more on annulments
Kathy has extended her post on her decision to abandon Catholic teaching and get married outside of the Church rather than file some paperwork, so I’ve responded with another post.
Kathy writes:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/RelapsedC…
The supportive emails are coming from women mostly
I don’t find this surprising in the least.
In my experience, women tend to be further off towards the compassionate, protective of feelings, rules-are-bad-if-they-make-people-feel-bad side of the spectrum (i.e. “mommy” attitudes), while men tend to be further off towards the feelings-be-damned, let-justice-be-done, consider-not-just-the-specific-case-but-also-the-end-result side of the spectrum (i.e. “dad” attitudes).
Society can not stand if mom attitudes are absent, and dad attitudes prevail – you get ancient Sparta, which is good for defending the Hot Gates, and keeping the agricultural slaves in check, but not so good for art, music, compassion, or relationships.
Nor, though, can society stand if dad attitudes are absent, and mom attitudes prevail – you get Amsterdam, or San Francisco, with a generous social safety net (right up until the moment it falls apart), where no one steps forward to say that shooting heroin is a bad idea, because saying that might hurt someone’s feelings.
In sticking my toe into various Catholic discussion boards online, it has always been my experience that women care about orthodoxy, right up until a teaching threatens to inconvenience someone they know, and then it’s time to burn down Vatican City, because That Mean Pope says that Fluffy, the daughter’s gerbil, doesn’t have an immortal soul, and thus may not go to Heaven on his own merits.
So: Relapsed Catholic is getting “you go, girl” emails from women, cheering on her plan to disregard Church teaching.
Yes, I believe that.
All the vitriolic name calling hate mail is coming from men. Surprise!
Guys tend to be !@#-holes in this way.
So: guys, there’s no call to call Kathy names. Quit it.
I should have been clearer in my original post. Arnie and I started the process by phoning the Office and gathering documentation as per their instructions. And that’s where it ended. No one was or is “holding us up”.
So why didn’t we just go through with it? I’ve been assured by a few people that, given Arnie’s circumstances (one divorce from one civil marriage) the annulment procedure wouldn’t take more than a month or two. In fact, it wasn’t strictly speaking an “annulment” at all.
But please understand that we just couldn’t take the procedure seriously.
My initial take on Kathy’s situation seems correct:
Kathy has the option to get married in the Church, but she doesn’t want to fill out a few forms, so suddenly – and I’m using Kathy’s own words here – she is “forced to ‘marry’ — like some half-drunk cross dresser on a whim — within the walls and halls of our city’s monument to … socialism … because [ the ] Church is an ass.”
Let’s run that sentence past one more time, just so we can be sure we understand it:
Kathy has the option to get married in the Church, but she doesn’t want to fill out a few forms, so suddenly – and I’m using Kathy’s own words here – she is “forced to ‘marry’ — like some half-drunk cross dresser on a whim — within the walls and halls of our city’s monument to … socialism … because [ the ] Church is an ass.”
It’s not clear to me that in this scenario it is the Church that is being …ahh… immature.
What else does she say, because the Church is asking her to fill out a few forms?
- the Church hierarchy is composed of “Eurotrash”
- the annulment process was made up “on the fly”
- the Church hierarchy is composed of dumb people
- Kathy is smarter than the Church hierarchy
- Kathy works harder than the Church hierarchy
- “therefore” (her own words) she may morally ignore Church teaching
- priests are gay, and therefore have nothing useful to say about marriage
This is one of the most angry, vituperative posts Kathy has ever made (and given that she blogs in a style not unlike mine, that’s saying something!) and her anger is directed not just at one or two individual priests, but at the Church as a whole, and at Church teaching…even teaching unrelated to annulments, like the idea that Catholics should welcome children into their families.
I usually have a lot of respect for Kathy, but I think she’s run far off the rails in this case, and is getting angry at the Church for maintaining the same standards that it always has.
I can accept the Church’s teachings on a few things that – at first blush – seem to lack in compassion (e.g. gay celibacy), because (a) I see the deeper beneficial aspects of the teachings, even if they sometime cause people superficial unhappiness; (b) the fact that I acknowledge certain restrictions on my own behavior which I might – at first – wish did not exist reassures me that I am actually taking a stand based on principal, and not on prejudice buttressed by convenience. E.g. it’s easy to say “what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander…so deal with it, gay-boy”, but it’s harder to agree to strictures that bite oneself as well.
Or, restated: you can tell the difference between principles and prejudices because principles sometimes bind, but prejudices always feel warm and comfy.
In the absence of a willingness to accept Church teaching on a matter as trivial as “you need to file five sheets of paper, pay $100, and wait a year”), and Kathy’s immediate leap to roll-your-own-morality, where the priests are gay, the process is corrupt, the power structure is European, and everyone who disagrees with her can take a big eyeful of her butt (her words) on her way out the door… it seems that one is left without any sort of assurance that one’s (remaining) principles have any sort of consistency.
To rephrase this as a question: if Kathy mocks women who dress up as Roman Catholic priests, because they are making up their own religion when it doesn’t deliver them the pony they want for Christmas, and Kathy mocks Catholics who argue for gay marriage, because they are making up their own religion when it doesn’t deliver them the pony they want for Christmas, etc., (and, from memory, I believe – but do not have cites – that Kathy has taken these positions) then what leg does she have to stand on when she asserts that on this issue, she’s allowed to make up her own religion where a divorce after a valid marriage is allowed, and/or bigamy is acceptable ?
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:48 am
Cold beer! Bear claws! Get your cold beer and bear claws right here!
June 23rd, 2007 at 10:11 am
“Just file the 5 pieces of paperwork…”
“This shell game will only take five minutes”
“It only took 5 minutes to rape you, what’s the big deal.”
Dude, you are a really good argument against letting male children read too much science fiction.
It’s also kind of ironic that a self-described anarcho capitalist libertarian is telling me to go along with an illogical, unjust, arbitrary bureaucratic process — one he’d mock wholeheartedly if it was the DMV and not the Vatican.
Something else is getting under your skin here. Wonder what…
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:08 am
As an uninformed outsider to all this, I find the argument stated here as calm and understanding.
I can also understand why Kathy would reply in a negative manner to the original post… heck, it sucks to be outed as a hypocrit and hoisted upon your own foibles.
But regardless, in the grand scheme of things, attitudes like both of yours are pointless. Either you are religious, and your decisions will come a cropper, or you aren’t, and the idiocy of those who play in that sandpit shouldn’t bother you when they suddenly realize sacrifice is what some religions are all about.
I mean, despite Kathy missing the point entirely about WHY you have an issue with her hypocracry and selfishness, why does it bother you that she obviously doesn’t want to follow her own opinion? Her impassioned and bizarre comparison between paperwork and rape shows, to me, she knows she is being irrational… but screw it, because she must get what she wants.
You were polite, explained you didn’t like her views, but enjoyed her writing, and you get attacked. Kathy, you ain’t getting sympathy from this corner.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:10 am
And apologies to spelling. I normally don’t post, only read blogs. And the spelling and sentence structure seems to have rubbed off on me. The internet makes you stupid… or at least incapable of spelling.
June 23rd, 2007 at 11:52 am
Kathy writes:
Yes, I said that.
I didn’t say that.
I would never say anything like that.
I don’t know – I’m pretty happy with my life.
Indeed, you’re right – I would be annoyed if it was the DMV, because
(a) there is no alternative to the monopoly DMV – I can’t switch to an alternative service provider with policies more in line with my preferences
(b) I believe that the DMV’s paperwork is arbitrary, and not rooted in several thousand years of consistent practice, which is in turn based on the direct words of Jesus Christ, son of God.
Aside from those two points, though, it’s an identical situation.
What’s getting under my skin is that I think that – because a huge amount of laziness over a very small issue – you’re choosing to piss on the Church, and engage in < ?php pretty_url("http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm","scandal"); ?> – behavior that may cause spiritual problems for others, by your bad example.
Marriage and family are on the rocks in Western society, and it’s not because of a handful of gays having Pride parades – it’s because most of us heteros are not only failing to live up to standards that have long held civilization together, but because many of us turn and mock those standards when they do not support us in our hedonism.
Restated: what is getting under my skin is that I have a lot of respect for you, and I think that you’re acting contrary to the crisp thinking and mature decision making that I believe you to normally have…and you’re doing it in a very public way, thus further normalizing post-modern (and, of course, pre-modern) behaviors.
I pray that you change your mind, and (a) file the paperwork, and (b) retract your mockery of the Church.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
My advice would be to not look toward a highly profitable ‘religious organization’ for ways to live your life and look at the world. The pope is so far removed from the everyday reality of regular people that he should not be looked to for guidance in any way.
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
It’s also kind of ironic that a self-described anarcho capitalist libertarian is telling me to go along with an illogical, unjust, arbitrary bureaucratic process — one he’d mock wholeheartedly if it was the DMV and not the Vatican.
Just curious, but didn’t you sign up for this? I mean, nobody is forcing you to be Catholic, right?
June 23rd, 2007 at 6:54 pm
Oh, and for the record (and just because I want to say it), I am a nihilist. “Vee believe in nothing Lebowshki!”
June 24th, 2007 at 3:08 am
In my experience, women tend to be further off towards the compassionate, protective of feelings, rules-are-bad-if-they-make-people-feel-bad side of the spectrum (i.e. “mommy” attitudes)
Wow. Don’t ever touch a pot in any hot Jewish woman’s kosher kitchen, if you believe this.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:33 am
“tend”
June 24th, 2007 at 11:03 am
“tend”
Ten out of ten surveyed. Just drop that ice cream scoop in her meat sink, and tell me how it works out. Men are slackers about rules.
June 24th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Look! Look! An exception to the rule! The rule is no good! You are wroooooongggg!!!!!
June 26th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Jim Says:
“Profitable” ?
How do you define the term?
Dollars returned to share-holders?
Salaries paid to office-holders?
September 12th, 2007 at 4:20 am
If you want to be married in the catholic church, I’m assuming that the religion plays some sort of importance in your life. The tenets, theology, RULES etc. But all of a sudden, when it becomes inconvienient, you don’t want to behave like a member of the catholic church except for the part where you get married in one.
?
I would think that there is more to an annulment than just the paperwork… you’re basically saying that the marriage never happened, like that part of your life didn’t exist. I think that would bother me more than the paperwork.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
[...] I have written things praising someone, and then later found out that I no longer agreed with them. For example: Kathy Shaidle, who was a fierce Catholic attacking all opponents … right up until the Church came through with utterly unreasonable demands like her fiance needs to get an anullment before marrying her…at which point she prefers apostasy and bigamy over filling out a form. [...]
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 am
[...] Comment on more on annulments by dispatches from TJICistan » Blog [...] I have written things praising someone, and then later found out that I no longer agreed with them. [...]