cormacburke.me.ke

During a 1994 lecture visit to New Zealand, Cormac Burke was interviewed on Radio New Zealand's "Kim Hill Show". This is a slightly shortened version of the interview. (Position Papers, Dublin, 1994)

Kim Hill: What kind of marriage cases do you judge at the Roman Rota?

Cormac Burke: We take cases that come to the Rota on appeal, mainly because there haven't been conforming decisions at the lower level.

KH: Are these people looking for an annulment?

CB: When people apply for a decree of nullity, the church requires two conforming decisions. In other words, a yes from the first level tribunal, usually diocesan, and from the second, metropolitan or national. If these tribunals disagree, the case comes to the Rota.

KH: What would qualify a marriage for annulment?

CB: Basically that the consent given was defective in some vital way, or that a person didn't give an actual consent to marriage as we see it. For instance, they might have completely excluded the idea of having children. That would be a way of deceiving their partner, if their partner wanted children. It would be unfair to keep that person bound where there was no real marriage, because they had not consented to a real marriage. That's what we call simulation. The other common grounds are those of consensual incapacity - that the person at the time of marriage was not capable of giving consent due to some grave psychic reason. They either did not understand the essentials of marriage or weren't capable of living up to the marriage commitment.

KH: There might be quite a few people who would qualify on those grounds!

CB: Well, it can happen, of course. If a person is not in their right senses, they cannot consent properly, though they might think they're doing so. That is the difference between divorce and the Catholic concept of nullity. A divorce is saying this marriage which was valid and real is now at an end. The Catholic Church, as you know, doesn't accept that. It believes that if marriage is real it is for keeps. But if the marriage is not real - if it was null and void for some basic reason at the very beginning - then it would be unfair and unjust to keep people bound by an unreal bond.

KH: There's an interesting case in the United States at the moment, I think, brought in the secular courts—a man accusing his wife of false pretences, if my memory serves me right. He says she really never loved him. Isn't that the same thing?

CB: It depends on whether there was deceit. To my mind, the aspect of deceit is terribly important. A person, when marrying, has the right that their partner really give himself or herself as he or she is. And they, on their part, have the duty to accept the other person as he or she is. So if there is no deceit, the defects that inevitably arise or come to light in married life are no argument for nullity — certainly the Church does not accept them. If, after all, marriage is taken seriously, the couple want to accept one another, faults and all. That is the challenge of love. True, some people don't make it. As a priest, I believe that with proper pastoral counselling - and perhaps even more important, help from their neighbours and friends ... very often couples can get through these difficult moments.

KH: Would it be fair to suggest that this question of deceit is something that could easily be abused by people who want to get out of a marriage but want to remain with the Church?

CB: It could happen. We at the Rota may give a decree of nullity but one is never a hundred per cent sure. You have to leave it to people's consciences. If a person wants to go through a process - and perhaps they do deceive in the actual hearing of the case - they may well get a decree of nullity but before God they'll have to work it out themselves. I can't judge that. I can only judge by proven external facts.

KH: How many annulments would you do in the average year?

CB: At the moment there are about 800 cases pending from all over the world. Some go through fairly quickly. Some take 3, 4 or 5 years. It depends. For instance, I have a case at the moment from Poland. The acts - the records of the case - contain about 400 pages of evidence for and against. All of that had to be translated from Polish into some working language like Italian. And then further evidence may be required. Lawyers are appointed gratis in Rome for both sides, usually. This is an important point. Nullity cases are not expensive in Rome or, indeed, at the local level. They come to a minimal amount - a hundred dollars, or something like that.

KH: So not only the rich can get their marriages annulled?

CB: No, that's completely wrong. A person may of course hire their own lawyer. But this is not necessary, as far as the Church is concerned. They will have full legal representation free.

KH: Does that personal legal representation help the case?

CB: It is meant to help the party asking for the annulment and if the other party opposes, a lawyer will serve the interests of that party. Further evidence may have to be prepared, further witnesses called and possible contradictions cleared up. The case I mentioned will have to be translated back into Polish and sent out to the local diocese or parish, eventually the parties give their evidence and it comes back to Rome. That whole process can take up to a year. Things tend to go a bit slowly, but there are good reasons for this. I had a case the other day from Slovakia. Good gracious, I said, we'll have to have this translated, and I was about to send it off. Then I looked through the acts and they were all in Latin! That was a definite advantage. At least we can read Latin! We'll still have to send questions. They'll be put into the mail and come back to us eventually, and so on.

KH: To non‑Catholics this may seem a very archaic process. Most of us, when we think of divorce, we think of the end of a contractual arrangement that was entered into on the marriage day, which means that one person changed or one person developed other needs. In a way that is what annulment is all about. You are talking about it as a contractual arrangement which one person has breached.

CB: No, not exactly. What we are saying is that there was no true contract from the start. But if I may put in something about divorce. You say that divorce is simply a mutual agreement to terminate the contract. But in my experience, very often it is not a mutual agreement at all. One party is leaving the other. And the other party wishes to continue with the marriage. They feel let down. To my mind that goes against the nature of marriage, and even of human nature. There's a summons there, it seems to me, to both parties to be faithful. In non-Catholic churches, generally, the spouses take on a formula such as `in good times and in bad times', `in sickness and in health' or `for better and for worse until death do us part'. These traditional formulae correspond to human nature. Man and woman are made for a permanent commitment in marriage. Now that's a difficult thing, undoubtedly. It demands a lot of them, but I think human nature wants that and wants the sacrifice that it involves. So it's unfortunate if it doesn't work out. In my experience, with proper help and advice from counsellors, priests, pastors, etc., many marital crises have been overcome. I have known cases - perhaps you have also - of people who get divorced and eventually come back together because they're still in love, and perhaps they break up again. You can see a situation where there is a desire to make a go of it and all they need is more support.

KH: Do you actually get people coming to you for annulment saying to you, `Well, when I got married I didn't really mean it was going to be forever?'

CB: Yes, that enters under the idea of `simulation', when a person does not give a genuine consent, through the `exclusion' of one of the essential `values' (the `bona' or `good things') of marriage. These are basically three: a permanent union between a man and a woman, an exclusive union of one man with one woman, and a union that's open to life.

KH: But who on earth would say: `When I got married I didn't mean it to be permanent'?

CB: Some people do say it.

KH: Genuinely?

CB: Well, that's what you have to try to verify. Sometimes, people say: `Well, I was brought up believing in divorce and I applied that to my marriage.' If that on the evidence seems to be so, then yes, the marriage is null.

KH: I'm sure you've heard this before and I don't mean to be offensive, but what do unmarried priests know about what married life involves?

CB: Well, we have no direct personal experience of marriage, but there is, I think, a colossal pastoral experience. We are, in that sense, in a fairly unique position of receiving what you might call the confidences, but also the problems, the consultations of the confessional. The more serious problems but even the little things come up in the confessional. People seek advice. In over thirty years of pastoral work, thousands of couples have come to me with all sorts of different problems and situations. People look for advice on how to educate their children, for example. So I think a priest knows quite a bit about the real situation. I agree that he hasn't got direct experience, but I certainly don't think he's unqualified.

KH: I was talking to a writer from Dublin yesterday and he believed that divorce was inevitably going to become legal in Ireland. What would you say to that?

CB: Well, it could be. I don't know, but I hope not. I don't think divorce is something that does good in society.

KH: People could choose not to get divorced if they so wished.

CB: Yes, but when it's legal, like with abortion, you tend to have recourse to it easily, whereas if it weren't legal you would try harder to make a go of your marriage. In my experience, as you probably know yourself, the rate of divorce among people who divorce and remarry is four times higher than among those who marry for the first time. That makes sad sense. Divorce is always, in some way, an admission of and a facing up to a failure - let's put it that way, without assigning blame. But it's a very discouraging experience. One thought that this was a marriage that would lead to happiness, but it hasn't. Who is to blame is another question. It is very discouraging. I believe it can be avoided in many cases with the proper help.

KH: How much of a problem for the Catholic Church are the recent revelations about the sexual behaviour of priests, and of bishops? Has it affected the way you represent the Church?

CB: The people would have to answer that. Of course, it is regrettable. It's a scandal that priests give bad example, of course. One has to pray for people without trying to judge - only God can judge. Undoubtedly, it puts people's faith to the test. But, in the end, I think that a Catholic - for that matter, any Christian - doesn't believe because of the merits or the holiness or otherwise of their ministers, or priests. They believe because of Jesus Christ. Their faith is a faith in Christ, not a faith in a Pope or a bishop. I don't believe because of the Pope. I admire the Pope very much, but I believe because of our Lord Jesus Christ. And therefore, I try not to give bad example. If I do give it, as I'm sure I do at times, I hope it doesn't effect people too negatively. But that's human nature. And I don't think there are all that many cases. I feel the media overplays these things.

KH: I guess one is too many, isn't it?

CB: One is too many, with that I agree. But sometimes these cases can overshadow the work of so many faithful priests and religious. People generally know faithful priests - their local pastor, for example.

KH: And yet we're speaking about the fabric of the Church. It seems unfair in a way that the faithful should be told fairly rigid rules about divorce, about abortion, about contraception and yet be given examples of the people who lay down these rules falling off themselves.

CB: Yes, that makes it harder for them to believe in the human persons who are teaching them. But that shouldn't make it harder for them to believe in the teaching, because the teaching doesn't come from the priest or the bishop. The teaching comes, as we see it, from Jesus Christ who works through his Church, who protects the teaching of the Church in its essentials. I think people can distinguish well between the personal failings of an individual priest or bishop, and the doctrine of the Church which they relate directly to Jesus Christ.

KH: I guess the other major criticism of the Church in recent times is that it is a patriarchy, it is anti-women, and this, I guess, involves both its position on abortion, possibly on divorce and its denial of women in the priesthood. Do you think that there is any way in which that perception will change?

CB: I don't think, myself, that the question of women in the priesthood is likely to change, especially in the light of the Holy Father's recent and very authoritative statement on the matter. I think the theological basis is so clear. Jesus Christ, after all, chose twelve men and he didn't choose any women.

KH: There were no Poles amongst them either. That doesn't seem a very sensible argument considering the number of nationalities of popes you've had. There were none of those nationalities, necessarily, among the Apostles, but nevertheless, that hasn't stopped them.

CB: True indeed  - but that sort of difficulty is covered in the documents from the Holy See on this particular question. But, coming back to your question. You've put together the ordination of women with abortion, as though abortion were a right. Abortion is indeed legal in many countries today. But I don't think abortion is a woman's right. I think that abortion does great harm to the woman who exercises her legal right to have one, and I've seen many cases. It's very easy for society to say to a teenage girl or a married woman, `Look, don't worry. Society accepts abortion. The way out of this pregnancy which you don't want is abortion.' And she can be encouraged by the law, perhaps by friends, etc. Society forgives but she won't easily forgive herself. She has to live out her life with something that weighs heavily on her conscience. She is aware that she has denied the fruit of her womb. I've seen so many cases of women or girls who have been destroyed by that. And that's why I think that a pro-abortion law is a bad law, because it is giving women a right which basically they don't have before God and which is a false right.

KH: Destroyed by that or destroyed by the guilt imposed on them by the Church?

CB: No, the guilt isn't imposed on them by the Church. I'm not even speaking just about Catholics. I'm talking about many non-Catholics I know. There's guilt that comes from nature and from the awareness of what has been done. I can understand a girl or a woman under pressure having an abortion. But I think that afterwards they regret it, and they should be told: `You did wrong - but God forgives'. But if they're told: `You didn't do wrong, you did right' then you're not helping them at all.