h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Recently, my ex-husband, a non-Catholic (Church of England) decided to remarry. As she is Catholic, she cannot get married to him (according to Canon law) as he is (again, according to Canon law) still considered married to me.

We are divorced.

As a result, he has petitioned the Catholic Church Tribunal for an annulment of our marriage..... Since neither one of us is or was Catholic and we weren't married in the Catholic Church, I find it outrageous that they would consider, let alone be able, to make any pronouncements upon any aspect of my life.

However, it seems that they think that they do.

I got a call from the Dioscese last Thursday, the first time, I might add, that I heard that an annulment was being sought.... asking me to "submit" to the Dioscese Tribunal, here in Ottawa. As a result, in the last week, I have had a range of emotions from anger, to despair, to outrage. Now, I am outraged.

I have finally decided that I will go to the appointment with the "Tribunal" and repudiate Catholic Church's right to involve itself in my affairs. I will be submitting the following ....

To Whom It May Concern,

When I took my vows of marriage, I did so freely and with the strength of conviction backed up by 36 years of study towards the formulation of my spiritual and moral values. As a Unitarian, I have taken very seriously those values, and I have striven to maintain them. I have made a commitment to myself, and society at large, to uphold these values and to keep to them. I come from a long line of both Protestant and Catholic dissenters who took their lives in their hands rather than submit their consciences, or their principles, to anyone.

When John and I married, we entered into a covenant. I do not use the word covenant lightly. The word covenant, in law, is a binding agreement: "Covenant. A mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties, in writing and under seal." In the Islamic and Hebrew faiths, The Eternal, or Ancient, Covenant is God's promise to mankind. "Brit", the Hebrew word for covenant, is derived from the Akkadian word biritum, which means separation and binding.

"Politically, a covenant involves a coming together (con-gregation) of basically equal humans who consent with one other through a morally binding pact supported by a transcendent power, establishing with the partners a new framework or setting them on the road to a new task, that can only be dissolved by mutual agreement of all the parties involved.

.....The covenants of the Bible are the founding covenants of Western civilization. Perforce, they have to do with God. They have their beginnings in the need to establish clear and binding relationships between God and humans and among humans, relationships which must be understood as being political far more than theological in character, designed to establish lines of authority, distributions of power, bodies politic, and systems of law. It is indeed the genius of the idea and its biblical source that it seeks to both legitimize political life and to direct it into the right paths; to use theo-political relationships to build a bridge between heaven and earth -- and there is nothing more earthly than politics even in its highest form -- without letting either swallow up the other." Daniel J. Elazar

While I recognise the right of Catholics to strive for their own truth and meaning, as a non-Catholic, I do not recognise the right of the Catholic Church to make any judgements upon any part of my life. Moreover, I do not recognise the right of the Catholic Church to nullify a contractual agreement that John and I, two non-Catholics marrying in a non-Catholic church, made, simply because it may or may not "conform" to the principals of the Catholic rite, a rite to which neither of us subscribe.

While John and I divorced and the marriage was legally dissolved as of October 29, 2001, this marriage took place. It took place between two responsible adults, who freely chose to commit themselves to a relationship. For 9 years, we maintained, in every sense of the word, the commitment to each other through thick and thin. We shared our bed, we cried together at the loss of our three babies. I honoured and respected him, as I did his family and his heritage. I assisted him when he was ill. We laughed and cried together. This is marriage.

In the last year of our marriage, it became apparent that my husband was no longer happy, and that he was unwilling to commit to continuing our marriage. As the commitment that John and I made was made as a joint bond, it could not be undone without the active agreement of both parties, we released each other from the bond. We did so legally and freely, and after due and responsible consideration. Still, I loved him, and I will always love and value the life we shared.

The fact remains that the vows we took together, again as a covenant, were maintained for nearly 10 years and, whether the Catholic Church recognises those vows or not, they were recognised by the law, and by ourselves and our families and friends, and by the community, including, I might point out, the co-respondent Denise. They cannot therefore, be negated by any man or any power, as though they never occurred.

I would no more recognise the right of the Catholic Church to nullify my marriage, than I would the right of a body within my own faith to do so (whether for the "convenience" of another party or not).

For the Catholic Church presume the right to decide on any aspect of my life is an outrage and a sin of the greatest magnitude. I find the entire matter so morally and spiritually offensive and an assault on my dignity and character and everything that I hold to be true, that I must, and do, object to, challenge, and deny the right of the Catholic Church or any of its representatives to adjudicate any matter involving my life, much less to nullify the bonds of our marriage in any sense.

===

I might point out that I have no objection to my former husband marrying again. I have no objection to him marrying the woman he has chosen to marry. I may have my own personal thoughts and feelings on the matter, but they have their own choices in life to make. They will have to live with the decisions they make.

I object to this entirely on the basis that the Catholic Church has no business meddling in, or making pronouncements on, any part of my life.

This was the response from my brother on this...

I am with you on that personally I can't understand why anybody would seek such a thing,... its like becoming a vegitarian and declaring that all the meat that I have eaten in the past was not actually eaten by me, but that the responsibility of the deaths of all those helpless (but very yummy I might add) farm animals were killed due to the heathenistic (if thats a word) inhumane animal killers out there.... Burp..... but I did not eat any meat in the past. and believing it because sombody in a white robe (a fanatic even) smacked you in the forehead and said is was so.

freaks... can't quite figure them out.

send me ten bucks and I'll smack people in the head too.

Jim

You go, girl!

So, how did it go down with the Catholics?

Well, being the Catholic Church, they will go ahead and do what they decide they will do.

The person who I saw at the Tribunal read the letter and neither one of us turned to stone or was hit with a bolt of lightning. My letter will go to the Tribunal.

I did offer an olive branch in the form of an alternative.

The Church has 2 methods of dissolving (as opposed to annulling) a marriage.

One is the "Pauline Privilege" and the other the "Petrine Privilege" (named after St. Paul and St. Peter, respectively).

The Pauline Privilege concerns two people who were never baptised and one wishes either to convert or to marry into te Catholic Church.

The Petrine involves two people one of which was never baptised. The baptised person must be either wishing to become Catholic (not a pre-requisite) or to marry in the Catholic Church.

Since I was never baptised and given the choice of someone rendering my marriage non-existent or dissolving it, I would choose the latter.

Since, as I said, the Church will do what it wishe whether I agree or not, and I am already divorced, I didn't have as much of aproblem with giving them this information.

I feel, though, that I have closed one door and opened another......

The nice thing has been the support I have received from both friends and strangers. My Catholic friends (with one exception) have been my biggest supporters. Even a dear family friend, Sister Delores, had a hard time understanding how, if neither of us were Catholic, this could take place....

The friend who wasn't supportive thinks that I just don't like Catholics... Hardly, my favorite neice is Catholic/Unitarian, my best friend is Catholic and I am sort of an unnofficial God-parent to her children.... Don't like Catholics.... Brother....

Anyhow, thanks for commenting on this....

No, thank you for bringing it to my attention.

I have a fascination with formalised belief systems, and the length that participants will go to circumnavigate any percieved contradictions in their beliefs; the Catholic church provides me with a wealth of free entertainment!

Growing up in an multicultural family, and in a faith that encourages personal responsibility in spiritual and moral matters, I find more to appreciate than to reject in other religions and cultures.

My father was probably the only Atheist from Iowa, his family were Baptist and Lutheran, my mother the daughter of a Scottish Presbyterian minister, my stepfather was Zoroastrian originally from Bombay. My ex is Mohawk and Delaware who is Church of England....

When my brother and sister were learning their prayers for their Novjote, I learned them as well. I was given the choice of also taking my Novjote (the "coming of age" ceremony, along the lines of the Bar/Bat Mitzva) as well. I chose not to complete the process, but still remember my prayers. (Ironically, when my step-Dad passed away, I was the only one who remembered the prayers and was able to do the prayers required the night of his death.)

I visited many churches over the years, and while I have found something of value in nearly all of them, I simply could not be an adherent of any faith that teaches blind acceptance of doctine. I think the one religion other than Unitarian-Universalism that I find a true affinity with is Buddhism.

I, too, find Buddhism to be the most appealing of the "organised" religions. Although, about fifteen years ago, it wouldn't have been unusual to find me hanging around stone circles wearing a white robe...

A few years back, I did a small-scale survey of faiths and philosophies for my "Paranormal" website. Of the various organisations I contacted, while several politely refused to take part, only the Catholic church chose to completely ignore my letters, without so much as an acknowledgement that they had received them.

(http://www.paranormal.org.uk/survey/)

That doesn't surprise me....

I would be interested to know if you contacted the Unitarians, and what the response was. There is a small number of Unitarian-Universalists that call themelves "Pagan Unitarians". http://www.uua.org/administration/organizations.html#pagans

Of course, many people have asked me when I say that I am Unitarian "You mean a Moonie???".

"No," I have to explain.... "THAT's Unification Church. I am Unitarian."

Yup, follow the link!

That is really interesting....

I find the Zoroastrian one very close to what I believe, as well.

Of course, many of the Eastern religions (as well as Catholicism, both Roman and Orthodox) have the rituals. Ritual, for some is something necessary in their religious lives, while others reject completely.

On thing that I have found is that many of the people who have been drawn from other religions to Unitarianism are really opposed to anything that smacks of ritual, while the people who were raised in the Unitarian faith are more receptive. In fact, many of the latter are actually craving more ritual in their services.

It can be difficult to please both camps. Something as simple as playing music which features the organ, can offend someone who has come from the Catholic church.

Whenever we ask people what they want more of in the services, the overwhelming majority mention spirituality. Strangely, it is the people who have come from other religions who have trouble with the concept of "spirituality". In many cases, they draw a complete blank.

I remember discussing possible methods of bringing more spirituality in our services. One of the committee members fixated on music. We said that music was a method of bringing someone into a more state but we needed to provide more.

He looked blank.... "Perhaps I am missing somthing, I don't reaaly understand what spirituality is...."

I tried to explain that spirituality is feeling something, or feeling at one with something beyond yourself. He still drew a blank and said "So we will just add more music...". I still don't think he "gets" is.

However, in talking to people who have grown up as Unitarians, they have a very firm idea of the spiritual and are open to a lot more of what we draw from other sources. They tend to be less pragmatic in spiritual areas.

The only thing I can think is that, in rejecting their original faith, those who come to Unitarianism reject everything, while those who come to Unitarianism have no "baggage" and are actually looking for baggage......

I think "Spirituality" is a sort of catch-all word for "nice feelings I don't have at the moment, but can imagine having, under the right circumstances"...

I amused myself this morning, by introducing a couple of Jehova's Witnesses to the idea of the Council of Nicea... (A307487)

I will have to see this!

I would love to talk to you. youu are so sympa