A widespread perception exists, among Protestants, secular society, our Orthodox brethren, and even too many Catholics that annulment is simply a sophisticated, “playing with words” equivalent of divorce. This is untrue. The distinction between divorce and annulment is one that is routinely made even in civil law. It is not unique to, nor was it invented by, Catholicism.
For example, the Oxford Companion to Law states that “Annulment of a marriage is legislative or judicial invalidation of it, as in law never having existed, as distinct from dissolution [divorce], which terminates a valid marriage.”21
In a considerable number of scenarios, the Church recognizes that a legitimate, sacramental marriage was never present from the outset. One has to enter into marriage with a free will and full understanding of what it entails. The proverbial shotgun wedding is a classic case in which the free will of at least one party is abrogated. A person might, for example, marry someone who did not reveal that he was a practicing criminal, or someone with an unknown severe mental illness, or someone who, say (to use an extreme example for the sake of illustration), turns out to be a spy from a hostile government, or one who is already married (bigamy). All of these scenarios (and many others) are illegitimate “marriages” and nonsacramental from the start.
It’s often noted that much higher rates of annulment occur today. Abuses in the process do, no doubt, take place, due to societal and peer pressure and sin and human weakness. But the prevalence of abuse (I’ve learned, from talking to canon lawyers) is likely far less than is often casually assumed.
It’s also indisputable that more and more people have a limited understanding from the outset of what a sacramental marriage is and what it entails; hence, such “marriages” were never sacramentally valid in the first place. This lack of knowledge would be an altogether valid reason and explanation for greater numbers of annulments than were formerly seen. Our society’s view of marriage is much weaker than in the past, with many couples having such a low view of it that they don’t even seek marriage.
The Old Testament distinction between a concubine and a wife is somewhat analogous to ours between a civil and sacramental marriage — itself the foundational premise of the concept of annulment. Concubines were distinguished from wives, even multiple ones (Judges 8:30-31). God approved of sending away Hagar and her son Ishmael (Gen.
21:12), not because they were evil or disparaged by Him (see Gen. 17:20; 21:13, 17-20), but because Sarah was Abraham’s wife in the full sense (akin to sacramental marriage).
Likewise, in Ezra 10:1-19, 44 (cf. Ezra 9:1-2, 14-15), many Israelites “put away” (Ezra 10:19) the “foreign women” they had married, not simply because they were foreigners, but because they caused them to become corrupted by false religions and idolatry (see, e.g., Deut. 17:17; Neh. 13:23-28). This was essentially an annulment, as opposed to a divorce, because these unions had a serious impediment in the eyes of God and in light of His laws. They were not in accord with what God had commanded.
If one is looking for New Testament verification of the notion of annulment, the “except for unchastity” clause of Matthew 19:9 is interpreted by Catholic commentators (and the Church fathers en masse) as a case of nonmatrimonial cohabitation as opposed to real marriage. In other words, Jesus was saying that if someone divorces his wife, he commits adultery, except in cases where he actually was not married in the first place. That is an annulment: straight from our Lord.
Oddly, many commentators (and individual Christians) seem to think that “unchastity” in Matthew 19:9 refers to the adultery of one of the marriage partners (thus allowing a permissible divorce). But the Greek word here (porneia) is rarely if ever translated “adultery” in the passage. The usual Greek word for “adultery” is moicheia.
Porneia and related cognates are never translated in the King James Version, for
example, as “adultery,” but always as “fornication” or other such terms. We also see the two Greek words distinguished from each other in the same verse (Matt. 5:19; Mark 7:21; Gal. 5:19). All of this supports the traditional and dogmatic Catholic understanding that Jesus was referring in Matthew 19:9 to something other than an adulterous affair of a truly married person.
Moreover, the “Pauline privilege” has always been accepted by the Church:
1 Corinthians 7:15: But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in
such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
The Church has held that a Christian is free to remarry in cases where two nonbelievers (generally unbaptized) marry, one later becomes a Christian, and the non- Christian departs. This is because the natural (or what we often call “civil”) marriage was not sacramental in the first place.
Hence, St. Ambrose wrote in A.D. 385 in his letter 19:7 to Vigilius: “Since the marriage ceremony ought to be sanctified by the priestly veiling and blessing, how can that be called a marriage ceremony where there is no agreement in faith?”
Likewise, Pope St. Leo the Great, writing in 459 to Rusticus (Epistle 167:4), stated, in reference to Abraham and Hagar:
Since the marriage tie was from the beginning so constituted as apart from the joining of the sexes to symbolize the mystic union of Christ and His Church, it is undoubted that that woman has no part in matrimony, in whose case it is shown that the mystery of marriage has not taken place.
In summary, then, annulments are recognized in civil law and have an explicit exegetical basis. Catholics need not fear close examination, nor be “ashamed” of the issue.
61