the marital bond), and what lead to its failure. If the respondent (the other spouse) chose to respond to the annulment questions (a few attempts are made to contact the respondent, as the tribunal wants as much information as possible), his/her comments are also included in the Acts. However, more often than not, respondents declined to take part in the process.

Q. What were your issues or concerns with the process?

Quite early on in my work with the tribunal, I had some concerns. I will first address my concerns with the annulment process in general, and then discuss some issues particular to the tribunal for which I worked—perhaps these latter things are a problem in other places and part of the “climate” of all tribunals, but I can only speak for the things I saw personally.

General observations

As I went through the process of training to become a psychological assessor for the tribunal and learned more about the requirements for annulment, I began to think that a loophole could be found for every marriage. Based on the requirements, I could conceivably make a case for any marriage being null. While there are a number of reasons a marriage may be declared null (e.g. Force or Fear [Canon 1103], Ignorance of the Nature of Marriage [Canon 1096], Simulation [Canon 1101, saying but not actually meaning the vows]), the most cited reason for nullity, by far, is Canon 1095–Issues of Capacity. And when Canon 1095 is employed, it is often for the sub-reason of “Lack of Due Discretion.”

In other words, did the person have the psychological capacity to make a mature decision about marriage at the time of his/her vows? Interestingly enough, I bet if you polled most married couples today, they would answer “no.” Because if we know ourselves well, and if we know our wounds, we will also understand the question: How can we have made a mature decision then, knowing all we know now? Which one of us can say that we knew everything we were choosing on the day of our marriage?

Of course, we must have a good knowledge of the person’s past and present, as well as his/her physical, emotional, and spiritual lives. We should take care to learn these things before we propose or say “yes” to the proposal. This is our obligation. But when we stand at the altar and say yes “in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health…until death do us part,” there are countless things that we have yet to learn and many surprises and disappointments that await us. And while annulments can only be granted for those things that we did not know before the marriage, there is so much more knowledge to be gained after the marriage takes place, even if we think we know our spouses before. If we feel we have to know everything about ourselves and our spouse on the wedding day, how does that affect our mindset when we hit times of great suffering in marriage—especially if we would like a way out, and the Church seems to provide the door to “freedom”? (If the Church does not appear to be fighting for our marriage, why should we?)

What seems to have occurred in the annulment process over the years is that the threshold for psychological maturity has been lowered. Additionally, it seems that the tribunal searches for instances of immaturity during the courtship in order to justify the annulment rather than presuming the innate orientation of persons to marriage. Benedict XVI has much to say on this innate orientation, and on the distinction between psychological maturity and canonical maturity, and he cites John Paul II on how a person’s psychology does and does not affect one’s ability to confect a marriage:

I also questioned the process of vetitum cases referred for therapy. On the one hand, this seems smart. Something isn’t working, so you try to fix it; what could be wrong with that? On the other hand, there’s a problem: Rather than trying to save the initial marriage and working on these things within the context of the person’s family, the tribunal psychologist helps the person to heal so that he/she can go on to live a better life with someone new. And what to tell a devastated respondent who never wanted this divorce in the first place? “I’m sorry you are hurt, but I am going to go ahead and help your spouse become his/her best self…for someone else.” There is something very wrong here.

I’ve heard it (rightly) said that the Church doesn’t always have answers for difficult situations. What that really refers to are situations that should never have existed in the first place. People tend to demand solutions from the Church after they fail to follow her precepts. What kind of twisted logic is this? What kind of demonic trick to think that you are owed something to eat when meanwhile you have cut down your fruit tree? To demand an answer to a conundrum that will be pleasing to you, when this situation never should have occurred in the first place?

This is an arrogant demand. A demand filled with pride. THERE OFTEN IS NO GOOD ANSWER to some of the states in which we find ourselves.

What can we say to the divorced man who left his wife, children, and the Church because he is an adulterer and is now remarried with children? How does he make this mess better? THERE IS NO GOOD ANSWER. Should he return to his first family and leave his present one, including the children he conceived with his adulteress “wife,” thereby also inflicting on them the pain of divorce? Should he stay with his present family, leaving his first family behind with all the irreparable damage, rupture, and suffering that he caused?

Perhaps the best answer the Church can offer him is to cease all sexual relations, seek forgiveness and do penance for his sins, continue to support all children involved, and make reparation for all the pain he has caused. But is this a good answer? Far from it. But this is sin. And sin has consequences.

The Church cannot provide good answers to those who fail to follow her wisdom and Christ’s laws in the first place. Will there be mercy? Mercy is always available to the one who seeks it. But this does not and cannot change the reality that there is continual pain in the lives of those wounded by divorce.

The current practice of handing out annulments with frequency is not a good answer. As it stands now, the process nearly becomes what many people have dubbed it: “Catholic Divorce.” Rather than the truth-seeking and healing process it is meant to be, and rather than being the exception not the rule, it is a forced response to sin. An attempt to make things right…in the wrong way.

By looking for any loophole through which a marriage could be considered null, we do a disservice to people by offering them this “out” in the name of the Church, when in fact we should be directing them to the truth of their particular situation, and to the Father who is rich in both mercy and justice. While the Church is called to meet people where they are, She should never do so by dragging the line of truth into the darkness of sin. Rather, the Church rightly meets sinners by drawing them to and attracting them by her truth, by revealing He Who is Truth. Mother that She is, the Church always wants to make a way for Her children. At the same time, She should love them too much to allow anything other than truth to govern their lives. With all due respect to Mother Church, let’s stop giving excessive candy to our children in the name of “love.” The children have become very ill.

Specific, personal examples

The above comments refer to my questions and uncertainties about the annulment process in general, and especially the near reflexive frequency with which they are granted. However, there is another piece of this puzzle, things that make me question the process just as much as the above. These are things that I saw behind the scenes—in the initial interview of petitioners with the judge and Defender of the Bond, the “climate” I observed in the tribunal office, and the behavior of other psychologists who were involved, particularly those who trained me in my earlier years.

As I sat for some of my first observations of the petitioners’ in-person recorded interviews with the judge and the Defender of the Bond, I noticed something immediately that made me question the validity of the process. The judge, in his questioning of a petitioner, used leading questions—questions that set up the petitioner to answer in a particular way. For example, “You didn’t really understand what you were getting into, did you?” “You seem like you didn’t really know each other that well. Isn’t that true?” etc. As a psychologist who conducts interviews with clients often and who has also been involved in research studies on questioning protocols, I know well that this type of questioning is a huge problem. I have no way of knowing whether or not it was the judge’s intention to asking leading questions, but, regardless, this skews the results of the interview data.

Another red flag for me was the sense I got that the goal of the process was to grant the annulment. While a more objective process would be to get to the truth of the matter, there seemed to be an unspoken understanding that we were not to rock the boat, and that our comments on the psychological report should support the view that the marriage was invalid. While no one ever explicitly spoke those words, it was quite clear to me from the way our training was handled. It was also clear that certain judges had more of an agenda than others. For example, we were told, “Judge X tends to like to push them through more.” Along with this came the unspoken expectation that we were to write our reports a certain way. I sensed that the most important thing was to please the judge rather than to seek the truth: “How can I find a way to fit this person’s story to Canon 1095 so that the annulment will go through easily and I won’t ruffle any feathers…?”

In fairness, a decision can be appealed to a second tribunal if one of the spouses requests it, but often, both spouses want to be “free to move on.” Even the abandoned spouse who didn’t want the divorce often seeks closure through the annulment, and/or “permission” not to have to be alone for the rest of his/her life. Personally, I rarely ever saw a case denied—maybe once.

Another concern I had while working for the tribunal is one that seems to have infected the Catholic Church in general; one that we have seen, for example, in our current crisis with clerical sex abuse scandals. I had the awareness that it actually was not okay to question the process. The understanding was that things were done a particular way and had been done that way for a while—and that it was not our role to make suggestions.

Furthermore, it had the “ol’ boys club” feel to it. I understood that I should just “stick to my role” and go along with the established process. And all this was shrouded under obedience to and respect for the holy hierarchy and a sense that “good” Catholics blindly follow their priest/bishop/judge. Common sense goes out the window, particular expertise means nothing, and passivity is equated with humility. This climate has existed for so long in the Church that well-meaning people have been deceived into thinking this is holiness—but the recent revelation of scandals and corruption in the Church have blown that lie right out of the water. The ripple effect is that all of these other things that we blindly follow in the name of holy obedience are finally being examined…and exposed for what they are.

Thanks be to God, the tribunal and annulments are also being looked at more closely, and the process is finally being questioned. Rather than getting caught up in what we have lost (Lord, have mercy), let us focus on the Truth. Let us not make reactionary decisions, but rather let Truth be our guide. Let us not make exceptions for the sinner out of fear that he might be lost if we don’t—thereby taking the role of “Savior” away from God and assigning it to ourselves. The nullity process, as it currently stands, is a bad response to the sin of divorce. Though there are cases in which it should be employed, these should be the exception, not the norm.

____________________





For a look at what the Church used to say about nullity prior to the late 1960s, go here.