A Friendly Correction for those Man-Haters who Delve to be Single

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

On that we certainly agree, but I’ve never understood how liberal Catholics can somehow regard that as evidence of evolutionary progress. There was a local Monsignor who was the go-to guy for the 49ers’ annulments. I find that idea discouraging, not heartening.

Priests don't give annulments. Church tribunals do. You need two of them.

If you're going to celebrate legalistic precision and hair splitting, you've got to get the process right.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Unless the catholic in question was told in the second grade by a nun that she was a bastard and going to hell because her father had been married once before and therefore her parents weren't married in the eyes of god and she had to choose whether she loved God more or her parents more.

Damn. Sally Field got really ornery after she stopped being fuckable, didn't she?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Depends on the nun, but it’s definitely true that some nuns are left of most lay Catholics, and some nuns are left of every lay Catholic.



There’s a St. Charles in San Carlos, a St. Matthew in San Mateo, and even a St. Bruno in San Bruno. But please, no possessives — the parish is named for the saint but is not em’s property. I worked several summers for a nun who did graphic design for parish stationery.



It’s a widely held misconception among lay Catholics that only marriages deemed “valid” by church law are sacramental in character and subject to annulment before a new marriage can be performed by the church. Not so. I know several priests who had to deliver the news that Bride was not going to get a wedding Mass just because Groom’s prior marriage was performed by a justice of the peace in Vegas. It’s true that weddings to Protestants require “permission” while marriages to “persons of no creed” require dispensation, but all marriages entered into prior to seeking a church wedding have to be adjudicated somehow. The standards for establishing an imperfect formation of intent are probably easier for an Elvis chapel wedding, but still.



On that we certainly agree, but I’ve never understood how liberal Catholics can somehow regard that as evidence of evolutionary progress. There was a local Monsignor who was the go-to guy for the 49ers’ annulments. I find that idea discouraging, not heartening.

You're actually a C of Eer, right? Great at following rules, bad at understanding priniciples. Hint: serving sherry warm is not ideal, but it's not even a venial sin.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Perhaps I am simply a pragmatist who is happy when people who want a wedding Mass (sometimes it's even the dudes!) can have a wedding Mass - assuming the flexibility is not based upon $.

Is it such a shame if the flexibility is based on $?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I acknowledge your experience and simply note that mine have been different.

No, my experience has been the same as yours. I have been blessed to interact mostly with Catholic authorities whose primary interest keeping Catholics like me coming to church, and often that means pretending that church teaching is more practical and humanistic than it really is. I had one priest send me off to college with the valediction (hi, Greedy!), “If you can’t be good, be safe.” And a few years after that, my parish priest tried to assure my Episcopalian wife that the pledge we signed to get a permission to marry to the effect that we “will” raise any children born of our marriage in the Catholic Church actually meant that we would “try.” He said this because he knew if he said anything different, the form would go unsigned, and we would be married without the Church’s permission and never darken his door again. I don’t blame him, but I also do not pretend that what Father Dave says to a liberally-minded parishioner is church teaching. There are thousands of Father Daves, but they belong to a church that actually has a formal way of making rules, and a certain pride in offering redemption to those who stray. The result is a lot of rationalization. Which is fine. We are talking about religion, after all.

If your Father Dave and my Father Dave both allow folks to get married in the church without an annulment just because Groom’s first marriage was a civil ceremony, that’s fine by me. It’s contrary to church doctrine, but also the right thing to do, ultimately. And what are we to make of that?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

I have a friend who is going the after-the-fact annulment route with her ex-husband.* They were married for 8 years. I'm not sure why the church still insists on annulments if basically anyone can get one, including already divorced people.

The best way to think of it is that the church allows divorce but only if (1) the Bishop is the decision maker and (2) someone makes a good argument that the marriage was invalidly entered, i.e. “We just drifted apart” is not the full-credit answer.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Unless the catholic in question was told in the second grade by a nun that she was a bastard and going to hell because her father had been married once before and therefore her parents weren't married in the eyes of god and she had to choose whether she loved God more or her parents more.

Sounds like you just got a bad nun, there. It happens.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Priests don't give annulments. Church tribunals do. You need two of them.

If you're going to celebrate legalistic precision and hair splitting, you've got to get the process right.

This particular Monsignor was a fixer. He didn’t issue the annulments himself; the Archdiocese did through proper channels, of course. The Monsignor was known for showing off his three Super Bowl rings — a prerogative of the team chaplain, apparently.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

No, my experience has been the same as yours. I have been blessed to interact mostly with Catholic authorities whose primary interest keeping Catholics like me coming to church, and often that means pretending that church teaching is more practical and humanistic than it really is. I had one priest send me off to college with the valediction (hi, Greedy!), “If you can’t be good, be safe.” And a few years after that, my parish priest tried to assure my Episcopalian wife that the pledge we signed to get a permission to marry to the effect that we “will” raise any children born of our marriage in the Catholic Church actually meant that we would “try.” He said this because he knew if he said anything different, the form would go unsigned, and we would be married without the Church’s permission and never darken his door again. I don’t blame him, but I also do not pretend that what Father Dave says to a liberally-minded parishioner is church teaching. There are thousands of Father Daves, but they belong to a church that actually has a formal way of making rules, and a certain pride in offering redemption to those who stray. The result is a lot of rationalization. Which is fine. We are talking about religion, after all.

If your Father Dave and my Father Dave both allow folks to get married in the church without an annulment just because Groom’s first marriage was a civil ceremony, that’s fine by me. It’s contrary to church doctrine, but also the right thing to do, ultimately. And what are we to make of that?

That "contrary to church doctrine" can be the "right thing to do." But once you cross that line, then where are you vis-a-vis church doctrine?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Sounds like you just got a bad nun, there. It happens.

My dad is ambidextrous because the nuns beat him when he tried to write with his left hand. Your cavalier suggestion that RT was unlucky enough to have run across one of the few bad apples in the Catholic Church is hard to take. But we all have our Bradys to defend, I suppose.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

That "contrary to church doctrine" can be the "right thing to do." But once you cross that line, then where are you vis-a-vis church doctrine?

You're usually off quoting Jesus somewhere, talking about penance and forgiveness. See, when you get right down to it, most Catholic Church doctrine is more guidelines than laws.

Like Atticus, my wife and I were married in the Catholic Church and asked if we'd raise the kids Catholic. Sure, we both said, but are you sure you're really ready for that? We weren't asked to sign anything.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Unless the catholic in question was told in the second grade by a nun that she was a bastard and going to hell because her father had been married once before and therefore her parents weren't married in the eyes of god and she had to choose whether she loved God more or her parents more.

That doesn't seem like a choice.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

My dad is ambidextrous because the nuns beat him when he tried to write with his left hand. Your cavalier suggestion that RT was unlucky enough to have run across one of the few bad apples in the Catholic Church is hard to take. But we all have our Bradys to defend, I suppose.

Being ambidextrous means your dad got off easy.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As for Brady, obviously he wanted his footballs the way he wanted them, but if anyone had really care about the ways the footballs were inflated, they would have been doing things very differently.

What does this mean? They took the balls after the refs checked them and deflated them to Brady's standards. If no one cared, they would have deflated them before the refs checked them and just said, "Don't worry about these. No one really cares."

How exactly would they have done things differently?

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

What does this mean? They took the balls after the refs checked them and deflated them to Brady's standards. If no one cared, they would have deflated them before the refs checked them and just said, "Don't worry about these. No one really cares."

How exactly would they have done things differently?

TM

I assumed "they" was the NFL, and the point being that the NFL hasn't really seemed to care that much about what happens to game balls (other than kicker balls). For example, why doesn't the ref lock the balls in an equipment trunk after he tests them and then unlock it on the field (or something). The fact that the ball bag sits in the refs lockerroom, unguarded, suggests the NFL doesn't really put much emphasis on the issue.