Divorce
From Agnes Haggerty re annulments
By Fr. Leonard Kennedy

Hardcopy Issue Date: July/August 1999
Online Publication Date: Jul 18, 2000, 15:57

From Agnes Haggerty re: annulments

Further to my letter in the May issue and Father Kennedy's response re annulments:

I fail to see how Father Kennedy can interpret the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:3-11 as referring to common law unions. The question the Pharisees put to Him was, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" There is no question of divorce if there is no marriage. Furthermore, I did not choose the word "unfaithfulness" or misinterpret it; it was a direct quote from the Good News, New Testament (British edition). There are various translations in bibles and liturgy since Vatican II. The N.R.S.V. Canadian edition says "unchastity", the New American Catholic Bible says, "lewd conduct is a separate case"; the old pre-Vatican II Catholic Bibles says "fornication". Basically, they all mean the same thingóbroken marriage vows. My point is Christ's words,"for any cause other than"ówhich clearly state an exception.

I did not say that any marriage that was not ideal could be annulledóI was simply comparing the ideal with the hopeless cases who seek annulment. While I did not seek one myself, I understood those who did.

My explanation of an annulment was not the exact words of the tribunal but was based on that of an articulate man from our Separated and Divorced Catholic group who had just got an annulment. I thought it was a most plausible comparison between a Catholic annulment and a civil divorce. The marriage tribunal, in their talks, did not elaborate on causes but rather explained how to apply for an annulment.

Sault Ste. Marie, ON.

Father Leonard Kennedy replies:
It seems strange to me that the marriage tribunal would not deal with the reasons for an annulment but only with how to apply for one. Despite the articulateness of a man granted an annulment, an annulment, by definition (Code of Canon Law, #1629), cannot be granted for hopeless cases but only for invalid marriages.

One might easily think that the text of St. Matthew mentioned contradicts the many other texts reporting the teaching of Jesus on divorce. Situations like this show us why Christ gave his Church the power to interpret the Scriptures authentically. And the Church has interpreted these texts to mean that divorce is not allowed. The Church uses all the biblical texts, studying them in their context, in their historical and original meaning, and in the light of the teaching of the Fathers of the Church and the rest of our tradition.

The Navarre Bible: St. Matthew (2nd. ed., Dublin, 1993, pp. 65-66) says: "The phrase ëexcept on the grounds of unchastity' should not be taken as indicating an exception to the principle of the absolute indissolubility of marriage which Jesus has just re-established. It is almost certain that the phrase refers to unions accepted as marriage among some pagan peoples but prohibited as incestuous in the Mosaic law (cf. Lev 18) and in rabbinical tradition.

"The reference, then, is to unions radically invalid because of some impediment. When persons in this position were converted to the true faith, it was not that their union could be dissolved; it was declared that they had never in fact been joined in true marriage." To speak of a "wife" in such a case is to speak of a woman in such a situation, as we often use the word "wife" loosely today.

The Council of Trent (1545-63) decreed (Canon 7 on Matrimony): "If anyone says that the Church is in error when it has taught and does teach according to the doctrine of the Gospels and apostles (see Mark 10; I Cor. 7) that the marriage bond cannot be dissolved because of adultery on the part of either the husband or the wife; and that neither party, not even the innocent one who gave no cause for the adultery, can contract another marriage while the other party is still living; and that adultery is committed both by the husband who dismisses his adulterous wife and marries again and by the wife who dismisses her adulterous husband and marries again; let him be anathema."

This is repeated in the encyclical Casti Connubii (Of Chaste Marriage) of Pope Pius XI (1930): "First of all, let this remain the unchanged and unshakable foundation: Matrimony was neither established nor restored by man but by God. It has been protected, strengthened, and elevated not by the laws of men, but by those of God, the author of human nature, and of Christ who restored that same nature. Consequently, these laws cannot be changed according to man's pleasure, nor by any agreement of the spouses themselves that is contrary to these laws. This is the teaching of Sacred Scripture (see Gen. 1:27 f; 2:22 f; Matt 19.3 ff; Eph. 5:23 ff); this is the constant, universal tradition of the Church; this is the solemn definition of the holy Council of Trent, which in the words of Sacred Scripture teaches and reasserts that the permanent and indissoluble bond of matrimony, its unity and strength, have their origin in God."