I have a degree in this field and I'd have to say that statement is pretty much right on the money. As far as annulments go, maybe if they actually taught the pre cana couples what a Sacramental Marriage actually is they could eliminate the excuses for an annulment. Informed consent.
I don't think the Pope would agree that psychology is necessarily an aetheistic psuedoscience. Check out the Institute for Psychological Sciences in Arlington, Va., affiliated with the Legion of Christ, a graduate school of psychology that attempts to inform science with the truths of Catholicism and the teachings of JPII. Or www.catholictherapists.com.
The psychological grounds for an anullment are not inherently bogus, although individuals may misuse or misinterpret any process involving human discretion. Ideally, Tribunals are seeking truth and asking the Holy Spirit for guidance. Since consent as self-giving is the essence of marriage, then a psychological impediment to true consent can exist, just like deceit can invalidate consent. Addiction at the time of marriage was mentioned, but there are other things that might be ignored by the engaged despite warning signs or simply undetected, such as a sociopathic personality that essentially wants to use the other person, not be a gift to them, or someone who lacks the psychological maturity to marry or doesn't properly understand what (sacramental) marriage is. The defect has to be there at the outset of the marriage to prevent consent; a spouse who becomes an alcoholic years later would be a cross for his wife or her husband to bear, and might require separation for the safety of the children or the spouse, but the alcoholism itself would not be a cause of nullity.
One thing missing in this discussion is the sense in which annulment is an act of both mercy and justice that the Church provides in Her wisdom to allow Her children to live in conformity with God's will. If one does not validly enter into sacramental marriage, and if the marriage does not later become validated, then someone seeking to be faithful to God's will in the wake of a civil divorce, if they sincerely doubt that the marriage was sacramental, almost has an obligation to find out. Certainly he or she should find out before dating anyone or engaging in any other activities incompatible with being presumptively still married. Also, if a civilly divorced Catholic sincerely asks God in prayer if he might have a vocation other than marriage, how can he discern that until he knows if he is free to give himself entirely to God? If one is already married, he cannot marry the Church.
Finally, please consider how truly painful divorce and this whole topic is for those who have experienced it and exercise more charity in your choice of words. The tenor of some of the comments posted in this discussion suggests that there is something per se wrong or suspect with seeking an annulment after a divorce is final. Consider that seeking a decree of nullity at least means that the person is seeking to live in conformity with the truth. There is nothing wrong with asking the Tribunal for a decree of nullity if one suspects their marriage was not sacramental, anymore than there is anything wrong with looking to the Catechism or to the advice of a trusted priest to seek to live one's life as God intends. The larger number of annulments in the U.S. relative to other countries may be as much a reflection of our having time and resources to devote to this lengthy and necessarily burdensome process, and even perhaps a greater religiousity in the U.S. in that divorced persons may care about whether they are acting in conformity with the truth. What seems to be a high rate of granting decrees of nullity also fails to reflect the number of potential cases that end before they start, based on the advice of the priest or the initial contact with the Tribunal indicating that the potential petitioner has no grounds.