The Archdiocese of Chicago is spending $1 million on a Catholics Come Home ad campaign. Nice, right?
But you’ve got to see how the Chicago Tribune reported it:
In order to return to the pews, Cindy Colman first must grapple with the Roman Catholic Church’s failure to forgive, alienating her and her mother from the institution that generations of their family have called home.
“I think I’m still in the process,” said Colman, 35 of Naperville. “I’m at that point where I’m coming back to learn more and understand the whole faith … It’s true. At my core, I know that.”After fleeing an abusive husband more than 30 years ago, Colman’s mother chose to raise her daughter Lutheran. Though she agreed to annul her previous marriage, the Catholic Church insisted on denying her the sacraments when her new husband declined to annul his marriage.
Colman has since agonized about the way her mother has been treated. Still, she yearns to reconcile with the church where she was baptized. She also longs to give her children the foundation she missed.
So people have to forgive the Church for its failure to forgive? Really? That’s the lede in a news story?
Divorces and annulments are heartbreaking. But the Church has rules. And let’s remember that standards and rules are what makes some people hate Catholicism.
But the story continues from there:
But others say the commercials fail to heal all the wounds inflicted by the church. They wish the church would proclaim a more modern message instead of stressing nostalgia. They say the ads missed an opportunity to reach out to those disillusioned by the sex-abuse scandal. Instead of acknowledging its own mistakes, critics say, the church suggests those who have fallen away should return to make peace with the past.
Sal Boccia, 39, of Alsip doesn’t want the mistakes of his past to take away from his children’s future. Married for less than a year before he divorced and met his current wife, Marissa, he took umbrage when the church refused to marry them until he sought an annulment.
“It just became a big hassle,” Sal Boccia said. “It really turned me off — and that’s when we started moving away from the church.”
But like Colman, the Boccias are contemplating a return for the sake of their three children. Their two oldest — ages 7 and 8 — have begun to ask questions about God and the afterlife.
It actually continues from there but it’s just so silly. I mean, it’s laughably poor reporting.
So the Chicago Tribune is essentially telling the Church that it should stop having rules and standards. Well, it looks like the Trib already has. And I’ll bet that the Catholic Church continues to exist long after the Tribune is gone.
February 14, 2010 at 3:06 am
Dear Anonymous at February 12, 2010 10:52 PM
I'm very sorry for your marital situation, you've been truly wronged. You were not the type of person I was talking about in my comment. There's a world of difference between you and Sal Boccia from the article who apparently sees an annulment as Catholic divorce and a big unnecessary hassle.
You hold the Church up to its own teachings and have been harmed by it's members who don't follow them. Sal on the other hand holds the Church up to *his* own teachings and wants a free pass on the marriage vows he freely made to his first wife.
In my comment I intended no ill will toward you or others in your situation.
February 14, 2010 at 3:17 am
Conversations like this are the reason I have never revealed certain details of my divorce. That, and it's nobody's damn business.
February 14, 2010 at 3:48 am
I'm with you on that one, David. Thanks for saying that.
February 14, 2010 at 4:58 am
You are wrong, Mr Alexander that your divorce is nobody's damn business. Marriage is a public sacrament. It is everyone's business. Marriage is not to be misused or abused. Your divorce, even if morally necessary makes others divorces easier. That is a wrong and that is a consequence of each divorce.
Silence about the crimes perpetrated with the assistance of the Church is to approve of those crimes. The Church could address its crimes but it refuses to and thus, continues its violation of a valid marriage and how many others, only God knows.
Of course, the Catholic Church, like the Good Shepherd, should reach out for those of its flock who have been lost. That is the job of a bishop. But it should do so, in truth and with the intent to hold to the teachings of Christ, even when and probably most importantly when to follow them calls for sacrifice.
February 14, 2010 at 5:02 am
Dear Brian,
I did not mean to imply that you meant harm. I was merely commenting on what you wrote.
But what is happening will not change unless change is demanded by the laity.
Thank you.
The same anonymous
February 14, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Anonymous:
I am aware that my former marriage was public. I was there. Be that as it may, the details of matters in a canonical tribunal are handled with a certain degree of discretion. They are NOT public. Our system of law is based upon English common law, while canon law is based upon old Roman law.
Besides, the last thing I need is a catechism lesson from some hothead who tells me that my business is everybody's, while his/her name remains anonymous.
February 14, 2010 at 2:21 pm
I was there. Be that as it may, the details of matters in a canonical tribunal are handled with a certain degree of discretion. They are NOT public.
I fully agree. And because no one can realistically verify anyone's tribunal tale of woe, I think there should be a moratorium on said anecdotes; especially when they are used as a shoe to kick sand on the Church.
February 14, 2010 at 6:48 pm
This is to the person who called Cindy Coleman. It is people like you and warm gestures like yours that I think will help make the campaign a success. It won't do any good to bring people to the church doors only for them to find cold and uncaring parishioners. I hope that the people seeking to return will find warmth and love.
February 14, 2010 at 7:52 pm
"… especially when they are used as a shoe to kick sand on the Church."
Or as a pretense to stick one's sanctimonious nose in someone else's business.
February 15, 2010 at 1:04 am
I know, how about going through the annulment process BEFORE resuming dating, so you don't hurt others!!!!!!
February 15, 2010 at 1:32 am
And we're back for our second wind of tawdry marital strife! (I could be watching freestyle skiing out of Vancouver right now, eh?)
February 15, 2010 at 11:12 am
Dear Mr. Alexander,
Anon has every right to talk about his private life of his own free will if he so chooses, possibly asking for help, and possibly for our education. No one is being nosy.
Dear Anon,
Mr. Alexander has every right to keep the details of his life private, for his own protection, possibly to avoid scandal, and for his own damn reasons.
Fair?
February 15, 2010 at 11:22 am
I have written this before, but I cannot recommend enough the credentials and writings of Mgr. Cormac Burke (all on his website) for those who want to understand declarations of nullity in some depth. As Mr. Walden said, we need to be educated on these matters. If priests can't/won't always do it, we might as well do what we can ourselves.
And of course, we can read the Canon Law on the topic of marriage (it is not very long).
February 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Sebastian S:
People (not all, but some) have used this venue, not only to disclose details of their own personal life, so as to obtain the assistance of others, but to imply a general right to pass judgment of others, who may not be so forthcoming. I had no comment on the former, but confined my observations to the latter.
But since you brought it up …
This is not an appropriate venue for the former to seek such guidance. Those who wish for it from participants in a weblog comments box, can offer to take such discussions offlist. There are also any number of good priests authoring blogs, who could be prevailed upon. To do otherwise, is to reduce such discussions to tawdry, distasteful affairs, which this has become. It also cheapens the sacredness of the very subject being discussed.
Perhaps you'll defend their right to do that too.
February 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Dear Anon at Feb 12, 4:15pm, etc.
I believe we have met at CMR before – or someone with an eerily similar writing style and story. How are you?
As you already know, I have sympathy for your plight. I want however to call you on several things you've written. Notably you speak of your 'rational reaction', but I see things that are neither logical nor fair:
1. You accuse 'the Catholic Church' of being corrupt, while at the same time referring to the decision of the Roman Rota in your favour. Last time I checked, the Roman Rota was part of the Church – so which is it?
So please, do not say 'the Catholic Church'. Maybe 'the Catholic Church in the US over the past 50 years', and then, not all of it. Sweeping generalisations don't make your accusations trustworthy.
2. On the previous point – you know, I am young and naive, so I believe you and give a damn, but in all truth, how do I know your story is not made up, and you are not simply trying to harm the Church as best you can? I don't think this is the case (mostly based on what you have written at our last encounter), but to the people reading this post, mostly older and wiser than I am, it could be a real possibility. As if the Church did have enough trolls and crazies banging at Her doors day and night demanding all sorts of lunacies. How do you expect your voice to be heard over all that rabble, unless you become much more specific, fair, and balanced in your complaints? [hint: the all-caps have got to go.]
3. You talk about your real sufferings and mistreatment. So far so good. However, you then extrapolate that to the Corruption of the evil Catholic Church [tm]. Sorry, but we Catholics hear this a lot, both in just and unjust attacks, and I can't help to think that this is a little provincial. The Church, in her visible aspect, is 2000 years old, has over a billion members, in every country on the planet. Are you saying that the persecuted churches in Sudan, China, Vietnam are corrupt? Were the priests who gave their lives during the French, Mexican, Spanish Revolutions, or under the Tudors, the NAZIs, or Stalin, corrupt? You may find yourself in a particularly corrupt space-time point of the visible Church – that's very unfortunate – and it is in many ways our collective fault and resposibility. The only thing we can really do is shine a light through becoming saints (I mentioned Joan of Arc before, but there are many other good examples).
…
February 15, 2010 at 12:25 pm
4. On becoming saints, I don't know what your current situation is with the Church. All I can say is to reiterate my plight to you: for the sake of your own soul, for your children, and possibly for the salvation of your wife, please receive the Sacraments. They are given by a sinner to a sinner, but He whom is given is sinless cures us of our sins. How do you know that your piety might not be instrumental in converting the heart of a corrupt priest?
5. You write how present company are 'lost', because they 'do not listen…trenches' – whoa, whoa, whoa – 'lost' as in 'damned'? Or merely as 'deluded'? Either way, that's just way out of line for you to pontificate about. What do you know about these people anyway? You say you have been 'in the trenches' – and others have not? What do you know of others' sufferings? The betrayals, the miscarriages, the vicious diseases – physical or mental, the abuse as children, the subtle manipulations? Maybe you think that others don't suffer, because they're not always vocal about it (as Mr. Alexander judiciously chooses to do), so their lives must be peachy-keen. I have news for you: there are people out there who have suffered more than you have, yet have been much braver about it. I don't know who they are, and neither do you, but it's true.
To sum up, all things aside, you are a grown man and a father. You don't really have a choice, but to take responsibility for your own life, independently of what others may do to you. You accuse the people around you of corruption and evil intentions – how do you know they have not also been betrayed in some fundamental way (by a priest, their parents, …) and are still just lashing out? Would you excuse their behaviour if you knew this was the case? We are more than the product of our circumstances, the more so the older we are, and the buck has to stop somewhere.
I wish you well. Reconciliation with your wife if possible, but first and foremost reconciliation with Christ and his Church – which is always possible.
February 15, 2010 at 12:26 pm
For the record, if anything in my life is a potential source of scandal, I have recourse to the confessional, as opposed to this venue.
February 15, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Dear Mr. Alexander,
Funny thing that, we posted our comments at the same minute – I pretty much did what you wrote I shouldn't do (try to give guidance, etc.) – I don't really agree or disagree with you, as maybe I don't know the rules of posting on CMR. I don't have any objective cirteria to decide what is appropriate or not for this blog. Your objection seems to me somehow aesthetic, which is tricky to discuss.
I assume that CMR reserves the right to delete whatever comments they want. I guess they can thus regulate and shape the type of discussions therein. The question is – do they really want to?
As for taking things offline, that might be tricky to do, especially if you want to preserve some anonimity, but might be a good idea.
Anyway, if you don't like it, don't read it. We all have better things to do.
February 15, 2010 at 1:04 pm
"Anyway, if you don't like it, don't read it. We all have better things to do."
Now that's good advice at anytime. And if a combox is anything like an e-mail discussion group, some moderators "have better things to do" as well.
On that note, I'm unsubscribing.
February 15, 2010 at 8:20 pm
"It also cheapens the sacredness of the very subject being discussed."
The sacredness of marriage is cheapened scandalously, when the Catholic Church, as it has done since 1977, accepts those into the Church who are living in open and public permanent adultery.
Instead of asking those who have wrongly abandoned their marriages to understand the meaning of exactly what a Roman Rotal decision is that has upheld a valid marriage, the Catholic Church, though its clergy, priests and bishops, does nothing to take action to bring its authority into action to encourage those in clearly grave, harmful, destructive situations, to work to heal their valid marriages, particularly when their abandoned spouse has remained faithful, but rather it welcomes adulterers as "couples" almost always referring to them as Mr. and Mrs., when in fact, as the Pope himself has clearly stated "there is no second marriage", so there is no Mr. and Mrs. They are adulterers who refuse to repent!
The reality of what exists was alluded to in some of the wording of the Manhattan Declaration, if anyone care to read it or has actually signed it themselves. The entire system in the US and that includes what the Catholic Church does, to a significant extent, is predicated upon the assumption of the adulterous partners, being "real" or having "legitimacy" to their claims as a "couple". When, in fact, they are openly in rebellion to that reality, which is clearly stated in the teachings of the Catholic Church. By "accepting' this fraud, clergy subvert what the reality is and negate what is good. It is rendering to Caesar what is NOT Caesars, but God"s!
It is scandalous, as to be absurd, that mercy and justice have been so "morphed" or better perverted into making an aggrieved spouse, who has been wrongly abandoned and persecuted, into a malcontent. For his/her defense of the valid marriage and the rights and obligations that go along with it and for his/her disbelief and very righteous anger at the clergy, therefore the Church(not stricly true), for not acting to hold such ruthless criminals, that adulterers are, to a full accounting and to hold to an accounting as well, even more sternly, the clergy who encourage such grave disregard for marriages and the canonists who make decisions, later overturned by the Rota, which are a clear intended mockery of a valid marriage as well as a clear disregarding of the Rotal decisions, from the past, and Papal allocutions to that body, which are public knowledge and therefore even more egregiously malignant when disregarded, the wronged spouse is somehow "anti-Catholic" for insisting upon the administration of justice and for calling corruption what it is-corruption!
But this is the reality that the wrongly divorced Catholics face, everyday, as their Church has lost sight of what it is doing. It is an utter falsehood to claim that the welcoming of adulterous criminals into the daily life of the Catholic Church is a "good", when in functional reality this "acceptance" "justifies" and "ameliorates", by this very open acceptance as a "couple"(that does not exist as per the Pope), the crimes that are ongoing by this "loving couple" and those crimes are clear, convincing and, in fact, prima facie evidence, that their "intent" is to destroy truth, to destroy a valid marriage, to destroy a legitimate spouse, to destroy the real family and to destroy the Catholic Church through the slow deterioration of its teachings via the sequential and incremental deconstruction of its gospel message, which it to seek forgiveness and reconciliation through repentance and restitution for all wrong doing.