Monday, February 15, 2010

Sanctimonious assholes piss me off

Why the hell can't people just mind their own business?

My friend Hope just got married on Sunday. It was a complete shock to me, as she and I haven't talked in a while. I knew that she was dating someone and that she would probably marry the guy, but the surprise nature of it really caught me off guard. I am really happy for her and her husband Paul, as they're both great people who deserve many blessings and happiness.

Hope and Paul happen to be pretty devout Catholics, and it's obvious to anyone who knows them that they credit God for bringing them together. The thing is that while both of them are divorced from previous marriages, Paul's first marriage hasn't been officially annulled yet, which is generally a requirement in order to get married in the Catholic church, complete with a church wedding and all that jazz. Honestly, annulments are incredibly easy to get in the United States (maybe too easy...Grace calls them "McNulments" and she's right). Members of my own family have received them, and while the process takes a little time, it's pretty much a given that the annulment will be granted. If a couple chooses to have a ceremony outside of the church (as Hope and Paul did), they always have the option of getting their marriage convalidated by the Catholic church once the annulment is finalized (granted, not always the case, but the overwhelming majority of the time it is the case). Once the marriage is convalidated, it's as if they had a church wedding from the very beginning, "endorsed" and "blessed" by the church. This is much more common than people realize, and it does not in any way make a couple "less Catholic" if they choose this route.

Anyway, some uber-Catholic bozo posted a status update on her Facebook page which was clearly a not-so-veiled attack on Hope and Paul (although this woman claims ignorance, I know she's full of shit because Hope is on both her and my friends list, which means she saw Hope's news). The bozo's status update said something like this (paraphrasing): "I will never understand why two practicing Catholics choose to forego a church wedding in front of a priest for a civil ceremony, rather than waiting for the annulments to be finalized. Couldn't they have waited to have a real wedding/marriage in the eyes of God?"

Um, excuse me?

First of all, I know that Hope and Paul are going to have their marriage convalidated as soon as possible, so it's really not a huge deal with regard to their marriage eventually being "endorsed" by the church.

Second, even if they weren't going to have it convalidated, does that mean that God hasn't blessed their marriage? If one believes what God/Jesus said about always being with us, then doesn't it stand to reason that God/Jesus would bless all the events of our lives (with the possible exception of committing very heinous crimes such as murder)?

I understand that the Catholic religion requires annulments and, eventually, convalidation of the marriage. I have no problem with that, because that's the way the religion is set up (I also have no problem with those religions that do not require annulments or convalidation, as it's the way those religions are set up). Even though I haven't got a problem with the way that the Catholic church handles this matter as an institutional policy, the fact remains that the majority of people in this world are not Catholic. Does that mean that their marriages haven't been blessed by God? I don't think so. Similarly, let's say that you had a Catholic wedding in the United States and then moved to Iran. Does the fact that the Muslim religion would not "bless" your marriage mean that it's any less blessed or holy in the eyes of God? Again, I don't think so.

Third, the fact is that Hope and Paul's wedding is legal in the eyes of society. Because we in the United States do not live in a theocracy (thank God), their marriage is just as legal as if it had been "witnessed" by a priest, minister, rabbi, or any other member of the clergy. To imply that their marriage is somehow "not real" is hypocritical and a slap in the face.

As an aside, I know that a legal marriage in the United States doesn't automatically include any religious aspect. But knowing that two people feel that God brought them together and that these two people are pretty devout in practicing their religion seems to say that God is right there in the middle.

Finally...and this is the big one for me...who the hell are we to say what God can or cannot do? I don't believe that God has an "anything goes" mentality, but I do believe that God is very loving, and that he would be utterly thrilled for Hope and Paul or any other couple in the same situation. The fact is that we don't understand God very well, and we probably won't until it's all explained to us at the end of time (my personal belief). How do we know why God does the things he does? How do we know that God doesn't bless two lovely and decent people who decide to make a lifetime commitment to one another? Another fact is that we simply have no control over what God does, feels, or thinks. Unless I see clear evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that God will bless any marriage that is undertaken for the right reasons and with the right aims. He may also want the official requirements of a couple's particular religion to be fulfilled (no problem there), but that doesn't mean that the marriage isn't blessed.

As far as I'm concerned, I want God's blessing if I ever get married...hell, I'll need God's blessing! Marriage is tough enough as it is, so having a little divine guidance should definitely help matters.

I'm not knocking religion here. In fact, I think that religion, practiced and used in the spirit of God's love and kindness and forgiveness, is a great thing. I think it's important to have a belief in something greater than ourselves, and religion is often an excellent way to help manifest that belief. I also believe that people who have some sort of religious affiliation are generally happier and more fulfilled in life...studies and my own personal observations have shown this. The same goes for couples who have a religious affiliation (even if they're from different religious traditions, although that can admittedly become thorny at times). Couples with a religious affiliation tend to be happier and last longer than those without one. I'm not pulling that out of my ass to endorse religious affiliation, but just simply stating what many studies have shown. None of this is to say that a couple without a strong religious belief or affiliation can't last...many can and do, even if they have no religion. I just believe that it's easier with a religious affiliation, and studies back me up on this.

Although I'm not knocking religion, I am knocking the "holier than thou" types who automatically condemn something that is outside their perception of their religious tradition. It's fine for these people to have the beliefs they do (as fucked up as I can sometimes think they are). However, it's not fine to start publicly exclaiming that a marriage is somehow "not real" or not blessed by God when it's not our call to make.

4 comments:

  1. It is indeed ours to call when such a circumstance occurs. Do not try to hide behind your religious bigotry because that really is what it is.

    Marriage is a sacrament. It is not permission for sex. I would hope you would take the time to understand this because then, if your mind is open, you might see why the Catholic Church teaches what it does.

    Believe it or not I have no desire to attack you or your friends.

    You have a fundamental misunderstanding of God's love, His kindness and His forgiveness. Your understanding of these, which I am surmising from your post and what you have stated, is more typical of a modern secular understanding, which is not authentic, it is the "quick fix" understanding and that understanding usually does more harm than good to all involved.

    I probably wasted time with this but I hope not.

    It really does matter, however, if the comments that made you angry were not sincerely intended to be a witness to truth and to call friends to holiness, then they might have better been left unsaid or perhaps sent as a private IM or email.


    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for your comment, although I do wish you'd reveal your identity rather than hiding anonymously. :) It seems we agree in part and disagree in part. I have some comments of my own in response to your points.

    1. Where in my original post did I say anything at all about sex? While I can't be sure (nor do I want to be because it's none of my business and because it's rude to ask), I'd bet that they waited. They're both pretty devout and know "the rules", so I'm sure they'd take that into account.

    2. Exactly how is my post rooted in religious bigotry? My understanding of bigotry is that it entails thinking that someone or something is wrong in its very nature, and in addition, treating that someone or something with hatred. Where have I done this? I certainly don't agree with the position that goes against my friend. Despite this, never did I say that I believe the woman who made these comments about my friend is wrong in her very nature, and never did I express hatred toward her. I also think I make it clear that while I may not agree with a certain point of view, those who hold that view have a right to do so. None of this sounds like bigotry of any kind to me.

    3. I certainly don't claim to completely understand God's love and forgiveness. You're right on that one. I don't believe that there's a person on this planet who can honestly claim to completely understand God's love and forgiveness. If they do claim this, I believe they're fooling themselves. Most religions teach that God's love and forgiveness are, at least in part, a mystery. While I prefer to look at the tangible examples of each, I recognize the mystery inherent within them. Who are we to say that God can only love or forgive in one prescribed manner? Perhaps it's true (but I hope not). Regardless, it's not for us to decide. God has sole prerogative on it. Furthermore, many religious traditions (including the Catholic tradition) teach that our human understanding of God doesn't even scratch the surface of what God is about. If that's the case, then again, who are we to say that God can only do things one way?

    4. Much of my understanding of this is indeed rooted in secular concepts of love and forgiveness, as the secular world is the one in which I and the overwhelming majority of people live most of the time. I'm no theologian, and I never will be. I say that the secular understanding of things does not have to be of the "quick fix" mentality, nor does it have to be mutually exclusive with a more spiritual or religious understanding of love, forgiveness, or any other concept. I believe there's room for both kinds of understanding, and that neither kind of understanding automatically assumes that people impetuously rush into things to obtain a "quick fix" or to satiate a certain want or need. I'm not saying it doesn't happen sometimes, but it doesn't automatically have to.

    4a. I think that both the spiritual and secular understandings of love are indeed authentic, at the very least in a prima facie way, and usually in a more profound way as well. If the secular understanding of love were not authentic, that would mean that only those with a religious or spiritual understanding of love could ever experience real, genuine love. I've seem countless examples to indicate that this isn't the case. I do believe that the best fulfillment of love involves both spiritual and secular dimensions. However, it doesn't mean that secular love is any less authentic.

    5. We seem to agree that any concerns should have been brought up privately. People can believe whatever they want, and they can speak their minds about whatever they choose. In this case, I think that this woman publicly stating this position against my friend was rude, insensitive, and aggrandizing at best. Why ruin what should be a happy occasion, especially in public? It's just not right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dear Fucktard Anonymous,

    If you want to comment on this blog at least have the balls to use your real name. The reason Clint called this person a pharisee is because she was basically trying to call attention to herself and her own supposed piety rather than defending Church teaching. It had nothing to do with standing up for the Church. Learn the background circumstances before you call someone a bigot. Or do you think you are omniscent or something?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for your comment and support, DisgruntledLoner.

    ReplyDelete