Piecemeal solutions are no answer

Early this year, the Italian Supreme Court made a historic decision: it blocked an annulment sentence (technically, “a declaration of nullity of marriage”) by the Sacred Roman Rota from being confirmed by the state.

Maria and Gianpaolo had been married for 20 years when the husband filed an application for annulment on the basis that his wife was contrary to having children. The Venetian ecclesiastical tribunal met Gianpaolo’s request and this was confirmed by the Sacred Rota.

The Supreme Court’s objection was based on the fact that the couple had been living together for a prolonged period of time. It declared it was not in the public interest to subject such marriages to validity tests.

Under Italian law, ecclesiastical annulments absolve the parties from any “civil responsibility” (including payment for maintenance) towards each other. By contrast, in the United States, an ecclesiastical annulment has no effect in civil law.

The 1995 Concordat between the Holy See and the Maltese government established that, in the case of annulments, the ecclesiastical tribunal has the final say. The tribunal’s decisions are de facto recognised by the state. However, way back in 2004, the Maltese Court of Appeal did contest the proceedings of the Church’s tribunal. In that particular case, the Court of Appeal declined to authorise the registration of an ecclesiastical annulment in the Public Registry. The court was not convinced the tribunal’s proceedings had fully safeguarded the wife’s right to a fair hearing.

By assuming absolute responsibility for annulment cases, the local Church has put a big onus on itself. Ecclesiastical annulments tend to take longer than civil ones. Last year, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech lamented that, given the existing backlog of pending cases and the lack of resources, he felt obliged to start hearing annulment cases himself. At the time, the Gozitan ecclesiastical tribunal had 80 pending cases and a capacity to process eight cases a year.

Requests for Church annulments, from all over the world, have exploded over the last 40 years. Although there is scant official data available, it is estimated about 70,000 cases are settled annually by the ecclesiastical tribunals. The more controversial cases end up with the Sacred Rota; at the end of 2008, the Rota had 2,235 pending cases. In 2008, the local tribunal granted 188 annulments.

Way back in 1987, Pope John Paul II publicly expressed his discontent with the way the Church authorities were handling requests for annulments. He made it clear it was the responsibility of bishops to ensure the tribunals followed the Church teachings. Since then, Pope John Paul II raised this issue several times during his annual meeting with the Sacred Rota.

Subsequently, it was taken up by Pope Benedict who insists that “easy” annulments are eroding the belief in the capability of humans to make lifelong commitments to loving another person. The German Pope has warned about “the scandal of seeing the value of Christian marriage destroyed in practice by the exaggerated and almost automatic multiplication of declarations of nullity”(Catholic News Service, January 29, 2009).

Marriages are generally declared “as never having taken place” due to one of several impediments: a spouse being below the minimum age, a religious vow, a blood relationship and a previous marital bond among others. There can also be a defective marital consent by one of the parties.

Pope Benedict insists that too many annulments are being granted on the basis of a loose definition of what immaturity and psychic weakness entails. He differentiates between “full” maturity and “canonical” maturity, with the latter being the minimum necessary for a valid marriage to take place. The Pope even admits that, at times, parties are prepared to resort to falsehood and corruption so as to get a favourable sentence.

There is nothing infallible in the way the Church deals with annulments. In the 21st century, the Church should let Caesar run the state in the way that Caesar thinks best. This does not mean it should refrain from making its beliefs known and obliging its members to abide by its rules. Drawing the line where the Church’s responsibilities start and end is not easy in this age of secularisation. But, to my mind, the Church needs to acknowledge that our society is fast evolving into a multi-cultural community. The challenge is to build a community in which the needs, beliefs and rights of all sorts of minorities are to be respected.

We all say we are in favour of a society where the family occupies centre stage. Our deeds often prove otherwise. A growing number of separations and annulments, as well as increased cohabitation, reveal that marriage as an institution is under severe pressure. Social, economic and technological developments are facilitating interaction between the sexes. Persons are consistently evolving due to increased lifelong learning, changing of jobs and increased recreation time. The solution is not to build fortifications around families but to introduce more pro-family measures. Engaged couples need to be better prepared and the state should be more proactive in this respect.

If we really believe in the family then we cannot continue to seek piecemeal solutions. Simply asking questions after 20 years of marriage is not good enough.

fms18@onvol.net