Ask your (non-rhetorical) ethnic questions here.

JustAMomOf4 · May 19, 2010, 11:22am

Good thread…

Schmaltz - our parish (diocese maybe?) eliminated hand shakes last winter with the swine flu scare. It was pretty awkward for a while.

I am a Catholic - what really bugs me are “Christians” - usually Evangelicals, who do not believe that Catholics are Christian. lol. 
Catholics and Jews tend to have a lot of respect for each other. Lutherans and Episcopals are “almost” Catholic. But it seems like a lot of Christians (the evangelical, born again) have a lot of disdain for Catholics. Not sure why that is.

Annulments - the vast majority of people I know decided to leave the church than seek an annulment. they are so time consuming and cumbersome - those that are sought after many years open old wounds.
What happens if the ex-spouses refuse to “cooperate”?

Hunt · May 19, 2010, 11:59am

This is essentially always the answer from insiders (in any group) to criticisms by outsiders. In this case, I’m afraid Catholics will never be able to make a really persuasive argument on this to non-Catholics, because the non-Catholics will always focus on the disparate treatment of men and women. But if the arguments make sense to Catholics in context, that’s OK by me.

To go back to one of the OP’s original questions, the possible objections by a non-Catholic to their child marrying a Catholic, I think, at least in the past, it was mostly about the idea that the children would have to be raised in the Catholic faith–I recall hearing in my youth (true or not) that if you wanted to marry a Catholic, you’d have to agree in advance that the kids would be raised Catholic. If you are devout in some other religion (or denomination) that can be a problem. Whether this is much of an issue today, I can’t say.

JHS · May 19, 2010, 12:13pm

Look, if you are devout in ANY religion, marrying someone of a different religion (if that person also cares) is a significant challenge, and having kids increases the issues exponentially. And it’s not just a matter of religious doctrine; it’s also a matter of what each person needs to make the world feel right, the daily, seasonal, holiday customs of home life. I know lots and lots of interfaith couples and families, but only a couple where (a) both spouses remained actively involved with their respective separate religions, (b) there were children, and (c) it worked. And even with those families, both adults had to belong to unusually accepting communities within the separate religions.

jonri · May 19, 2010, 12:27pm

In reply to post #141…

Well…I’m a Catholic with an annulment. So here are a few facts.

You cannot get an annulment in the US while you are legally married. You MUST obtain a divorce or legal annulment first. I’m not sure what JAM4 means by “cooperate.” If the other spouse simply fails to answer the mail or phone calls of the tribunal, in MOST cases, you’re better off and it will be EASIER to get an annulment. If the other party actively fights the annulment, a la Sheila Rausch Kennedy, it can make it very difficult and much more time consuming.

I live in NY, and took note of what my Jewish women friends do. It’s common in NY for a legal divorce to provide that the H will give the W a get. If he refuses to do so, the Court views this as a breach of the divorce decree and the H is subject to contempt penalties, like being jailed. So, my Jewish divorce attorney wrote a similar clause in my own divorce agreement. My ex-spouse agreed not to impede my quest for an annulment and to co-operate in the process.

As a result, if your state allows it, I would suggest that any Catholic that wants to seek an annulment consider including such a clause in the divorce settlement/decree. I would also suggest that a Catholic try to get one as soon as possible after the divorce and not wait to get one when you “need” it to remarry. I was a mess from the divorce, but felt strongly that I did not want to dredge up all the anger and bitterness years down the road. So, I started the annulment process within a week of getting divorced. Even with a couple of delays, the whole process took about 10 months.

Part of the reason for that is that I got help from the spiritual adviser at SDRC. SDRC stands for Separated, Divorced, and Remarried Catholics. It runs support groups. As I later realized, in many communities, SDRC is sort of an unofficial intake system for annulments. The priests who act as spiritual directors usually know one heck of a lot of canon law about annulments and/or know people who do. They figure out the grounds for you. So, if you know any Catholics who might want an annulment, I’d suggest that they check to see if SDRC has a chapter in their diocese.

In all honesty, I’m convinced that if you had a nightmare marriage, a good canon lawyer will find a ground that works. And there are MANY different possible grounds.

Moreover, at least in our diocese, you don’t have to pay the entire cost of an annulment upfront. You pay about half. Then a preliminary review is done. If you’re told that there do not appear to be grounds for an annulment and/or there may be but you do not have sufficient evidence at that point, you don’t have to pay the balance. So, the cost of finding out if you might prevail is usually only a few hundred dollars. (If you can’t afford it, the fee will be waived.) In our diocese, the VAST majority of cases *that proceed beyond the preliminary stage *DO end up resulting in annulments.

A lot of Catholics leave the Church without pursuing an annulment because they think (a)there is very little chance of getting one if you have kids; (b) they cost a lot of money; and/or (c)they render your kids illegitimate in the eyes of the Church. NONE of these is true. Unfortunately, many PRIESTS believe (a) or (b) or are simply opposed to the idea of annulments, so pastors often dissuade people from getting them.

Nobody should take their pastor’s opposition as the last word. If there’s a SDRC chapter, go to a meeting and ask for help. Alternatively, contact the Marriage Tribunal in your diocese directly—phone the diocese and ask how to contact the Marriage Tribunal.

I’m sure this is TMI for non-Catholics, but I’m a bit of a “missionary” on the topic for obvious reasons.

pipmom · May 19, 2010, 1:06pm

Schmalz- the 7th inning handshake is a lot less intrusive than the original “Kiss of Peace” done in ancient times. Hand sanitizers wouldn’t help there, lol. And Listerine not yet invented.

And Hunt- I know you’re right when you say that no amount of explanation of Catholic doctrine and practice is going to convince a non- Catholic, unless they are already open to change.

But there are quite a few who are open to considering the faith. The RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation) is big and growing in the American Catholic church. This is the process by which a non- Catholic becomes Catholic.

I don’t, however, see this forum as the place to try to get anybody to change their mind. Merely an exchange of info, hopefully to promote better understanding.

mom2collegekids · May 19, 2010, 1:14pm

*
Annulments - the vast majority of people I know decided to leave the church than seek an annulment. they are so time consuming and cumbersome - those that are sought after many years open old wounds. *

The ones that I’ve known not to bother either just didn’t want to do the paperwork, or they knew that their future spouse wouldn’t go through the process for his/her own divorce. (why bother to go thru it if your future spouse is divorced and won’t do it, too?)

I’ve also known a few cases where the person didn’t want their new relationship to know of their own faults in the past marriage. Imagine if deep down you knew that you were responsible for the breakup of the marriage and didn’t want your future spouse to know for transgressions, you wouldn’t want to go thru the annulment process either. I have a distant relative who was a chronic cheater. His future wife had no idea of why his past marriage failed. There was NO WAY he was going to seek an annulment for two reasons…1) he would have been exposed. 2) the Church would have given his ex-wife permission to remarry, but he would have been denied that right without extensive counseling and the need to provide a recommendation from a professional that he wouldn’t cheat anymore.

* What happens if the ex-spouses refuse to “cooperate”? *

Actually, if the former spouse refuses to cooperate it’s actually easier because there’s no one to refute/argue against the other witness statements. Again, the witnesses are people who knew the couple well at the time of the wedding. When I’ve been such a witness, I was thoroughly grilled to make sure that I really did know the couple during that time. I was grilled by the Orange County diocese and the followup diocese - the LA archdiocese.

When the woman that I spoke of earlier got her annulment because her ex refused to have children, he said that he wouldn’t cooperate with the process because he really had no argument to give (he knew that his position was not in agreement with the Church.)

She and her witnesses swore that he didn’t want children, and he didn’t offer anything in reply. It’s kind of like if you were to sue someone. IF the defendant doesn’t offer a response to the court, the court rules for the plaintiff.

mom2collegekids · May 19, 2010, 1:26pm

it was mostly about the idea that the children would have to be raised in the Catholic faith–I recall hearing in my youth (true or not) that if you wanted to marry a Catholic, you’d have to agree in advance that the kids would be raised Catholic. If you are devout in some other religion (or denomination) that can be a problem. Whether this is much of an issue today, I can’t say.

This is true. A Catholic marrying in the Church must give assurances before the wedding that he/she will raise kids in the Catholic faith. Yes, it’s a problem if the other spouse is strong in another faith, and that is why pre-marital counseling is required.

In the old days, the non-Catholic had to sign saying that he/she knows the kids will be raised in the Catholic faith. In recent years, the paperwork involves having the Catholic person sign that he/she will raise the kids Catholic. It’s unreasonable to expect the Catholic church to perform a wedding when the couple has no intention of raising the kids Catholic. That is in opposition to having a Catholic marriage.

Frankly, if two spouses are both strong in opposing faiths and they intend to have children and can’t agree on a faith to raise the kids in, then probably they shouldn’t be getting married. Certainly, many priests would strongly advise against such a marriage.

mom2collegekids · May 19, 2010, 1:39pm

*I would also suggest that a Catholic try to get one as soon as possible after the divorce and not wait to get one when you “need” it to remarry. I was a mess from the divorce, but felt strongly that I did not want to dredge up all the anger and bitterness years down the road. So, I started the annulment process within a week of getting divorced. Even with a couple of delays, the whole process took about 10 months. *

Very, very good advice! As difficult as it may be to enter the process shortly after the legal divorce, it’s so much better than waiting until you find someone new and then seeking one because of the length of time it takes to get one. The time delay is one of the leading reasons why people don’t bother. Once they’ve gotten engaged again, they don’t want to wait another 1-2 years to marry.

*
In all honesty, I’m convinced that if you had a nightmare marriage, a good canon lawyer will find a ground that works. And there are MANY different possible grounds. *

Absolutely…and it doesn’t take the fancy footwork of a good canon lawyer. Anyone in a “nightmare marriage” is very likely married to someone who never had the intent of having a Catholic marriage because a “nightmare marriage” cannot be compatible with a Catholic marriage.

younghoss · May 19, 2010, 2:14pm

“oriental” is like “■■■■■■■■” DON’T misunderstand me- I do not mean Asians are mentally challenged- I am referring to the word itself- not any people. What I mean is that it is no longer politically correct to use these term. Feeble-minded was once the “gentle term” of its’ day, same with ■■■■■■■■, and both have gone by the wayside, much like terms to describe Americans of African ancestry have come and gone. Crippled and handicapped are a couple of other words that were once considered the polite phrasing of their day, but their use is generally frowned upon now.

Hunt · May 19, 2010, 5:45pm

I agree with this. But I think a lot of people may be surprised to learn that the Catholic Church takes some steps to enforce it. I think most Protestant pastors wouldn’t insist on such an agreement, although they might give the same counsel.

jonri · May 19, 2010, 5:58pm

My understanding is that the rules have changed a bit. In the old days, the non-Catholic spouse had to agree to raise the kids as Catholics, even if the Catholic spouse died when the kids were young. My mom thought the world of Gov. Scranton because he did just that. (He married a Catholic and made the promise. His wife died. He sent his kids to Catholic schools and did his best in other ways to keep his promise to his wife.) Nowadays, the Catholic partner has to agree to raise the kids as Catholics and the non-Cathollic is informed of that promise.

aibarr · May 19, 2010, 5:59pm

Having had to jump through this multitude of hoops a few years ago (in FOUR different parishes, no less!!), I can say that the Catholic Church takes a LOT of steps to make sure that you REALLY are going to be able to make a marriage work before they actually let you get married.

As I recall… They made my husband get a special dispensation from the bishop to marry me. We had to attend a weekend retreat together, where we discussed life matters. On a separate occasion, we had to take a long questionnaire on issues in married life, which was then scored. We had to discuss our scores and our differences in values with the parish deacon and his wife, which took about four hours and required a separate trip to Baton Rouge. We had to schedule a face-to-face meeting with our celebrant (the priest who married us). We had to schedule a face-to-face meeting with the parish priest of the church where we got married. And THEN, even when we got married, though our marriage was considered VALID, it was not SACRAMENTAL until I got baptized!!

Thought I was gonna scream by the end of all the rigamarole!!

…but looking back on it, I kind of think getting married should be a hassle. The Church certainly took its responsibility seriously, of making sure that we were a good match in terms of our core values, and now, I appreciate that. While their repeated demands on my time made me a little bridezilla-ish during the weeks before the wedding, I’m retrospectively very glad that somebody thought to check and make sure that we both wanted to have kids, for example. (That’s why my mom got divorced the first time 'round. You’d think they’d have checked!!)

Yep, that’s what I was told as a non-Catholic marrying a Catholic. Both my husband and I agreed on it, thankfully, and it’s become a non-issue since I’ve converted.

EPTR · May 19, 2010, 6:05pm

“…but looking back on it, I kind of think getting married should be a hassle. The Church certainly took its responsibility seriously, of making sure that we were a good match in terms of our core values, and now, I appreciate that. While their repeated demands on my time made me a little bridezilla-ish during the weeks before the wedding, I’m retrospectively very glad that somebody thought to check and make sure that we both wanted to have kids, for example. (That’s why my mom got divorced the first time 'round. You’d think they’d have checked!!)”

I’m the first to admit that I have many criticisms of the Catholic Church but I agree wholeheartedly with this post. We went through the same thing 24 years ago (although we sere both Catholic at the time so much simpler version).

I wish that everyone had the same pre-marriage scrutiny and while we’re at it, wouldn’t it be great if everyone had to go to classes and be interviewed a dozen times before having kids! :).

JHS · May 19, 2010, 6:31pm

My first reaction on reading what aibarr wrote was “Great! Right on!”

My second reaction was to check the data. The divorce rate among people who identify themselves as Catholic, but do not attend mass at least once a week or more frequently, is basically average (around 41%). It’s much lower among people who attend mass at least once a week or more frequently (around 23%), but that’s a smaller and older group. It’s not clear that making people jump through all those hoops accomplishes a whole lot, except to communicate paternalism.

mom2collegekids · May 19, 2010, 6:42pm

*
…but looking back on it, I kind of think getting married should be a hassle.*

Yes! Getting married should be more difficult…

Getting divorced is he11, so shouldn’t getting married be more than just a walk in the park?

It’s much lower among people who attend mass at least once a week or more frequently (around 23%),

Oh, I believe that. I have been Catholic my whole life, and rarely has a regularly church-going Catholic couple gotten divorced in my parishes. I bet the number is less than 23%. Seriously, I probably easily could count all the divorced couples - that’s how few there are. There’s truth to that little saying, “the family that prays together, stays together.”

And THEN, even when we got married, though our marriage was considered VALID, it was not SACRAMENTAL until I got baptized!!

That is true…until then it was considered to be a natural marriage (valid, but not sacramental). This may be news to some, but the Catholic Church recognizes the baptisms of nearly all prots (as long as they use the correct baptismal form). If these people convert, the Church does not re-baptize them.

And, if two married non-Catholics join the Church, they don’t get remarried in the Church. The Church considers them to be married, but the Church does “bless” the marriage and records it.

JHS · May 19, 2010, 6:48pm

Well, there’s truth to the saying among very committed Catholics, at least. (The figures for other denominations with similar commitment levels are not as impressive.) But in my experience it’s not just the people who go to mass week in and week out who are married in the Church. For the rest of the Catholics, all the prenuptial rigmarole doesn’t seem to produce better or stronger marriages, and for the strongly committed ones it’s probably unnecessary.

aibarr · May 19, 2010, 7:07pm

Identification as Catholic doesn’t necessarily mean that they went through all the rigamarole, though. I know a good number of folks who identify as Catholic but wanted to get married on a hillside or something. My own grandparents ran off and eloped rather than jumping through the hoops-- my grandpa is a devout Catholic, and my grandma was a non-practicing Lutheran.

(Who you callin’ old?? I attend mass at least once a week and I’m 28! )

If you’re baptized in the Trinitarian form (in other words, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), then you’re good to go with the Catholics.

BUandBC82 · May 19, 2010, 7:10pm

I have a question. Is the Catholic Church stricter now than back in the 80s?

I am not a practicing Catholic, but I was married in the Church to a Protestant back in 1982 and, yes, we’re still together. We went to the Pre-Cana weekend and through all the other requirements to be married in the Church. The priest at our weekend was very liberal. More that half the couples there were two faith couples, either Catholic-Protestant or Catholic-Jewish. When it came time to talk about signing the paper to raise our kids Catholic, the priest pretty much told us to sign it even if we hadn’t made a final decision. I was pretty shocked. It doesn’t sound like that would happen now.

mom2collegekids · May 19, 2010, 7:19pm

^^^

I think there has been some “tightening up” because the Church has seen the results when things get more “loosey goosey”. There was a time when the Church thought it was more ecumenical not to be so strict, but the Church got strict again when the Church saw the results of leniency…kids not being raised in the Church…kids getting confused because one week the family would go to “his church” and one week they’d go to “her church”…increased divorces…etc.

aibarr · May 19, 2010, 7:25pm

I wouldn’t base conclusions on my experience, since I was living in Los Angeles (so that was the diocese that we got prepped in), my husband was living in Baton Rouge (so that was his home parish), we got married in Dallas (so we had to get permission from the Dallas Diocese to bring our whole parade into their arena), and we brought in our priest from Boston (he’s a friend from college, a Carmelite monk who’s just a wonderful person, and he was getting his doctorate from BC at the time). I got four times the rigamarole that most people get!

(As an aside, I don’t actually remember signing anything saying that our kids would be raised Catholic. Maybe it was part of the test we filled out, and since I also adamantly felt that the kids should be raised Catholic, they decided it was a non-issue… I’m not sure, though…)

I perceive that there are some of the same pockets of stricter Catholics and less-strict Catholics now than there were in the eighties. The Church is big on tradition, as has been mentioned before, and so far as tradition goes, most parishes will either be more lax about things or will follow the diocesan direction to the letter.

Ask your (non-rhetorical) ethnic questions here.

CONNECT WITH US