|
|
Entering Marriage with Eyes Wide
Open
by
Edward Peters
If I heard it
once as a tribunal judge, I heard it a thousand times in marriage
nullity cases: “How could I have been so blind?” All right, maybe a
thousand times is an exaggeration, but I’m sure I (and other
tribunal judges) heard it plenty of times, this heart-breaking
question, not rhetorical, but real, usually posed by what canon law
used to call “the innocent spouse” in an annulment case, but what
might today be more accurately called the shell-shocked survivor of
a destructive attempt at marriage. It’s the question that one spouse
needs, in many annulment cases, painfully to ask himself (or
herself) after three years, eight years, or a dozen in a marriage
finally wrecked by alcoholism or drug abuse, chronic infidelities,
physical violence, the squandering of finances, or often enough, a
combination of these factors: How could he (or she) have been
so blind?
Without wanting
to give the impression that the dismal factors just outlined always
lead to a declaration of nullity (because they don’t), and without
minimizing the fact that in most divorces and eventual annulments
both parties had a role to play in the failure or nullity of the
marriage (because they do), there are a considerable number of
wrecked marriages wherein the signs of these grave disorders were
present prior to and at the time of the wedding, but
were missed or grossly minimized by the spouse who, some years later
was left asking: “How could I have been so blind?”
I think there is
a good answer to this question, but to appreciate it requires one to
step back from the immediacy of the crisis in marriage today, and
look at problem from a wider perspective. Two points need to be
borne in mind.
First, it helps
to recall the image of the Church as our holy Mother, one whose love
for us knows no bounds. Any mother worthy of the name wants her
children to avoid harm and live happy lives. Thus, a caring mother
gives direction and advice, she guides her children’s feet onto the
good path, and warns them against the bad. But for the most part, a
mother tends to spare her children the gory details of why
bad things are bad, and even details as to just how bad they
really are, lest her children be unnecessarily frightened,
scandalized, or drawn by a prurient interest toward such behavior. I
think there is some of this maternal attitude at work in the
Church’s warnings against, say, drug and alcohol abuse. The teaching
that such things are wrong is clearly given. At times, additional
elaboration on the dangers of such activities are given, but like a
good mother, the Church does not usually present the depth of the
depravity that chemical addiction entails.
To be sure, the
Church is, as Pope Paul VI put it, “an expert in humanity,” and no
human secrets, however horrid, are hidden from her and her ministers
who need to know. Moreover, as Christ said in the parable about the
rich man who begged to have a message sent from hell to his wayward
brothers lest they fall into the Pit as did he, the Church can
rightly say to those who suggest that she show more graphically the
degree of suffering involved in some marriage-destroying activities,
“The law and the prophets should be enough for us, and even if
someone were to rise from the dead to tell, some people would still
not believe.” For all that, though, there are people preparing for
marriage who view the Church’s admonitions against some types of
behavior in themselves or their future spouses as mere formalism,
rules imposed without any real connection to reality.
The second
problem is similar to the first, and it usually is found, albeit
ironically, among young people blessed to have been raised in more
or less stable families. I speak of a certain naiveté.
When children
are raised in homes where dad goes to work day in and day out, where
mom sees to the basic needs of her children, where meals are
predictable, holidays celebrated normally, issues frankly discussed,
good times enjoyed with friends and bad times embraced prayerfully
as the will of God, they tend to think that most everybody does
these things too. What they, as children, cannot see is the
myriad ways in which solid parental love, living faith, freedom from
chemical and emotional manipulation, and the leavening strength of
domestic stability prevents untold numbers of problems from ever
arising in the first place, and enables the family to address,
usually successfully, those problems that inevitably must visit,
even if barely, every home. In other words, they simply cannot
imagine (and God be praised that they need not!) how bad things
could really get under other circumstances than the ones they are
used to.
But, marriage to
an active, abusive alcoholic teaches brutal lessons. Marriage to the
victim of unresolved, long-term sexual or emotional abuse teaches
brutal lessons. Marriage to a sexual or financial profligate teaches
brutal lessons. Is there a way, though, to learn from those lessons,
short of entering such a marriage? There is, I think, but it
requires two acts on the part of one considering marriage.
Two key points:
First, one needs humility. One has to be willing to admit
that are some things about people in this world that one just
doesn’t know. No one wants to be considered naïve (though exactly
why one doesn’t, I’m not sure), but after a decade in annulment
work, I can tell young people, it’s better to admit some possible
naiveté now than to enter a minefield marriage and have your
cluelessness proven to all the world. Instead of being embarrassed
by your naiveté, thank God for it. Thank God that you don’t know how
bad this condition or that vice can be, in the same way that many
people can thank God that they don’t know what deep hunger means, or
how homelessness feels, or what victimization by crime is like.
Second, one
needs trust. One has to be willing to take the Church at its
word that certain things are destructive of happiness before
marriage and after. One has to trust concerned parents, siblings,
pastors, or friends when they express reservations or opposition to
plans to marry so-and-so. Don’t assume that such reservations or
opposition are based on dislike of your choice for marriage (even if
such dislike is present). Rather, consider the possibility that the
stance is based on love and concern for you.
One final but
very important point to consider. While many, many people suffer
from things that can directly and severely impact their own ability
to marry and their potential spouses’ chances at happiness in
marriage, few of them labor under such circumstances that cannot,
with patience, prayer, and counseling, eventually be overcome or
repaired. In other words, one’s frank recognition that, at present
such-and-such a marriage is ill-advised, does not necessarily mean
that the wedding can never take place. What it more likely means is
that if the wedding takes place now, without the benefit of
counseling or, if needed, personal reform, it will likely entail
much unnecessary suffering for both parties and eventually children,
and is even more likely finally to fail than are, sadly, most
marriages today. I would hold that there is no such thing as a bad
reason to call off a wedding. Surely we can suggest that there is no
such thing as bad reason to put one off. A few months (such a short
time!) may be all it takes to address effectively a situation that
might otherwise result in a lifetime of unhappiness.
Sometimes, when
a party in an annulment case asks: “How could I have been so
blind?”, the plain truth is that the person had deliberately blinded
himself or herself to the pre-wedding warning signs of impending
disaster. But in many cases, no self-deception was at work. The
person instead simply did not understand, and not understanding, too
hastily shrugged off, the warning signs that the Church, parents,
families or friends said, or perhaps hinted, were there. But
marriage, more than any other decision the great majority of adult
Catholics will make in life, is simply too important to enter with
anything less than eyes wide open.
Dr. Peters served for many years as a Defender of the Bond and later
as Matrimonial judge in various diocesan tribunals. He presently is
professor canon law and liturgy for the Institute for Pastoral
Theology at Ave Maria University in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Courtesy Catholic
Information on the Internet (Catholic.net) |