About the Shallow Manhole

by Molly Ivors

I'm an Irish Catholic, and spent 12 years in Catholic school. (So you know, when I say someone's in hell, I have a pretty clear idea what that means, just to clarify.) And in the finest Catholic tradition, I have a confession to make.

Thers and I are not married.

I mean, we are, legally speaking. But I had a starter marriage which I have never gotten annulled, so according the Holy Roman Catholic Church, we are living in sin. I guess when I die and go on to heaven or hell or whatever, I'm stuck with the old guy, not Thers. Oh well.

But I never really "got" why priests were the arbiters of marriage. I mean, I guess they're disinterested and all that, but they don't actually, you know, marry. And marriages don't work, sometimes. But I expect there are plenty of reasons for that which don't involve not listening to celibates.

And  so today's Dowd column is peculiar. In what is reputedly a reflection on the nature of celebrity divorce, she cites an elderly Irish priest from Australia, talking about marriage. His regular talk, called "Who Not to Marry" is basically pretty common-sensical, but the fact that this priest lectures to kids about all the ways to fuck up marriage bothers me. And you know, I got those lectures.  But the conclusion I drew from them is that no one in the world really knows what happens in a marriage, let along the disciples of St. Jerome who think girls are icky.

Of course, Dowd focuses on the "boys are icky" section of Father Connor's lesson--because, she says he says, boys aren't interested. Go figure.

I asked him to summarize his talk:

“Never marry a man who has no friends,” he starts. “This usually means that he will be incapable of the intimacy that marriage demands. I am always amazed at the number of men I have counseled who have no friends. Since, as the Hebrew Scriptures say, ‘Iron shapes iron and friend shapes friend,’ what are his friends like? What do your friends and family members think of him? Sometimes, your friends can’t render an impartial judgment because they are envious that you are beating them in the race to the altar. Envy beclouds judgment.

“Does he use money responsibly? Is he stingy? Most marriages that founder do so because of money — she’s thrifty, he’s on his 10th credit card.

“Steer clear of someone whose life you can run, who never makes demands counter to yours. It’s good to have a doormat in the home, but not if it’s your husband.

“Is he overly attached to his mother and her mythical apron strings? When he wants to make a decision, say, about where you should go on your honeymoon, he doesn’t consult you, he consults his mother. (I’ve known cases where the mother accompanies the couple on their honeymoon!)

“Does he have a sense of humor? That covers a multitude of sins. My mother was once asked how she managed to live harmoniously with three men — my father, brother and me. Her answer, delivered with awesome arrogance, was: ‘You simply operate on the assumption that no man matures after the age of 11.’ My father fell about laughing.

“A therapist friend insists that ‘more marriages are killed by silence than by violence.’ The strong, silent type can be charming but ultimately destructive. That world-class misogynist, Paul of Tarsus, got it right when he said, ‘In all your dealings with one another, speak the truth to one another in love that you may grow up.’

“Don’t marry a problem character thinking you will change him. He’s a heavy drinker, or some other kind of addict, but if he marries a good woman, he’ll settle down. People are the same after marriage as before, only more so.

“Take a good, unsentimental look at his family — you’ll learn a lot about him and his attitude towards women. Kay made a monstrous mistake marrying Michael Corleone! Is there a history of divorce in the family? An atmosphere of racism, sexism or prejudice in his home? Are his goals and deepest beliefs worthy and similar to yours? I remember counseling a pious Catholic woman that it might not be prudent to marry a pious Muslim, whose attitude about women was very different. Love trumped prudence; the annulment process was instigated by her six months later.

“Imagine a religious fundamentalist married to an agnostic. One would have to pray that the fundamentalist doesn’t open the Bible and hit the page in which Abraham is willing to obey God and slit his son’s throat.

“Finally: Does he possess those character traits that add up to a good human being — the willingness to forgive, praise, be courteous? Or is he inclined to be a fibber, to fits of rage, to be a control freak, to be envious of you, to be secretive?

“After I regale a group with this talk, the despairing cry goes up: ‘But you’ve eliminated everyone!’ Life is unfair.”

It's not that this is bad advice: I guess it's okay, as far as that goes. I'd love to hear what he'd say to teenage boys, were he asked. But the point here is that conclusion: if you really thought about who you were marrying, no one would.

I have tremendous respect for the Spinster-American community, and sometimes wish I were among their number. Everyone does. But it's hard to miss the self-serving nature of this column. Maureen didn't wed, you see, because no man was good enough for her. Huh. I guess that means she's a celibate, too, since she's such a good Catholic.

If not, I guess there's always confession.

Comments

[jhe]

Early on (ok, 9th/10th century early on), the Church's stand on marriage had the effect of being progressive. The two innovations were the denial of divorce and the requirement of consent by the parties. Not allowing divorce tended to protect women (unpacking the property settlement in a divorce was usually handled by threats from the male relatives of the bride) as did the requirement that the parties to a marriage consent to it. While probably not indicative of any nascent feminism among Church Fathers there was more than a little common decency and humanity behind the strictures of the church which tended to oppose the interests of the the well-to-do and the local head men.

[Molly Ivors]

Okay, but at that time priests could also marry in many places: that bans is 12-13th c., IIRC.

[jhe]

Yep at that time priests could marry, bishops increasingly were celibate (w/Mrs. Bishop becoming an abbess or something). That too was initially a reform to prevent ecclesiastical titles from being inherited.

Christianity seems to go through a reform every half millennium. Could be that we're due.

[theperilouspea]

It feels like they play with people , concepts of life , and the tensions of social status , the way children play with dolls .
I would say more but I am a lapsed smarty pants . I don't have the moral pants to summon smarts with the likes of self contradicting walking conundrums . If do as I say and not as I do means as much as it apparently does to my better's , I am hopelessly lost . The manifest dance steps of concord and smugg are too precise for the prevailing chaotic standard of unregulated affection between the vulnerable .

[refinnej]

Yeah, but the Holy Roman Catholic Church gave Mom and Dad the Green Light all those years ago, so where's the sin? You and Thers, and D&T, who are also Big Sinners as there was no Church involved in their wedding at all, are so much better off then they were, as are your kids. (Trust me, the kids are so lucky to not have to deal with all that.)

Since I've never been married, does this mean I am the only non-sinner in the family? :D I promise to not get all holy.

[David Ehrenstein]

Maureen didn't wed cause all Michael Douglas wanted out of her was a zipless fuck.

[moondancer]

When I learned that MoDo was single, it occurred to me: who would want to be married to an assassin?

[Joe Klein's conscience]

But I thought you were married to Atrios!!! ;-)

[Joe Klein's conscience]

David Ehrenstein:
I doubt Michael Douglas was the only one.

[Jones]

Yes, consider the sad case of Kay and Michael Corleone, but contrarily, might one not also consider the happier marriage of Superman and Lois Lane? Too very different backgrounds, and yet, a successful marriage (although I should point out, no kids yet).

[Pat Johnson]

Maureen did not get married because the men she dated read her columns.

No man worth his salt was going to be eviscerated as easily as she does in each of her essays. He need look no further.

Being married to a witch is much harder than just sleeping with one.

[julia]

Jones, that could _really_ be a be a problem

[hmmm]

from reading some of the things you write, I don't see why you should possibly bother with worrying about matters of faith.

[Bloix]

Most of this stuff is great advice. A lot of it is very similar to what Dan Savage tells people. Like this priest, he's not against romantic love, he's just in favor of applying a little rationality to personal relationships. (I don't think the priest would say DTMFA but that's what he means.) Women in particular need to because the costs of a failed marriage in our society usually fall much more heavily on the woman.

[aunt esther]

Not to mention this was the laziest column ever to appear in the New York Times. It is comprised almost entirely of a quote from another person. Dowd is running on fumes. She has lost her rudder now that Hillary isn't in the race and can't be crushed under Mo's spiked heels.

[Frieda]

Dowd actually wants us to listen to a Catholic priest regarding marriage and relationships?

The woman is delusional.

[coozledad]

God knows why my wife tolerates me. Almost has to be the cooking.

[Thers]

from reading some of the things you write, I don't see why you should possibly bother with worrying about matters of faith.

We're more Catholic than you are. Neener.

[Molly Ivors]

reffinej,
I considered citing the peculiar case of Mother and Father Thers, but decided against it for obvious reasons. But the fact is that she had to pay for an annulment, when in fact they owed her an annulment, a new car, and a trip to Tahiti with a male stripper.

[Pat Johnson]

Hey, at least she wasn't quoting Warren Jeffs!

[refinnej]

Ah Molly, that would have been one sweet Christmas present :)

[via]

Molly, it would have been a sin if you HADN'T married Thers!

[aimai]

I like the idea of a "starter marriage." I once warned Mr. Aimai to remember he was "only my first husband" but he didn't take it well, so I've backed off.

aimai

[cherish]

I would add to that priest's list of Points to Ponder about your intended, How do they drive? Aggressively, recklessly, with lots of shouting at other drivers, racial slurs and hand gestures? Do you feel safe in the car when your intended is at the wheel? Would you want your children to be exposed to this person in this state?

It was a Dear Abby letter made me want to add that.

[James Pratt]

So I suppose the single men without friends this priest has counseled should forgo marriage and become Catholic priests instead? Many married people meet new friends with their spouse. Couples are more comfortable with other couples. If you allow popularity to be your guide you might just find out too late that all of those friends didn't know anything about some scary things, or the friends were sharing some scary habits. Drug dealers and swindlers are always very social.

[Jemand von Niemand]

Modo wrote this??

Does she want to be married so she can have her own celebrity divorce?

Just wondering. Good luck with that, by the way, Mo.

[low-tech cyclist]

Speaking ex cathedra from my belly button, here's my minimal set of necessary conditions for getting married:

1. Mutual trust and respect.
2. Shared or complementary goals, values, and worldview.
3. A genuine enjoyment of each other's company.

That's a lot less wordy than MoDo's priest, but in my experience, it does a hell of a good job of weeding out possible mates.

Note: I've listed qualities you need going in, not what you need to make a marriage work once you're in one. That's a whole 'nother thing.

It's also a list of what I regard as necessary conditions, not sufficient conditions. No guarantees are attached.

[David in NY]

The good father forgot, "Neither a borrower nor a lender be ...."

[pbg]

you do know that Jesus Christ was called on your exact issue by the opposition? About who a multiply married woman ends up with in heaven?
It's a classic 'gotcha' moment, (like the 'name the greatest commandment' ploy) and Jesus emulated james T. Kirk by changing the rules: no marriage in heaven.

[Jemand von Niemand]

Well, I'd ask the obvious -- like, how does the Pope (that ex-Hitlerjugend Flak-gunner), or anyone else, know what it's like in heaven? Or that there even is a heaven?

But, every time I do, the statuette of the Holy Mother on my dashboard says, "You've made the Baby Jesus cry, again. Say, can I have some of that Bourbon?"

[MH]

"I guess when I die and go on to heaven or hell or whatever, I'm stuck with the old guy, not Thers. Oh well." It may or may not be a comfort to be reminded that marriage doesn't apply after death. Jesus took up this question in response to someone asking about a woman who married and was widowed by seven brothers in succession.

[Ruth]

I have it on the best authority that if you pay the angels enuff you can get Thers back.