The newspapers recently reported that the Vatican
reversed the annulment of Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy’s
marriage to Sheila Rauch. Although I am not privy to the
details, I am familiar with the annulment process and what
probably happened is not that the annulment was reversed,
but that the local Tribunal’s ruling was reversed on appeal
to Rome by the former Mrs. Kennedy. According to the
account I read, Sheila Rauch, Mr. Kennedy’s first wife,
“found out about the annulment only after Mr. Kennedy
married … in a civil ceremony two years later.” But, if the
annulment had taken place, why would he have not
married in the Church, as the Church does not recognize
the civil ceremonies of Catholics? She probably found out
that he had applied for an annulment.
The Church is very careful that both parties have an
opportunity to be heard before making any rulings. Both
parties have the right to give evidence and cite witnesses,
and the ruling of the local Tribunal is not final if one or the
other party wishes to appeal to Rome, in which case Rome
has the last say. I believe this is what happened in the
Kennedy-Rauch case. And the result is an example of the
ultimate fairness of the system.
The very term “annulment” is misleading. In such cases
the Church does not seek to annul a marriage, but rather
tries to determine whether or not the marriage was null
from the very start; that something which the Church
requires for the Sacrament to take place, was missing from
the time of the exchange of vows. Throughout the process
the marriage has the benefit of the doubt. The person who
applies for the annulment is termed “the petitioner.” While
the other spouse is “the respondent.” Each has an
advocate appointed to assist and advise them. In addition,
there is a “defender of the bond,” who investigates the
matter and makes his report to the judge or judges. If the
marriage in question lasted ten years or longer, it is a
“collegiate case” that is, there are two or more judges, but if
less than ten years, just a single judge. The petitioner has
to give evidence in person before the Tribunal and must
provide three witnesses to submit evidence in writing. The
respondent is encouraged to do the same, but does not
have to. In some cases, the respondent wants nothing to
do with the process. Sometimes they cooperate, wishing to
obtain an annulment, and sometimes they actively fight the
petition.
Once all the evidence is in, both the advocates and the
defender of the bond make their reports to the judge or
judges, who issue a preliminary ruling, which in Arlington, is
immediately forwarded to the next higher Tribunal in
Baltimore. Once that Tribunal has rendered its decision
(which may or may not agree with the initial finding), if both
parties accept the decision at this point, the case is ended
with the marriage either found to be valid or null. However,
at this point if the decision is not acceptable to one of the
parties, they may appeal to Rome and that decision is final.
The procedure is long and complicated and takes years –
especially when appealed to Rome.