I was invited to a barbecue on Satursday and ended up speaking to a guy I’ve met many times at similar functions. He’s a married professional with two children. He’s also a volunteer fireman. A good guy. He was making fun of Obama by asking for anything and everything and labeling it “change.” Could I have the ketchup? This burger needs change. You get the idea.
Soon, talk came up about the election and I offered that California just got a little bit better for McCain because the gay marriage referendum would bring out conservatives. And then he said an interesting thing. He said he didn’t think gay marriage was a big deal.
Really? I asked.
He said he didn’t get why it was a big deal because it’s not like they’re forcing heterosexuals to do it. Why do I care, he asked, if two guys want to do whatever.
I asked about the institution of marriage and he essentially scoffed at the idea that there was an institution at all, not in a mean way but as if he didn’t understand what I was saying.
And then it hit me that the reason marriage has been defeated is not because it’s being attacked by homosexuals but because we stopped caring about marriage. With 50 percent of marriages ending in divorce and adultery a common problem, perhaps we simply don’t treasure marriage anymore.
How many people do you know who live together and view marriage as “just a piece of paper?” They take their relationship with their spouse seriously but not marriage. So many young people, who are often products of divorce, see marriage as antiquated.
Even those who see it as an eventual goal see no difference in living together and marriage. Premarital sex isn’t just accepted. It’s expected.
Even the Church has handed out annulments like candy in some areas. In other areas it’s criticized for not making it easier. Pre-cana is something of a joke in many areas with little or no effort to increase the people’s awareness of something holy and sacred taking place in a marriage.
That which is not treasured or defended will be taken away from us. It’s as simple as that. And I don’t think we’ve treasured or defended marriage for quite a while.
May 19, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Well said! And more proof that there really is a slippery slope — and we are far down the slide and about to go over the cliff.
May 19, 2008 at 4:01 pm
“Even the Church has handed out annulments like candy in some areas.”
If you want to know why this statement has little if any evidence to support it, click here.
To those who would respond, please take the time to read the link first.
May 19, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“And then it hit me that the reason marriage has been defeated is not because it’s being attacked by homosexuals but because we stopped caring about marriage.”
BINGO!
That’s a direct hit.
It has been argued by better than me that homosexual marriage is viable because heterosexuals have mad an out-and-out farce of heterosexual marriage.
I have heard it argued that the first toe in the water of homosexual marriage was the advent of no-fault divorce.
Add to that, as it is spelled out in Theology of the Body, when married couples (while they remain married) contracept, they remove the procreative part of the procreative/unative aspect of marriage, and add to the mockery of marriage.
A byproduct of this is not just gay marraige (which, IMHO is now a forgone conclusion), but the amount of heterosexual couples that don’t even bother getting married in the first place. Even when they have children, they don’t see the need; as we have done such a good job of making marriage a joke.
IMHO, This is a significant factor keeping the divorce rate statistics down even more than what’s reported. There is no report for a cohabitating couple who split up.
As no-fault divorce was the first step toward this free-fall, I’d like to make a prediction as to the next milestone in our moral decay.
I think the Texas Mormon “cult” shows an interesting combination of what’s next on the list: polygamy (and polyamory for bisexuals), and the reduction of the age of consent.
I give it 5-10 years tops.
May 19, 2008 at 7:03 pm
David,
the article you linked to was simply one man’s opinion. you gave no facts.
I went through an annulment and was told by my parish priest that if I lived somewhere else it would be much easier.
And in my case there was infidelity shortly after my marriage.
He said that the board here was tough. Others were far easier.
So for you to say that annulments are not easy to get in some areas it shows that you are just uninformed.
May 19, 2008 at 7:26 pm
“the article you linked to was simply one man’s opinion. you gave no facts… for you to say that annulments are not easy to get in some areas it shows that you are just uninformed.”
Was there a part of “read the link first” that you missed?
My submission was simply that there are …”an undetermined number of marriages whose validity is upheld, before they even enter the system. What you are left with, then, are the ones that do get through the system.”
The one “fact” I gave, about the ratio of Catholics who remarry outside the Church, is admittedly unattributed, but it does not change my submission. In addition, I made no comment whatsoever on the ease or difficulty of obtaining annulments in one place as opposed to another.
To say that there is an excessive quantity of anything, is to imply a basis for comparison. If I say, for example, that there are too many people in the room where I am standing, upon what do I base that? My own comfort zone? The maximum occupancy allowed by local safety ordinance? The limit to my guest list? What exactly???
If you’re going to challenge what I wrote, base your challenge on what I wrote, not on what you think I might have been inferring.
I wrote it again, here in the combox, if that will help.
May 20, 2008 at 12:25 am
David Alexander:
I read your link, and am not sure what your point is regarding Matthew’s post.
The fact that many people are turned away from the annulment process only shows that many Catholics are in unhappy but sacramental marriages and lack the catechesis to know the difference.
Matthew’s point; that people don’t value marriage, and that even Catholics, who should be taught better, also don’t always value marriage as they ought, remains.
May 20, 2008 at 2:43 am
“I read your link, and am not sure what your point is regarding Matthew’s post.”
My point is in my last response, in bold face type. Try again.
“Matthew’s point; that people don’t value marriage… remains.”
Which is why I had no quarrel with it. My bone of contention was limited to a statement without basis, but is a common mantra for people who lament modern attitudes toward marriage.
If there is a war on the family, there are likely to be casualties. That people lack a basic understanding of the meaning of Christian marriage — THAT… is a casualty.
May 20, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Whatever your interpretation of the Matthew’s comments on annulments, its clear that the American Church has not helped manifest the reality of marriage. The numerous annulments give the impression that the bond is substantial. Catholics have treated marriage as just another contract that can be broken or dissolved.
Its time to start discussing with friends, and family, about the nature of marriage, its public discourse these days.
It can be discouraging as I have seen couples well prepared for marriage get divorced soon after marriage. Its just not part of the public’s consciousness. The more discussion the better…
May 20, 2008 at 9:43 pm
“Whatever your interpretation of the Matthew’s comments on annulments… [their great numbers] give the impression that the bond is substantial.”
But you have to see them as a symptom, not the disease itself. A problem is always best viewed at the root, as opposed to the end result. I believe it was Father Stravinskas who once said that, given the state of marriage preparation today, it was a wonder there were not more annulments.
May 22, 2008 at 8:41 am
BINGO!
In a culture where we have a good laugh at Britney’s 24 hour Vegas marriage and ZsaZsa’s 9 marriages… And where it is well expected couples should live together first and the wife should be on artificial hormones during her fertile years… and no one gives a damn when you call it quits after a few years and go on for a second and third marriage…
So >1% of the population wants to get in on THAT action just doing their temp arrangements, sterile sex and keeping strip-mall divorce lawyers in the green with a couplinf of two men or two women…
So what? I say let them have it! We have let marriage go so far down the toilet that allowing men to marry goats would not make a bean’s worth of difference at this point.
Ask yourself this: What causes more sensation, a same-sex couple moving in and being just as materialistic as Dick & Jane, or the couple that has 5+ kids?
Catholics lost this battle 40 years ago when we through out Humanae Vitae.
I hope it isn’t too late.
May 22, 2008 at 8:45 am
“I believe it was Father Stravinskas who once said that, given the state of marriage preparation today, it was a wonder there were not more annulments.”
If he didn’t say it, I did.
Two aquaintances of mine – raised Catholic, Catholic school K-12…
They go in to schedule a date for their wedding. Father finds out:
* They are living together
* on abortifacients with no plans to stop
* She self-describes as “an athiest”
* They have a pre-nup in place
* Neither has been to confession in over a decade. They do not attend Mass on Sundays.
So what does Father ask?
What date would you like?
December 30, 2008 at 9:12 pm
The very experienced priest who published some articles regarding his personal experience as a tribunalist was Father
Clarence Hettinger, who was a Judicial Vicar, in Peoria, Ill, I believe and served under Bishop Myers for a time, who is now in Newark, NJ, I think.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/REMARDIV.TXT
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=350
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4198
Bob Vasoli documented the glut of nullities in his book What God has Joined…
Father Joaquim Llobel has indicated the same.
http://tinyurl.com/9cr87y
Lobell teaches Canon law and I believe is on the Apostolic Signatura of which Archbishop Burke is the new Prefect.
In 1993 Archbishop Vincenzo Fagiolo called the American annulment figures “a grave scandal.” At the time he was the
President of
Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts:
Canon Law is a legislative text
I saw, first hand, the corruption of the nullity process and was forced, due to that corruption, to twice defend our valid marriage in Rome, which took me a total of twelve years to defend.
There is a huge annulment scandal in this country and don’t be a fool and try to say these are old articles and that things have changed.
From top to bottom our american bishops are corrupted and their tribunals show it. they are obliged to reflect Roman jurisprudence and they do not.
there has never been a sytematic review of the American decisions, which is the ONLY way to judge what is truly going on.
When the hell have you heard an american canonist demand that such a retrostudy be done?
Or a bishop say the same thing?
The word NEVER comes to mind?
What are they afraid of?
Karl