Wingnut theocrat Randall Terry has converted to Catholicism, according to the Worldnutdaily, which also reports that he can't officially join the church until his first marriage is annulled. This will be a perfect example to view the absolute absurdity of Catholic annulments. They're against divorce, remember, but they'll declare that a marriage that lasted 20 years and produced children never really existed "in the eyes of God" and therefore the fact that he cheated on the wife that didn't exist with the wife that, presumably, does now exist (until he dumps her and wants that one annulled too, of course) doesn't really matter. This could be quite amusing to watch.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
John C. Nienstedt is the Archbishop of the Diocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, which makes him the ranking Catholic god-botherer in the region, I guess. We're supposed to call him "Most Reverend" — priests are really good at attaching laudatory titles to themselves — but I won't be doing that,…
Lynn just sent me an interesting article on a situation at Black Hawk College involving academic freedom. I recalled seeing a headline on Worldnutdaily about it, but didn't bother reading it until I saw this followup article. Here's the situation, as the Worldnutdaily describes it:
LeBlanc…
Wolf Hall is a now-immensely-well-known tale of a slice of Henry VIII's reign; a period I know little about: we skimped it at school and it gets throroughly mythologised anyway. The chief hero is Cromwell (not Oliver) who is portrayed (correctly,as I understand it) as a brilliant administrator and…
Another "exclusive commentary" from the WorldNutDaily, which, as usual, means that no one else would publish such a ridiculous article so they get exclusive access to it. This one is from P. Andrew Sandlin, the president of something called the Center for Cultural Leadership, and is called In…
I agree that this will be amusing to watch. Terry is one of those clowns, where, when stuff like this happens, it's quite enjoyable to just sit back and enjoy the carnival ride.
Ed,
This is one of my biggest pet peeves with religion. The absolute dehumanizing of life in favor of rules and regulations that are totally fanciful and irrational.
Needless to say the verses they base this on have many, many interpretations. Some more rational than the others.
It's called "traditional family values" Ed.
I'm catholic. I could, if I wanted to, have my marriage annuled on the grounds that my wife is Protestant.
Well, I don't want to be a contrarian here, but there is another way to look at the Catholic approach to divorce [aka annulment]. It goes something like this: finding themselves locked into an absolute theological opposition to divorce, and yet finding many of the faithful locked into failed marriages with disastrous consequences for the individuals involved [including, often, children] --- not to mention Catholics leaving the faith because they could not re-marry in it --- Church theologians came up with a way to end failed marriages and permit new beginnings without litteraly violating the ban on divorce: annulment. The end result would seem to me to be desirable on the whole: permitting people in failed marriages to begin again without surrendering their religion.
Disclosure: I am not a Catholic.
flatlander:
I think that is exactly what happened. But the next sentence should be, "Therefore, I don't want to hear you talk anymore about how morality is determined by the decree of God, or about your eternal quest for truth. You've just proven both claims false."
Presuming of course their stance was correct from the get go. Which I doubt.
Just to shed a little light on what's involved in an annulment:
An annulment doesn't deny that two people were married -- it says that they didn't form a perfect union.
The church in general (aka worldwide) seems generally opposed to annulments and from what I understand grants them only in extreme situations (homosexuality, not wanting to have kids, maybe some illegal behaviors, etc.). The church in the US, on the other hand, is famous (or infamous, depending on the circle you're in) for routinely granting annulments (as far as I know, no official stats have been made public, but guesstimates seem to place the success rate at 50-80% (or even higher)).
This doesn't make the process anything other ridiculous, but I think that part of why the church insists on it is to avoid further displacement (the divorce is a civil procedure, except perhaps in Chile, where a divorce may be granted if the church agrees to an annulment, or so I've heard) from people's lives (remember the 2004 deal with Kerry and communion; apparently the vatican has since supported the bishop's (from St Louis?) descision to deny him communion for his pro-choice views). I wonder, if in light of that decision, they'll challenge communion for supporters of the death penalty.
I should disclose that I'm catholic (well, practicing, but not exactly following the church line on much of anything), have relatives who have received (been granted?) annulments, and have looked into the process for myself.
:Boggle:. Ok, at this point I'm going to assume "perfect union" doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. From prior experience I don't hold out much hope for figuring out what the hell the Roman Catholic Church is talking about.
Andrew,
That's certainly a fair response, especially so given that in order to annul a marriage something must be found in canon law as a grounds for the annulment. One priest (maybe a bishop) was quoted as saying that if they looked hard enough (both into the marriage and the law books) that a justification for annulment could be found (tweaking the rules a bit too much for the conservative elements of the church).
As far as I can see, the process is really about the church and the church maintaining a place in people's lives. It doesn't always work, it's common among Mexican catholics only to have a civil wedding (their legal system does not give a priest the power to marry people in a legal sense) and then have a religous wedding years later, presumably when they're more certain about the possiblities of success of the marriage. This way, they don't have to worry about an annulment if it doesn't work out.
I'm not sure on what grounds this strategy works because, as seems to be the case with Randall Terry, that the church requires non-catholic marriages to be annuled -- that was the case with my aunt, who, when she married by uncle, couldn't get married within the church because they required his previous marraiges to be annuled, even though they weren't catholic marriages (they got married in a 5-minute JOP ceremony, so maybe it was the priest's way of saying you're going to burn in hell, now leave me alone, or something to that effect).
If thats the case then I doubt anyone is married according to these people. A good friend of mine is Catholic and when his marriage failed he refused to get an annulment because he told the priest he would not say it didn't happen. He is one of the best men I know. He is now married again sans annulment and has a wonderful marriage.
Not wanting to have kids? good grief. The main problem as I see it on this is simply the church takes one interpretation and forces people under threat of fear to live in situations that are not so good to terrible.
Now I imagine on the flipside it preserves some marriages but I doubt many. People will just disregard the church if need be. Like this couple I know, both refuse to get a divorce but have taken lovers and each is well aware of the others activities. But being practicing Catholics they don't want the church involved.
It's not even pro-marriage per se. Only on the surface.
It's a ludicrous, archaic, and very harmful position. I will give kudo's though to a large and growing number of priests who have sought to amend the churchs position on this issue during the last couple of decades but have lost out due to the right turn the church has taken. Also by poll nearly 98% of catholics think the church is in error on this position. But that means little in way of argument.
Perhaps in the future they will win out.
This is totally true. These folks think the church marriage is more 'serious'. No matter what rules you make people will find away around them. What a mockery of any form of religion this is though. Isn't it just more honest to say marriages fail?
Asking for that kind of consistency from the church is like talking to any of the IDiots. All that matters is what they think and how they want to rationalize things.
It's really quite simple:
The Church has very strict rules of membership, but if adhering to the rules might result in the loss of a member, the Church has very spiffy loopholes in order to keep the members and keep the rules too.
Kinda like George Bush, Big Business, and Illegal Immigration.
Annulment has been referred to as "Catholic divorce" for the US, where the lion's share of annulments are granted by the church. IIRC, the Vatican has to approve all annulments, worldwide, but tend to defer to local bishops.
When I was in Catholic school, we learned that an annulment was possible only if there is evidence that the sacrament of matrimony did not "take." The idea is that sacraments literally change your soul, and cannot be undone. In the case of an appropriate annulment (e.g., for theologically valid reasons), one or both parties could not or did not truly enter into a sacramental marriage, either because they were impaired (mentally ill) or lying. The other alternative is non-consumation of marriage, which is required to validate the marriage itself (which is why a parapalegic who could not have sexual intercourse was blocked from marriage in South America a few years back).
I've had three relatives get annulments, all for what were considered "appropriate" reasons. One cousin's wife, who had converted to Catholocism to marry him, declared on their wedding night that she had lied, did not believe in the Catholic church and did not want children (you must be open to children to be marred in the church - which means those who know themselves to be infertile cannot be married ever). She had only married him to escape her parents' abusive household. He was devastated, and it took the better part of a decade to get the annulment.
His brother, another cousin of mine of course, got an annulment after his wife was proven to have slept around on him throughout their marriage. This was taken by the church to be a sign of someone who could not really commit to a marriage, so it could never have been valid to begin with.
The third relative was a cousin of my mother's, whose husband has bipolar disorder with schizophrenic tendencies. He had a serious psychotic break twice during their marriage, and during the second one he assaulted his wife several times, including once attempting to kidnap her and their children from the parking lot of the Catholic school the children attended (the sister who was Principal of the school had to physically stop him). After a psychiatric evaluation in which it was determined the guy had been mentally ill since his teenage years (although it was much worse later), the church granted the annulment in two months! I guess attacking your wife in the presence of a religious woman is not the best way to prove your sanity.
Annulments are often a sham, a way to get a divorce and still be a "faithful Catholic".
Indeed, they're not fooling anyone with their distinction between divorce and annulment.
BTW, I'll be having an ecumenical wedding next month, since my GF's family insists on a priest. =\
In Brazil, all you need to get an annulment is to have some good connections.
The other alternative is non-consumation of marriage, which is required to validate the marriage itself (which is why a parapalegic who could not have sexual intercourse was blocked from marriage in South America a few years back).
He was only blocked from having a religious ceremony. Apart from homosexual couples (for now), the Church doesn't get to say who can get married or not, and a religious wedding is not legally valid.
Haven't the Catholic lay people suffered enough. On the upside, this will hasten the demise the Catholic church, first the Da Vinci Code now Terry's BS. Almost makes me feel sorry for Heir Pope.
Randall Terry is an utter disgrace to whatever church, sect, denomination or faction he claims to have joined. Last I heard from him (aside from the Schiavo Meltdown), he was advising people to pray for "something terrible" to happen to politicians who didn't agree with him. I must've missed the bit where Jesus said that sort of thing was okay.