Ask your (non-rhetorical) ethnic questions here.

nicksmtmom · May 18, 2010, 12:02pm

^^^I second Schmaltz’s post. Annulment is something I know very little about as a “cradle Catholic.” However, glad that “mom2two” is covering this in some detail becuz I think the not knowing and speculation keeps lots of divorced Catholics from coming back to the church.

btw, I was also curious about the Amish question, but I guess I thought anyone who could answer those questions wouldn’t be using a computer! ;-)

Also this is NOT IN ANY WAY meant to be snide, but why is it that so many Amish are able to ride in cars, eat at fast food restaurants, have a cell phone, but must continue to live in a house without electricity, get around by buggy and drop out of school in the 8th grade? How do they reconcile all that? Part of me really admires their commitment to keeping things simple, but I don’t understand how they “draw the line”…

mom2collegekids · May 18, 2010, 12:09pm

*I just don’t want people to get the idea that being Catholic involves the religious equivalent of passing a bar exam. *

LOL

Very true…most Catholics have no idea about the details of the annulment process.

And, for most of us “cradle Catholics,” learning about the faith has been a lifelong process because of the intricacies of the faith. As you can see from this thread, the Catholic faith could not be learned and understood within a short time.

There is always confusion about doctrines/dogmas (which can not be changed) and customs (which can be changed). IF someone doesn’t know the difference, then they will have difficulties understanding why the Church could decide to ordain married men in the Roman Rite, but will never ordain women.

Priest celibacy is a custom, not a doctrine. And, the Church has always had some married priests…which surprises many. Right now, in the US, there are many married Catholic priests. About 100 of these are former Episcopalian, Anglican, & Lutheran ministers who converted and were ordained as Catholic priests (under special permission granted by Pope JPII). The rest are Eastern Rite Catholic priests. These are men who were married before ordination. The Church does not allow priests to marry after ordination. IF their wives were to die, they cannot remarry. I guess the Church doesn’t want its priests dating…LOL.

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering…Catholic do not worship Mary. We honor her as the Mother of God. Imagine being the one person that nursed baby Jesus, diapered him, cared for him. And, unlike us mere mortals, Jesus remembers each and every motherly task she did for him. Would He take her actions for granted like we do our own mothers? No. Never. His love for her would be better than any love we have for our own beloved mothers. So, why shouldn’t we follow His example? And, isn’t it logical that He would be happy that we love His mother, too? I’m certainly happy when others love my mother.

sryrstress · May 18, 2010, 1:00pm

I too certainly appreciate mom2 and pip’s insights. Regarding a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic, is there any difference whether the marriage is a civil ceremony or is in a church of another denomination, (assuming no priest is present)? For some reason, I was thinking it made a difference, and not for the better.

For any of you who are genealogy hounds, as mom2 notes, the Catholic church keeps exquisite records. My experience is here in US and in Germany, and the records there went back to the 1700’s.

Nicksmtmom–I am definitely not an Amish expert, but I live among them. I find their intertwining of faith and 24/7 lifestyle fascinating and inspiring. Will try to answer your questions based on my reading and observations.

Amish live in small “districts”, each of which is presided over by a bishop. The bishops have a lot of power in deciding what members of his district may do. There are different sects of Old Order/Amish–from very conservative to much less so. Different sects/districts have many differences–houses, clothing, buggies (open or not, windows or not, lights allowed or not), whether tractors can have rubber tires or steel only, etc. Some have plumbing in their homes.

They are Amish; the rest of us are “English”. They believe there are valid reasons why they should set themselves apart and be “not of this world”. They do not believe in insurance. They do not draw from the social service systems of the US. Self-employed Amish may “opt out” of the Social Security system–they do not draw from it. Those employed in factories pay the tax. They do pay federal and state income taxes, although with an average of 5-7 kids and one wage-earner, they would not owe federal tax. They strongly believe in taking care of their own. Hospital/medical bills which the family cannot pay are taken care of by the community.

Their belief is for the family unit to be together as much as possible, with the agrarian lfestyle being the ideal, as the family may work together daily. As land has become more expensive, this is increasingly not possible and many Amish are employed in factories (here in RV and manufactured housing) and away from their families more than they desire. The family unit is of utmost importance. Marriage is for life; divorce is not recognized. It is a male dominated society. Many own small businesses such as greenhouses, carpentry, or other small shops that can be operated from home.

I do not know Amish who own cell phones. Typically, businesses having a phone have it in a shack at the edge of their property. A loud bell announces its ringing and someone from the house runs out to answer it. The mill where I bought my woodwork had generators to run the equipment. They were timed and everything shut off at noon for dinner and at 4 pm.

They can ride in cars because it is necessary as a way of transportation in today’s society. Cars are not used unless absolutely necessary. They often hire drivers to take them longer distances and are not adverse to traveling. I believe the prohibition against owning vehicles is b/c cars disturb the sense of “community” and family that are so important to them. Insurance in my state is required and that would also be a problem.

They do not attend school past 8th grade b/c they feel it is not necessary to their way of life. They are adept in the basics of reading, writing, arithmetic by then. Boys often apprentice out and girls are taught homemaking skills by their mothers. Any money earned by the child is the parents until he/she turns 21. Marriage is in young 20’s. Another reason for less schooling is that running a farm, especially with non-mechanized equipment, takes lots of effort.

Electricity brings all sorts of evils–it brings in the corrupt outside world–tv, radio, and makes unnecessary stuff too easy. Some of them do have gas run refrigerators and propane. Most I know use wood or coal furnaces. Discipline is important and the oldest children are given lots of respect by the other children, and concordant responsibility. I have rarely seen Amish children who were not well behaved. They are also taught how to work hard.

Sorry for the book–I know lots of you aren’t in Amish states and might be interested. Like every group, there are good and bad–but I see a lot more good than otherwise.

Pizzagirl · May 18, 2010, 1:36pm

I have a Catholic mother and Jewish father, married by a rabbi (that is, not in the Catholic church, obviously). It was an “invalid” marriage according to Catholicism. Doesn’t bother me a bit. Catholics are entitled to have their rules; I don’t particularly care.

cottonwood513 · May 18, 2010, 3:03pm

Pizzagirl, did your parents receive an annulment? Otherwise, what are you talking about?

jonri · May 18, 2010, 3:30pm

Pizzagirl,

The Catholic church would not recognize your mother’s marriage as a sacrament. Thus, if she had divorced your father and wished to marry within the Catholic Church, she would have been perfectly free to do so.

Annulments are only necessary if the marriage is presumed valid. So, if a Catholic marries a Catholic in the Church and the marriage ends in divorce, neither of the parties can remarry in the Church as long as both are living, unless an annulment is obtained.

If a Jew marries a Jew before a rabbi and they are divorced, a Catholic could not marry the divorced Jew in the Catholic Church as long as both parties to the Jewish marriage are living, unless the Church annuls the Jewish marriage.

When the Church annuls a non-Catholic marriage lots of people get upset, for understandable reasons. But it is also the case that many divorced Catholics get upset when their spouse seeks an annulment in order to remarry in the Church.

The most hilarious case I know of involves an Episcopalian who married a lapsed Catholic in the Episcopal Church. His wife had been married in the Catholic Church at the age of 17and the marriage ended in divorce. The Episcopal Church, like the Catholic Church, has annulments. The Episcopal Church annuled the wife’s first marriage, on the ground that she was too young and immature at the time. The couple married in the Episcopal Church.

The marriage ended in divorce. Some years later, the Episcopal groom met and fell in love with a Catholic. She wanted to marry in the Catholic Church. No problem. The Catholic Church did not recognize the annulment the Episcopal Church had granted his first wife because she was Catholic. Therefore, that marriage was null and void.

It was hilarious because he was a devout Episopal and felt insulted that the Church didn’t recognize his marriage. If his first wife had been Episopal too, the Church WOULD have recognized the annulment and he could NOT have married in the Catholic Church. But because she was Catholic, the annulment had no effect in the eyes of the Church.

So, he was free to marry his second wife in the Catholic Church–but could NOT marry her in the Episcopal Church. They had wanted to have both a Catholic priest and an Episcopal priest perform the ceremony, but that wasn’t possible. His very WASPY family was horrified that he was marrying in the Catholic Church, but when he explained that he could not marry in the Episcopal Church, they forgave him.

DonnaL · May 18, 2010, 3:53pm

And you shouldn’t, really. Did it bother your mother?

Hey, I’m “invalid,” period, according to the Catholic Church, and I couldn’t care less!

sryrstress · May 18, 2010, 4:18pm

Would some of the Jewish posters chime in on how marriage is viewed? Are marriages considered “valid” or “invalid”, as has been discussed re: Catholicism. Is there something akin to annulment, and is it used regularly? Does it differ among orthodox, conservative, and reform? Anything along those lines, as I would love to learn more.

mom2collegekids · May 18, 2010, 4:35pm

*The most hilarious case I know of involves an Episcopalian who married a lapsed Catholic in the Episcopal Church. His wife had been married in the Catholic Church at the age of 17and the marriage ended in divorce. The Episcopal Church, like the Catholic Church, has annulments. The Episcopal Church annuled the wife’s first marriage, on the ground that she was too young and immature at the time. The couple married in the Episcopal Church.

The marriage ended in divorce. Some years later, the Episcopal groom met and fell in love with a Catholic. She wanted to marry in the Catholic Church. No problem. The Catholic Church did not recognize the annulment the Episcopal Church had granted his first wife because she was Catholic. Therefore, that marriage was null and void. *

At first glance this would seem odd to someone who doesn’t understand the rules. The Church has the right to dictate how its members are to be married. The divorced Catholic who remarries outside of the Church is not going to have that marriage recognized even if it’s her Episcopalian spouse’s first marriage. So, when that marriage ended in divorce, as far as the Church was concerned, the couple was never married. Therefore, the Episcopalian was free to remarry in the Church. Of course, he was free to seek an annulment from his own Episcopalian church if he had desired so that he could have his own representation at the wedding.

Annulments are the most confusing thing, but that’s because a lot of Church law involved which is why Canon lawyers and a Tribunal are involved to process the whole thing.

The case described above is one of the most confusing. When a Catholic marries outside the Church and that marriage ends, as far as the Church is concerned, the person was never married. In some ways, as far as the Church is concerned, the couple was just living together and then split.

A Tribunal Vicar once told me that the most difficult cases are non-Catholics who’ve been married/divorced more than once. Each former marriage must be annulled. Once the first marriage is annulled, then the second marriage must be determined to also be invalid.

I have a nonCatholic friend whose first two marriages ended because of her husbands’ inability to be faithful - right from the get go - one carried on an affair with an ex-girlfriend throughout their own courtship and marriage (she has no idea how she picked two guys in a row like this). The second husband managed hotels and used the beds for his constant dalliances (plus, he had never told her about a previous marriage of his own and the children he had from that marriage!). When my friend finally married a Catholic in the Church, she had to get her first two marriages annulled. Because both previous husbands had been unfaithful throughout the marriages (even at the beginning!!???!!!), both were annulled, but the entire process took about 2 years.

Mary13 · May 18, 2010, 5:13pm

As I understand it, the Catholic doctrine that precludes the ordination of women extends to the diaconate as well as the priesthood. Can you explain why this would be? Didn’t the early Catholic Church have women deacons (Phoebe, for example)?

paying3tuitions · May 18, 2010, 5:18pm

Syrstress, Jewish people like marriage!

Oh, you wanted details? (We like rhetorical questions, too.)

The basic parts of the Jewish wedding ceremony, performed under Jewish law, are identical in all movements of Judaism. Because the ceremonial vows are written for two Jews (who promise to establish a Jewish household together “according to the Laws of Moses…” ), Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist and some Reform rabbis will only participate in weddings between two Jews, either by birth or conversion. (To quote someone above, “this causes upset among some people.” !) The concept there is not hostile; it is to avoid having a non-Jew make a false marriage vow of what they will be doing after the wedding.

Ceremony aside, contemporary rabbis and congregations now are more welcoming to mixed couples than in past years, particularly eager to educate the next generation of the couple’s children to pick up the Jewish thread. In some movements, the ability of rabbis to perform gay wedding ceremonies is left in their own decision-making realm as a matter of conscience, and some do.

THe ketubah, developed around 3rd- 6th century, is described in Talmud and still used today as the binding marriage contract. It morphed from a dowry record to a protective lien on all the groom’s property in the event of divorce. This actually dignified and kept Jewish divorcees from becoming destitute, long before such progressive measures were taken elsewhere.

Recognizing that people can make mistakes, the same Talmudic codes of law developed the Biblical “get” or divorce decree, initiated by the man before a rabbinic court and granted to a woman so she can freely remarry. Unlike the other movements, the Reform (on many other items as well) put marriage law under a Talmudic principle “The Law of the Land is the Law…” meaning, Reform Jews in America always accepted the American civil court ruling on divorce as definitive, making a “get” unnecessary. However, for purposes of possible remarriages to others more traditional, all Reform rabbis (by resolution passed at biennial convention) commit themselves to educate divorcing couples about a get (religious divorce decree) and help them obtain it if they wish to also have that in their files. For remarriage to a traditional Jew, the Jewish woman needs the “get” so withholding it is something the man does only to find himself chastised by rabbis to provide it to her so she is free to remarry a traditionalist Jew. It’s Complicated.

The wedding ceremony is very solemn, held under a canopy (“chuppah” in Hebrew) held above the couple’s heads. Where possible, BOTH the mother and father flank their own children as they walk down the aisle (as compared to the dad giving bride away), although American customs now often see that changing to a solo groom and solo bride walk. The chuppah can be set up anywhere (synagogue, outdoors, hotel) and creates its own holy setting. Following the ceremony, cultural custom has the groom stomping a glass underfoot which signals the beginning of a festive meal.

Rabbis can be male or female within these movements: Reform, Reconstructionist, Conservative; but not among the Orthodox. In all movements, rabbis are encouraged to marry and have their own families. Some (not all) Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis will consider performing an interfaith ceremony under certain specific conditions, and their movements allow them to make that determination as a matter of personal practice.

JHS · May 18, 2010, 5:33pm

I’m not certain I have everything right about marriage in Judaism, but more knowledgeable posters can correct what I get wrong. (NOTE: obviously cross-posted with the far more knowledgeable paying3tuitions, but I think you get two pretty complementary views.)

In a sense, both marriage and divorce in Judaism are easier than in many other religious traditions. Essentially, marriage consists of a private contract between the couple, accompanied by formal consideration (which, traditionally, can be money, a valuable gift like a ring, or sex, traditionally offered by the man and accepted by the woman) and a form of vows making it clear that marriage is intended, which is then made public before a minyan (a quorum for community prayers). Although it is not completely required, the couple usually signs an actual contract (“ketubah”), the traditional form of which specifies the woman’s right to support (including after divorce or the husband’s death) and the rights of her children with the husband to support. The contract can also include any other terms the couple agrees to, and even in traditional communities can sometimes be elaborate pre-nups if the parties have unequal assets. It is common to have a skilled calligrapher draw up the contract, and to display it in the couple’s home. Making the contract – express or implied – or accepting the consideration, together with the clear proposal of marriage, is enough to create a marriage. However it will not be fully recognized in the community until the couple appears at public prayers (with a quorum present) and recites seven traditional blessings under a canopy. (I think in traditional communities this matters most to the woman, who can back out without serious consequences prior to the public ceremony, but not thereafter.)

The two parts of the marriage – private and public – are usually performed one right after the other now, but don’t have to be. There are other customary practices as well (breaking the wine glass, going off alone together immediately after the public prayers, having a pre-marriage aliyah – groom only in traditional communities – with candy being thrown by the community to indicate well-wishing), that are not part of the legal armature of marriage. The need to have an ordained rabbi officiate is a function of American civil law – only ordained clergy can perform a valid marriage and sign the marriage certificate – not of Jewish law.

There are basically two different categories of forbidden marriages: Some that are so horrible they taint the children (generally involving violation of Biblical rules on bigamy, child-marriage, or incest, which do not match up perfectly with our notions of consanguinity), and others which are merely wrong and not entitled to community respect, such as a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew, but which do not affect the legitimacy of Jewish children. Children of a Jewish mother are Jews, regardless of the father’s status, and children of a non-Jewish mother are non-Jews, again regardless of the father – if they want to be Jews they have to go through the conversion process (as is the case with adopted children not known to have Jewish birth mothers).

Under traditional Jewish law, divorce is quite simple from the husband’s standpoint: he merely announces unambiguously that he is divorcing his wife (and acts accordingly). He will be responsible for her support and the support of her children as provided in the marriage contract or background law, but both parties are then free to marry again. It is much tougher, but not impossible, for a woman to obtain a divorce from an unwilling husband – that involves proceedings before a rabbinical court, and some type of serious fault on the man’s part. Of course, in most of the world civil divorce law has pretty much swamped the effect of religious divorce law, although I suspect that in ultra-Orthodox and Hasidic communities civil divorces are not respected unless Jewish divorce law is also satisfied.

The big difference among various branches of Judaism these days is really that Reform, Reconstructionist, and many Conservative congregations will have much more egalitarian contracts and ceremonies (both parties undertaking obligations, both parties giving and accepting rings, both parties called to the Torah in advance, etc.). And most Reform and Reconstructionist congregations will count adult women for the required quorum, whereas traditionally only adult men are eligible. Only a handful of rabbis, from the more liberal branches (but they are a small minority in those branches), will participate in a marriage ceremony between a Jew and a non-Jew (unless, of course, the non-Jewish partner has previously gone through conversion).

Pizzagirl · May 18, 2010, 5:43pm

Nope! If she’d cared, she wouldn’t have married a Jewish man (or actually two Jewish men, as it so transpired!).

aibarr · May 18, 2010, 5:48pm

I know it won’t (and shouldn’t) make much of a difference to you… I have a friend who’s FTM and a devout Catholic. He claims that the Catholic Church actually reinforces how he sees himself-- if you read through the Catechism, it says something about how the Church believes that something “so superficial” as undergoing surgical procedures would not change a person’s gender. My friend says that he concurs–no amount of surgery will make him any less of a man than he’s always been and felt, and that he was mistakenly assumed to have been female at birth… I think it takes church doctrine a while to catch up with current knowledge.

I converted to Catholicism this year. I’m a progressive libertarian, and I pretty much believe in everything that the church openly disagrees with, but I agreed to attend RCIA classes to determine what those Catholic Crazies were going to teach my eventual children so that I could more effectively deploy counterintelligence measures. The thing that I’ve discovered over the year (!!!) of weekly RCIA seminars I’ve had to attend in order to convert is that everything that the Catholic Church teaches that I disagree with, I already knew about before I got into this, and even then, the actual teachings of the Church were far more reasonable than I’d previously believed. Hate wasn’t tolerated in these classes-- the few in the class who expressed the idea that women were to be subservient to men, or that the GLBT community was to be ostracized, and that’s why they were drawn to Catholicism, very quickly got washed out as they were taught that Catholicism was NOT about that, AT ALL. The bulk of the religion is comprised of that which I’ve believed my whole life: consider the context of the Bible, love your neighbor, accept the fact that there’s a lot of things we don’t fully understand, and realize that there’s oftentimes a lot of situations out there where it’s not quite clear what the “right” answer is. (I love the liturgy of the Mass, too-- the Sign of Peace was initially what made me think that maybe I was a little bit wrong about my previous perceptions of the Church.)

Unfortunately, there are a number of Catholics who don’t fully understand their religion, and who haven’t had (what I consider to be) the benefit of formal catechumenal teaching with an adult understanding of the world… so there’s a lot of false teaching out there, too, and misperceptions abound.

I’ve found Catholicism to be a peaceful, strengthening influence. I often will disagree with a stance that the Church takes, and I think that the Church gets a lot more media attention on certain (unpopular and sometimes flat-out wrong) things they do and not enough attention on other (more enlightening and constructive) things they do, and I wish Catholics would speak up more often on how they feel rather than letting the Vatican do their speaking for them, but generally, I really feel at home with what I’ve found in the Church, and I’m glad that this conversation has turned away from the more scathing turn it’d taken at first.

To answer an actual question, the idea of no women priests or deacons bothered me significantly, and it’s something I still have trouble with. It’s based upon the idea that Jesus had twelve Apostles, and since Apostolic succession holds that the priesthood is descendent from the roles of the original twelve Apostles, and since Jesus chose men (even though He was very cool with women being in teaching and leadership roles), that it was by design. He chose all men for a reason, He defined that role, and that it’s just a role. (That’s my problem with it-- the Episcopate, the Presbyteriate, and the Diaconate are indelibly imbued with the notion of “power/influence/leadership” in my mind, rather than with “servitude,” which is what it’s really supposed to be all about… Go to a Thursday Vigil and a Good Friday Mass sometime and it’ll help clear up any ideas you might have about whether the clergy are men of power or men of service… The good priests invariably make me feel like it’s okay, but the lousy ones who shouldn’t be there are the ones who are in it for the wrong reasons and make me feel irritable about it.)

I still have trouble with that part. I go in circles about it.

sryrstress · May 18, 2010, 5:51pm

JHS and paying3–thank you much for those explanations!

Pizzagirl · May 18, 2010, 5:52pm

I would just add that the Reform movement recognizes patrilineal descent as long as the child is raised Jewish and performs “acts of identification with the Jewish community.” And for the most part, they consider matrilineal descent without such acts of identification to be rather pointless.

My H has two Jewish (by birth) parents. I have a Jewish father and Catholic mother and was not raised with a religion. As an adult, I have made the appropriate acts of identification with the Jewish community, so most Reform rabbis would accept me as Jewish, and hence would accept my children as Jewish (and, even if they didn’t accept me as Jewish, they’d certainly accept my children, who would be Jewish through their father and were raised Jewish).

This leads to the interesting conundrum that even though 3 of my children’s grandparents would be considered Jewish by even the most stringest of Orthodox rabbis – the fact that the non-Jewish grandparent is my mother means that my kids wouldn’t be considered Jewish by them.

However, given that I live in the Reform world - it doesn’t really much matter to me or to them if the Orthodox don’t consider them Jewish. If, on the off chance, one of my kids decides to marry Orthodox, then he or she will have to decide to go through whatever conversion is deemed appropriate. That’ll be the least of the issues, though.

Pizzagirl · May 18, 2010, 5:53pm

No - I was responding more to the “how does it feel to be from an invalid marriage” part, not the annulment part.

mom2collegekids · May 18, 2010, 5:54pm

*As I understand it, the Catholic doctrine that precludes the ordination of women extends to the diaconate as well as the priesthood. Can you explain why this would be? Didn’t the early Catholic Church have women deacons (Phoebe, for example)? *

The diaconate in the Church receives a level of Holy Orders. Only men have ever received that level of ordination.

Women might have been called a word similar to deacons (remember, the bible was not originally written in English), but a word that meant servant of the church without any official ordained status. It wasn’t unusual for a widow with grown children to offer her service to the early church. That doesn’t mean that she was ordained to Holy Orders. It may mean that she assisted the clergy.

paying3tuitions · May 18, 2010, 5:57pm

My only addition to JHS thougthful post is on this point:

Absolutely accurate under Talmudic law, BUT…A resolution called “Patrilineal Descent” passed around 30 years ago to authenticate then-current practice by the American Reform rabbinate equates the two parents more. If a child has a non-Jewish mother and Jewish father, AND the child is raised and educated to identify as a Jew (through religious education and lifecycle ceremonies) THEN the Reform movement recognizes that child as already Jewish – without undergoing conversion. This egalitarian position is so far from universal, however, that it has become divisive (“Who is a Jew?” depends on whom you ask).

Many young and middle-aged adults who read this forum come from interfaith marriages, so I want to be careful.

Basically their children can choose to relate primarily to the Reform movement where their acceptance is unquestioned, OR go through formal conversion processes as a young adult to gain more widespread acceptance across the Conservative and Orthodox movements in America.

Right now Israel’s Ministry of Religion (ultra-orthodox) is grappling with whose conversions they’ll accept. Lately, even some Conservative rabbis’ conversions won’t pass muster with them. Regarding acceptance in Israel, anything I type this week could be wrong next year, so I’ll refrain. It’s in flux, with activists working there through Israel’s supreme court, and in legislation, to ensure more pluralistic acceptance of Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform conversion ceremonies around the globe.

(Postscript: I cross-posted with PizzaGirl, and to me our posts are in complete agreement; mine theoretical/historical; hers from personal experience.)

canamer · May 18, 2010, 6:03pm

As far as I know, priests were not prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church from marrying until after 1000 AD, and many historians believe it was a discipline motivated, at least in part, to preserve Church property.

Ask your (non-rhetorical) ethnic questions here.

CONNECT WITH US