Anthony Stevens-Arroyo consistently demonstrates total ignorance of the Catholic faith not to mention other faiths. It is tiring to feel the need for ongoing correction for what ought to be basic to any Catholic or at least to one who calls himself a journalist. The persistent mis-statements; mischaracterizations and misrepresentation of the faith of millions of Americans and probably many thousands of Washington Post readers leads this woman to say I’ve had it with both Stevens-Arroyo and the Post. Adios!

"The Catholic pastoral practice of avoiding a church wedding would likely apply in this case. "

Frankly, Professor, if you can say that after calling it 'family values' for the Church to support the sham in the first place, kindly allow my dear one and I to get married as Americans as we please.

I promise we won't darken the door of any Church of yours.

It's not even an election year.

So, Fundie's daughter gets knocked up, demonstrating failures of 'abstinence only education' and is used to try and lend weight to an exclusivist 'sanctity of marriage' demand that Palin and the churches will try and put on all other churches, ....as long as she's not under the media's and churches' softball 'scrutiny' within a barely-decent interval of an *election...*

And the fact that *none* of this works supports a conservative Catholicist position?

Are you *serious,* Professor?

Why don't you just rip my sweetie and I apart, get us both pregnant with surplus IVF blastulae, shotgun marry us to bad credit risks, and 'faith based' privatize' what gruel we *get* after foreclosing on whatever houses we might have been in, yourself?

Maybe put a little crucifix on it. It must be a validating sign Bennie XVI's policies are just 'da best, you becha.'

Anthony,

An idiotic essay, as usual. Have you considered applying for a job at "People Magazine"?

To whom are the marriage vows directed? To each other? You want a divorce from me? I release you from your marriage vows. Now let's get on with our lives and remember with fondness the sacrament we shared. The memory of which is inscribed at our parish along with our First Communion and Confirmation along with all the other historical records. Let no man deny we were once married to each other but released each other from our vows. No need to notify the Church. The historical records are accurate.

People could do a lot better in marriage if they thought about it as lifetime committment, two people sharing their lives until death. People need to think long and hard before entering into marriage and far too many people do not.

Two brief disagreements with the Professor.

One, many Protestants view marraige as a sacrament: Methodists, Episcopalians, and Lutherans, and probably others. Re. annullment, I have had several friends go through both Prot. and Catholic divorces, and I really can't see that the annullment approach is more than a fig leaf covering a dissolution of a marriage. Committed Protestants regret divorce just as much as committed Catholics, in my opinion, but we recognize it as a regretable necessity in some cases.

Two: It's not fair to Bristol Palin to use her teen misadventures as anything more that the typical mistakes two hormone-filled teens often make. Teen pregnancy and broken engagements can happen to any of our children, in any faith, and in any political party. I am no fan of Gov. Palin, but I do not judge character or politics by her daughter's actions. And I pray no one will judge me by my teen's errors either!

Priest leaving the church to get married:

He would have to get a dispensation from the Pope, and that could be difficult.

Code Of Canon Law
CHAPTER IV : LOSS OF THE CLERICAL STATE

Quote:
Can. 290 Sacred ordination once validly received never becomes invalid. A cleric, however, loses the clerical state:

1° by a judgement of a court or an administrative decree, declaring the ordination invalid;

2° by the penalty of dismissal lawfully imposed;

3° by a rescript of the Apostolic See; this rescript, however, is granted to deacons only for grave reasons and to priests only for the gravest of reasons.

Can. 291 Apart from the cases mentioned in can. 290, n. 1, the loss of the clerical state does not carry with it a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy,which is granted solely by the Roman Pontiff.

Can. 292 A cleric who loses the clerical state in accordance with the law, loses thereby the rights that are proper to the clerical state and is no longer bound by any obligations of the clerical state, without prejudice to can. 291. He is prohibited from exercising the power of order, without prejudice to can. 976. He is automatically deprived of all offices and roles and of any delegated power.

Can. 293 A cleric who has lost the clerical state cannot be enrolled as a cleric again save by rescript of the Apostolic See.

"Releasing one of their priests or nuns is not the same thing. They are not married to the church."

In a sense, they are. Particularly the nuns, who don a white gown, walk down the aisle, take the "solemn vow", are given a gold band to wear and thereafter referred to as brides of Christ. Mind you, nuns (different from sisters), can leave even after they have taken the formal vows, but they are supposed to get the permission of the Pope to do so. So when they leave their order and their vows behind, they are effectually divorcing Jesus.

Ditto for priests, as written by Fr. Longenecker:

"The celibate priest representing the spousal relationship with Christ is not de fide dogma or even a discipline, but a Scriptural and theological explanation which shows the deeper reasoning for clerical celibacy. As a theological and symbolic explanation it is useful."

Essentially, priests are also wed to God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit (at least that is how it sounds to me).

As for the pedophile priests...well...they were hidden away, shunted around, denied as a fabrication of those who were "disgruntled" with the church. Apologizing after it's become apparent that they were there, known, and still re-assigned rather than kicked out and straight into the arms of the criminal justice system is a reaction to losing in civil court and the court of public opinion. It's not proactive. So it rings hollow.

Bristol Palin has taught a lot of young people a hard lesson.
No sooner had Sarah Palin announced the eventual marriage, then reporters found the blog Levi Johnson was leaving comments on and his remarks clearly stated that he didn't want to marry and didn't want the responsibility of children.
At the time, I thought those two kids were in for a pile of trouble.
As time went on, the baby was born with no marriage in sight (Levi got a good job, thanks to Todd Palin), I hoped that both would come to their senses and avoid entanglement.
Recently, Bristol was interviewed and she had a lot of good-sense practical advice for young girls who were becoming sexually active.
This situation has turned out to be a good learning example for many girls who don't stop to consider the results of reckless behavior.
In the Catholic Church, marriage is a Sacrament administered by two people to each other by means of their vows to each other.
It is a holy institution founded by God and, as such, deserves great respect and should not be entered into lightly.
Bristol has earned my respect; she has carried her responsibilities very well for such a young woman.
That said, I have absolutely no respect for her parents who paraded her situation before a gossipy public and used her crassly to advance their political agenda.
Sarah Palin is a shallow political animal who will say anything, use anyone to advance her political ambitions.
Pathetic.
It's amazing that Bristol has developed a sense of integrity in such a family atmosphere, but she has.

The Vatican is the seat of Satan.

Catholic priests think they are safer if they commit fornication and remain unmarried. Catholicism should put this verse to heart : "It's better to marry than to BURN".

Divorce is allowable in the Bible if the ground for it is ADULTERY. That is what evangelicals believe.

Mr. Arroyo, if you want to know more about evangelicals, just READ the Bible so you don't make false accusations.

You know, Professor, it's a *fricking crime* you moralize about this now, when anyone who could read a face should have knownwhat was up in that 'marriage' and 'abstinence only' agenda.

If I endorsed that as a priestess, never mind took it national, I'd get run out of any Pagan community going on a rail.

It was all about agenda, and they *barely* observed even a decent interval after the GOP made such hay out of it.

I mean, seriously, Professor. You're off the rails, here, trying to spin this shotgun pseudo-wedding-for-the 'faith-vote' as anything to do with *virtue,* never mind *Catholic* 'virtue.

Snow-job. Like so many other things Catholic clergy don't look too close at.

At least one of us is getting old, here, Professor. But for my part, I've heard it before. Padre.

"Bristol Palin's broken engagement another vote for Catholic view of marriage as a sacrament."

That's just the dumbest thing I've heard since Bush 's helo changed callsigns.

As satirized: "I believe marriage should be a holy sacrament between two unwilling teenagers."

If we had time to laugh more right now, it'd just be another nail in the coffin of the 'abstinence only and Christian marriage meaning breeders have more rights' view that both Palin's Dominionist groups, the GOP, and the 'Hey, let's go to Africa and say Don't use Condoms' Vatican have any clue about *real* family values, never mind Mother-loving biology or how to spin backwoods Fundie stuff.

Seriously.

It's obvious. Bristol Palin was Roveian politicoes using her pregnancy and personal life as an 'exemlar' of yet another Republican agenda that even a fascist like Palin can't make work in her own family.

Period.

"A catholic annulment is a religous process to void a marriage which shouldn't have occurred in the catholic faith."
Catholics believe a marriage celebrated between a male and a female is valid--Catholic, civil, wikka, Baptist, Hindu or not. If one party believes the marriage was not valid there can be a declaration of invalidity if the Catholic Church agrees with them.
It is not really an annulment. There was a marriage. The children are legitimate.
The declaration means that the form, or one individual's consent was invalid at the time of the wedding perhaps due to immaturity, ignorance, mental illness, alchoholism, drug abuse, force, fear, or an erroneous belief that the marriage vows didn't include a lifetime commitment, faithfulness, and/or openness to children. Sometimes the reason for invalidity is one party demonstrates they do not believe marriage is for the good of the spouses by abusing their partner. Given the state of the world, it could be more humane quality than getting a piece of paper at the local courthouse.

Marriage is the highest ordinance one can achieve.

Mark:10.9 tells us the importance of marriage by saying: “…let not man put (a marriage) asunder.” From this why would any one, or any church think they could dissolve a marriage without approval from God?

Releasing one of their priests or nuns is not the same thing. They are not married to the church.

Mark,
Always seek the truth.

"What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. What is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven." The Catholic Church has the power to release anyone from their vows. They do it for priests, nuns, Freemasons etc. without assembling a tribunal to determine if the vows were valid. They just choose not to release people from their marriage vows even though both parties wish it.

PaulC2:
"If you don't agree with that position, then you are simply disagreeing with Jesus. (which of course, you do at your own risk)"

Then u agree with slavery being regulated? (servants being slaves in the king james bible of course) Or the stoning and killing of homosexuals? (in Leviticus)

If Jesus believed or tolerated any of that rubbish, then by todays moral standards he holds obscene views that should be roundly condemned.

Disagree with Jesus: Dam right I do. This is not the first century, lets move on.

The "no divorce" concept is actually an equal problem. I grew up in a very Catholic area where people "stayed together for the children" and because they were taught that divorce was bad. In one case, the emotional abuse suffered by the kid was pretty bad. Of my friends who grew up in extremely unhappy homes, most spent a number of years screwed up and not a single one is still religious. In most cases, the parents eventually divorced, but not before making everyone miserable. People change. People make mistakes. Rushing to the alter is bad, but so is telling people to stay in bad situations that any rational person should know will not get better.

Isn't it interesting how the "right thing to do" is to force/pressure your unwilling teenager daughter into a sham marriage to satisfy the evangelical base and your own sense of morality for an election.

I feel for Bristol, she seems like a normal kid forced into a world of totally unrealistic expectations.

Sad really.

GSAMILLER1: The fact that the Church ruled your marriage to be non-sacramental takes nothing away from the legality of your marriage. Your two precious children are "legitimate", both in the strict legal sense and because they are children of God. Please accept my sorrow at their all too brief lives on earth. I hope that the thought of reuniting with them in God's heaven brings you some solace.

I wonder if Levi Johnson was going to marry Bristol Palin because he wanted to be married to the daughter of the vice president? And once he realized that Sarah Palin was not going to Washington, he called the wedding off.
Or it could have been that he was forced into an engagement by the two families so that it didn't look bad for Sarah Palin to have an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter. Once the issue left the spotlight, he was able to call off the wedding that he didn't want in the first place.
Either way, it was a circus act that should not have happened. It most likely did happen because because of the ridiculous thought that our leaders have to be good Christians and good Christians get married so that they can raise a child together, no matter how young, unprepared, and unloving they may be. The entire situation is pretty sad.

With Courthouses now having metal detectors, you can't even execute a shotgun marriage anymore. Times have sure changed.

Skowronek;

Those ARE fun facts! Thank you for sharing them.

Just some fun facts:

Up until 1545, European marriages commonly had two ceremonies. First, a couple had a betrothal ceremony, after which the engaged couple was able to live together. Then, the couple had a child, that was taken to be the consummation of their marriage, so then they might (or might not) have the actual marriage ceremony.

1753

The year English state and church control began to regulate marriages and weddings. Prior to that, couples married in secret, paid off clergy, etc. Not having any regulation had "helped serial bigamists, those who held out a title or wealth for marriage, then deserted shortly thereafter. An estimated 250,000 such marriages took place between 1694 and 1754, providing large profits for unscrupulous clergy who were little more than marriage brokers. Half of the brides were pregnant for the marriage, which no one had a problem with."

The annulment process can only annul an invalid marriage. Now whether a marriage was invalid or not is a matter of evidence and judgment based on evidence.

While consummating the relationship is a necessary condition for a marriage to be valid it is not sufficient. There can be various reasons that the marriage can be considered invalid. If someone can prove that their spouse never had any intention of or couldn't for some reason fulfill their part of the bargain then an annulment can be granted.

As concerned pedophile priests I don't like them but to the dismay of protestants there are far more pedophile ministers than priests. There are over 3300 protestant denominations and only one catholic church so its easier to get your mind around the catholic problem though. Catholics are not ok with pre-emptive war - the Justice War theory was written by St. Thomas Aquinas and it doesn't include attacking a non-threatening nation - one should not forget that a bi-partisan commission found over 900 lies leading up to the war in Iraq.

Bristol Palin and her boyfriend are two teenagers who had cheap sex and hit a bingo, which is all too common in America. I bet her boyfriend didn't even use a condom.They cannot even handle their own lives, let alone be parents. They were only getting married because Gov. Sarah Palin was the vice-presidential candidate. The "shotgun' marriage" was most likely over when McCain/Palin were defeated.

I don't care about any religion doctrine. However, teenagers usually do not make good parents. They are too young to be having sex. If they knew what they were doing, there would not be so many "mistakes," nor would there be so many deadbeat fathers in this country. I don't want my tax dollars going to support single mothers and deadbeat fathers' children. If they have the sex, they can take the next 18 to 21 years to raise the person they didn't mean to create. This is a society that believe in sex with no consequences, that believes society gets no say. If tax dollars must be shifted to these broken down families, society gets a say.

New game - swap out labels and see which comment gets deleted first. It's fun!

If I were Palin, I wouldn't want my daughter marrying this Jew either. The whole marriage plan was political and Jewish posturing.

As for divorce, it's on the list of things Jews consider "bad" while they pick and choose their morals to include being OK with capital punishment, pre-emptive war, hiding pedophile rabbis, etc. etc.

Interesting comment about annullment, but very faulty. My ex-wife and I were married for 6 years when she filed for divorce, 8 when she filed for annullment (that she was to get married not thereafter had nothing to do with it, I'm sure - after all, you can always go to church, receiver communion, assuage your conscience - despite church teachings - at any church since they do not ask questions about your marital status). That we lived together for 8 months before the wedding did not seem to bother the padre. When I got the paperwork for the annullment, there were only 1 or 2 questions of a moral nature in which I could mention her adultery.

Bottom line, she got her annullment (I was not about to answer over 100 questions about stuff that was none of the church's business), got remarried and is happily receiving communion with a clear conscience.

Finally, what shall we call the two children who were born prematurely and died? Shall I refer to the daughter who died at 26 weeks in my arms illegitamite? RIGHT - she was, is and and will always be my daughter, no matter what any man, organization or church says. After all, if we were never officially married then we had two kids out of wedlock, by their logic. ABSURD!!!

A plethora of religions mentioned just to keep it interesting while the bottom line is there is a baby boy who has two teenage parents who won't commit to marriage.What does a catholic annulment have to do with a marriage that never has occurred?A catholic annulment is a religous process to void a marriage which shouldn't have occurred in the catholic faith.The catholic faith is complicated with multicultural approaches,opinions coming out of even noncatholics ears,and an undertone of hypocricy that dates back to the preVatican II era when preists said mass in Latin.The issue seemed to be the unmarriage of two teenage parents,not the faith,so if the focus is put on raising a son who has good influences from all sides as opposed to the constant negatively and canon law,corporal punishment,or political jockeying which allows for family hostilities to build,the child and these two teenage parents might just have a fighting chance to raise their son.

Coloradodog: You said" As for divorce, it's on the list of things Catholics consider "bad" while they pick and choose their morals to include being OK with capital punishment, pre-emptive war, hiding pedophile priests, etc. etc."

The Catholic church does not pick and choose its morals, it simply passes on what Jesus revealed to the Apostles. Divorce was denounced in scripture by Christ. If you don't agree with that position, then you are simply disagreeing with Jesus. (which of course, you do at your own risk). As for the other positions you list, you have misrepresented Church teaching on each one. The Catholic Church is against Capital punishment (except in extreme cases where it is required to protect the innocent). It is very active in lobbying against Capital punishment. It is also against war except to protect the Innocent. If you are referring to the Iraq war, Pope John Paul II was adament in decrying the need for it. And you know that no one advocated protecting pedophile priests. To the extent that it happened, it is scandalous and you know that Pope Benedict has been actively apologizing for the actions of those that did support the pedophile priests.

DJMolter- or just dont get married in the first place. Which was kind of the whole point. It's supposed to be a significant ritual, not something you do on a whim or to satisfy someone else. Better to cut their losses now with the premarital birth, instead of force it into a likely unhappy and damaging marriage down the road.

Better to live in a loveless, lifeless, marriage than to divorce? Do you really think God intended that? I've heard so many Catholic interpretations of divorce and remarriage and annulment that it makes my head spin. Besides, who knows what Jesus really said?

I am neither clergy nor theologian, but I am fairly certain that Catholic doctrine opposes both capital punishment and pre-emptive war (using the Just War analysis to evaluate the morality of national decisions to go to and conduct war). Moreover, I think the vast majority of Catholic laity and clergy deplore the manner in which abusive clergy were dealt with (or perhaps more accurately, not dealt with) now that more of the facts are known.

It is easy but inaccurate to conflate the policies of a monolithic "Right" with those of the adherents of Christian faith. Closer examination (voting patterns in the last presidential election, for example) always reveals a more complicated picture--such is life.

Finally, it is easy to dismiss large groups of people and their opinions because of the historic misdeeds of the group to which they claim allegiance. But if we are to do that, and groups include not just religions of course, but races, nations, professions, etcetera, who among us is not summarily dismissed. Better to engage those we disagree with and try to learn something from that engagement.

"Better to wait and see... Let them marry in a civil ceremony for legal appearances...but not in church."

Now what kind of crap is that statement? "legal appearances"? A state recognized union of two people, whether in a Justice of the Peace office or in a full blown church wedding, IS A LEGAL MARRIAGE! It doesn't matter how many Gods or Goddesses, priests or shamans you have in attendance, IF YOU AIN'T GOT THE MARRIAGE LICENSE IT AIN'T A MARRIAGE. And if the marriage goes south, there isn't a church in this country that can LEGALLY settle the break up of the couple. All they can do is shake their heads and tsk tsk at something that shouldn't have happened in the first place.

If I were Palin, I wouldn't want my daughter marrying this redneck either. The whole marriage plan was political and evangelical posturing.

As for divorce, it's on the list of things Catholics consider "bad" while they pick and choose their morals to include being OK with capital punishment, pre-emptive war, hiding pedophile priests, etc. etc.