Posted on 02/13/2006 6:02:18 PM PST by Coleus
We've been reading Amy Welborn's columns in Our Sunday Visitor for a while, and we almost always agree with what she has to say. Moreover, she writes engagingly. Of late we've been wondering: Who is this Amy Welborn?
She reveals a lot -- more than we wanted to know -- in her article in the January 17, 2003 Commonweal titled "My Husband, the Priest." It turns out that Mrs. Welborn is forty-something and is, after an annulment, in her "second marriage." Hmmm. We thought Catholics could only be married once. If you have an annulment, your "first marriage" was an attempted marriage, which is to say no marriage at all, and your "second marriage" is your first marriage. Or maybe Mrs. Welborn just played by the rules, but doesn't accept the theology behind the rules, for she makes a point of telling us this: "My history runs around the house or calls on the phone -- three children ages twenty to eleven, plus an ex-husband. That marriage has been over and annulled for ten years, but the evidence still sits at the dinner table and checks come twice a month." As we say, Mrs. Welborn writes engagingly, and, yes, we do sense the difficulty of walking by faith rather than by sight -- and sounds and checks.
And Mrs. Welborn gives us a taste of the poignant melancholy of it all in this one-sentence paragraph: "As is the case with any second marriage, both with histories we bring, histories living and dead, histories brought out and laid on the table and worked over and through, histories left alone because they are too painful or because there really is no point." Even though we're not sure that's a complete sentence, we certainly get the idea.
And add to the pain the fact that Mrs. Welborn's "second" husband is an ex-priest: "formally laicized -- 'reduced' -- as official church lingo puts it -- to the 'lay state.'" She tells us that she and her husband are "in a rather odd spot theologically. I guess you could call us 'orthodox.' Mostly. We're both well schooled in modern interpretations of faith, and have found them wanting.... But theology is not ecclesiology.... So here we are, suspect, to tell the truth, on all sides, depending on who finds out what about us first.... Those who know us first in relation to our writing are surprised at our attitudes toward things like canon law, clericalism, and a married priesthood. Those who know the history first -- the laicized priest married to the previously married woman -- are surprised by our comfort in tradition, our prolife convictions, and our lack of interest in being anything but Catholic.... The 'liberals' aren't interested in us because we make fun of them. The 'conservatives' like us until they find out our histories, because there's no worse epithet -- not 'pagan,' not 'Protestant,' not even 'heretic' -- in a conservative Catholic's vocabulary than 'ex-priest,' a word which comes with a 'p' conveniently built in so it can be virtually spit out of contemptuous lips." (We don't know which conservative Catholics she's referring to, but we can think of a whole bunch of worse epithets than "ex-priest.")
So, what's the point of this tale? This: "While my husband received some support from his diocese [when he left the priesthood], it had a definite endpoint, clearly indicated by the bishop. He lost his pension. No one offered to pay for any degrees to make him more employable after he left. So you can imagine that as we read story after story of pedophile and other sexually abusive priests, we seethe. We seethe at the protracted support given these guys -- years of financial support, money for treatment, participation in pension plans -- even after they've admitted their crimes and supposedly been stripped of their facilities."
Mrs. Welborn and her husband seethe. We seethe too, if for somewhat different reasons. We find it strange that a priest can violate his vow of chaste celibacy, once or many times, and remain a priest and be taken care of, whereas if a priest gets married he's out. Of course, we now ? finally ? have a policy that says that a priest who violates his vow with a minor is out, just like a priest who marries, but a priest who violates his vow with an adult is not out. Apparently, the Church thinks it's better for a priest to fornicate than to marry. That is odd.
Mrs. Welborn urges that ex-priests such as her husband be allowed back into the priesthood. She favors a married priesthood, saying that you shouldn't "have to be a convert or Eastern-rite to be a married priest." Now, wait a minute! Those converts (mostly ex-Episcopalians) never took a vow of celibacy, and those married Eastern-rite priests (mostly outside the U.S.) didn't either.
This brings us to the whole issue of what a vow is. Mrs. Welborn is evading the key issue, namely, how binding is a vow? Marriage vows, even among Catholics, are not taken as seriously as they used to be. Annulments are now handed out so liberally that they've earned the stigma "Catholic divorce." That's a crying shame, for Catholics who have been granted annulments for serious reasons -- not vague dysfunctions invented by shrinks -- are put under a dark cloud. So here is strike one against the concept of a sacred vow.
Moreover, the vow of chaste celibacy is not taken as seriously as it used to be either, as evidenced by all the priestly sex scandals. Sadly, very sadly, suspicion is cast upon our good, faithful priests. No one knows who's a faithful priest anymore. People talk: "Celibacy, schmelibacy. Father Bob is getting it somewhere." That's strike two against the concept of a sacred vow. Now we hear from Mrs. Welborn that priests who have broken their vows to marry should be welcomed back into the priesthood. That would be strike three and you're out for the idea that vows mean anything much at all.
Fortunately, the Church has held the line on that third item, and is scrambling to hold the line on the second before Catholic priests are held in lower esteem than Voodoo priests. While we believe that priests who violate their vows with adults should also be thrown out, we do see a difference between a priest who "falls" and a priest who marries, for the priest who marries has publicly, categorically, and permanently broken his vow. There's no question that this could be a momentary, one-time yielding to temptation. The priest who marries has clearly renounced the priesthood in favor of something he considers better -- but what could be better than being a priest? Why would the Church want someone who's made that choice -- who's turned his back on his calling -- back in the priesthood? Mrs. Welborn is astounded that other priests regard her husband as "some sort of traitor." She insists: "He did nothing wrong." Ah, but he did. He broke a solemn vow -- irrevocably. He went AWOL on his bishop and his fellow priests in the trenches. In the military in the heat of battle you could be shot on sight for doing that. And for Catholics in this culture, it's war.
In asking that her husband and others like him be readmitted to the priesthood, Mrs. Welborn presents us with her real-life situation. OK, let's run with that. Divorce, it's said, is like murder: The first time is always the hardest; after that it gets easier. Mrs. Welborn is in her "second marriage." We all know that "second marriages" are at a higher risk for divorce than "first marriages." Just for the sake of argument, and without casting any aspersions on Mrs. Welborn or her husband, let's say her husband is again functioning as a priest, and Mrs. Welborn decides she wants to divorce him for some reason. What do we do with her ex-husband priest? Is it OK for a priest to be divorced? What kind of message does that send to parishioners struggling in difficult marriages? Will there be a third collection for the Alimony Fund? Not too long ago, most Protestant denominations would throw out a minister who divorced (regardless of whose "fault" it was). It was considered scandalous. Maybe we're out of touch, but we'd regard it as scandalous for a priest to be divorced. The priesthood has already been scandalized by pedophilia and pederasty. How much more scandal can the priesthood endure?
Or let's imagine that Mrs. Welborn's husband decides he wants to divorce her for some reason. He has already broken his vow of celibacy; breaking that first vow was no doubt the hardest, after which breaking a marital vow would be easier. Again, is it OK for a priest to be divorced? Based only on what Mrs. Welborn tells us about their situation, we'd say that allowing her husband back into the priesthood would be a high-risk proposition (and we don't know him from Adam).
But isn't it better for a priest to leave to get married than to have various affairs and not get married? Yes. But to return a married ex-priest to ministry presents a different question. Of laicized married priests in general, Mrs. Welborn says that they left in order to "legitimize a heterosexual relationship in the sacrament of marriage." Ah, yes. It would be naïve to think that a priest falls in love with a gal, asks her to coffee, and then proposes marriage. As Mrs. Welborn indicates, there was already a "heterosexual relationship" going on that needed to be "legitimized" in marriage -- in other words, as Mrs. Welborn hints, they were not saving sex for marriage. And one might wonder how many such "heterosexual relationships" the priest had before he found Ms. Right. Anyhow, if a priest violated his vow of celibacy the first time around, do we really want him back in the priesthood for a second time? What kind of assurance could there be that he would not violate his marital vow? As we say, the first violation is the hardest.
We all know that those who have engaged in premarital sex or shacked-up, and then married, are at a much higher risk for extramarital affairs and divorce than those who save sex for marriage. Why? One big reason is that premarital sex spits on the institution of Holy Matrimony -- it repudiates the idea that sex is reserved exclusively for marriage. If you've engaged in premarital sex, especially if you had to break a vow to do it, extramarital sex is not so unthinkable. It may sound harsh, but, let's face it, the married ex-priest who wants to return to the priesthood is damaged merchandise, whereas the priesthood is a pearl of great price (or should be).
Finally, if we let married ex-priests who fooled around with one or many gals back into the priesthood, how can we come down hard on priests who are fooling around with adults, whether male or female? We can't. Mrs. Welborn has written winsomely and passionately about her "rather odd spot," and we can feel her pain -- well, sort of. But no, we cannot go along with her heartfelt plea. It would only lead us further down the road to the point where vows mean virtually nothing at all.
Veeeerrrry innnnterestink.
Though the amount of anullments granted in the US is scandalous, neither I nor the NOR are in a position to judge the validity of Amy Welborn's first marriage or the decision of the tribunal. Both she and her husband, excellent writers and bloggers, manifest habitual self-examination and Catholic orthodoxy. The NOR is certainly lacking in the self-examination department, especially concerning its habitual innuendos, so I am content to keep my nose out of their business.
I have just now deleted NOR from my list of orthodox magazines to read. I had given this magazine the benefit of doubt after reading some of its articles. This recent article proves what many good catholics have been saying about NOR - a nasty piece of work.
Oh, I think you do.
My goodness, this is a nasty article. Who publishes the New Oxford Review? I find this article extremely mean spirited.
I like Amy Wellborn. I also like NOR. I would not stand in judgement of their situation. But they have a point about her wanting the rules changed for their situation. Faith is sometimes inconvenient. And I think she's a little oversensitive about "ex-priest" being an epithet.
We let our subscription lapse some time ago. I started referring to NOR as the "New Pharisee Review" when they started their smear campaigns against Scott Hahn and other orthodox Catholics.
Sounds like a hit piece to me.
She is a conservative Catholic author. Has writen several nice books, has a busy blog and is not afraid to speak out. But someone over there got their nose about of joint about her, and thus the hit. They eat what should be their own from time to time...I don't like their spirit, so I try to ignore them.
At one time I thought about subscribing to NOR but after research I realized that the interesting articles in the magazine are obscured by the random 'hits' they churn out on a wide variety of people who don't meet some obscure holiness index that NOR evidently maintains.
We all screw up. We all make mistakes. Hopefully most of us repent and do the best we can do when we pick up the pieces and go on.
I smell some kind of professional jealousy here. Apparently Amy Welborn's blogspot attracts 8000+ hits a day and NOR is probably way down there. I've purchased a few of Amy Welborn's books as well as a few by her husband, Michael Dubriel, and I found them very helpful and interesting and completely in line with Catholic Magisterial teaching.
If we all are called to be saints and all of us are responsible (with the grace of God) for being a light for other struggling souls, it seems to me that NOR falls far short -- their efforts seem to consist mainly of excoriating the efforts of other Catholics who are not hiding their light under a bushel.
Any possibility the "tipping point" came when Amy publicized a different EENS interpretation than does NOR?
"I started referring to NOR as the "New Pharisee Review" when they started their smear campaigns..."
I know what you mean. But I don't have to agree with every article or essay, and most of them are good and thought provoking. Even with the lousy articles, there are enough good ones to make it worthwhile.
Your own description of the American tribunals indicates to me that such tribunals consider a petition for nullity to be prima facie evidence of nullity, when in fact all marriages are supposed to be presumed valid until proven otherwise.
US tribunal annulment statistics far exceed those in other countries. Other than suggesting blatant catering to the divorce culture, this indicates that we're letting too many people attempt a marriage covenant they aren't competent to contract in the first place. Kinda like we let lots of grossly unfit men into the priesthood.
I think NOR was only running about 10,000 subscriptions when I let mine lapse years back.
Annulments - divorce Catholic style.
Even Sen. Ted Kennedy bought himself one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.