Search This Blog

Friday, May 25, 2018

Why Are Catholics in Rhapsody over the Royal Wedding?

Oooooo! Aren't they just the cutest thing!
I'm about to be a wet blanket.

Catholics, why are you in rhapsody over the royal wedding between Meghan Markle and Prince Harry? Why do you celebrate with gushing Facebook posts and wedding-watching parties the fake nuptuals between a divorced woman and the prince? Is it because they are such a "cute couple?" Is it because her veil is "to die for" (even if her dress looked like a flour sack as many commented)? Is it because Princess Charlotte was the sweetest bridesmaid ever? Really? Is your faith that shallow?

Marriage is a sacrament. Let me repeat that. Marriage is a sacrament instituted by Christ to give grace. "But...but...", you may say, "Meghan was only married to Trevor Engelson for two years and doesn't she have a right to be happy?"

No...she doesn't! None of has that right. We have a duty to obey God and honor his laws regardless of whether being obedient makes us "happy" or not. And I will put up any soul following the laws of God against those flaunting his laws and bet that across the board the obedient are "happier" in the long run than the disobedient. Or, if not happy, "blessed" as the Beatitudes say.

The prodigal son's "happiness" lasted until the party ended at the pig sty. Meghan's earlier marriage was a quick affair followed by a four day party. Well at least the marriage lasted a bit longer than that even if it did dissolve in "irreconcilable differences." (Wasn't that a movie with Drew Barrymore?)

Reading The Wanderer this morning (May 10th issue), I focused in on the Live Your Faith article which began with the headline, "Marriage, The Great Sacrament." Here's the bit that should have been highlighted:
...the bond of valid marriage cannot be undone either by the contracting parties themselves or by any merely human power. This is true of all marriages, whether between Catholics, baptized non-Catholics, or pagans. "What therefore God has joined together," says Christ, "let no man put asunder" (Matt. 19:6). That is why the Church can never accept divorce and remarriage, even among non-Catholics.
It is more plainly so with Christian marriage, which is an image of the indissoluble union between the Lord Jesus and His Church. To say that a consummated sacramental marriage could be dissolved is equivalent to saying that Jesus could sever Himself from His Church and abandon her.
Meghan and Harry's wedding could have been titled "Marriage, the Great Sacrilege." So, Catholics, why are you celebrating this sacrilege? In view of the past royal weddings of the House of Windsor, one could be excused for starting a Meghan-Harry pool betting on how long the "happy couple" will last before they plead "irreconcilable differences." As long as Diana and Charles? As long as Fergie and Andrew? As long as Princess Margaret and Antony Armstrong-Jones? As long as Princess Anne and Mark Phillips?

Your gushing is useless and contributes to the breakdown of marriage. Your prayers for Harry and Meghan in sorrow for their oh-so-public scandal would be more appropriate and do them a lot more good.

If you want to celebrate a royal wedding, I'll give you one -- Karl and Zita, last monarchs of the Austro-Hungarian empire who, despite revolution, exile and other suffering persevered and devoted themselves to the will of God. Ask their intercession for Harry and Meghan; they'll need it!


  1. Hence why no faithful Catholic should use the term "First Lady" for Melania (or is it Melanie?). She is neither Trump's "first" nor is she a "lady".

  2. I did not "watch" the wedding, but like most I saw more than enough of it on the news replays.

    I have 3 comments about it.
    1. From a purely romantic perspective, a wedding reminds us of the right ordered relationship between A man and A woman for the benefit of creating a new family. This particular wedding reminds us how much people still long for what or what is right, and how they manage to corrupt it with a plethora of acts that tarnish the sacrament that it is.
    2. WHY I wondered was so much fuss made over the bride's "blackness" if her "race was a non-issue" for the groom and his family What was the point of the black minister, the black choir, and the black guest, Oprah Pagan Winfrey? I wondered if such a "fuss" would have been made over her differences if she had been an Irish Catholic virgin who through her unwavering faith had brought the groom to conversion and together they preferred the blessing of a priest from the Republic of Ireland. Can you imagine! Joan of Arc, move over!
    3. This wedding has given civil legitimacy to their living under the same roof and has brought attention to and raised awareness of their affection for political ideas and causes only a liberal gnostic, globalist, anti-capitalist could love. Makes me want to puke.

  3. Charles A. Coulombe, an American writing in the "Catholic Herald,", claims that Markle was not baptized when she married her first husband, so she qualifies for the Pauline Privilege and can validly marry Harry. This is a load of bull, as the Pauline Privilege allows the baptized spouse to remarry only if the UNBAPTIZED spouse "departs" from the marriage. The privilege does not apply when the baptized spouse leaves her original spouse, as Meghan did.

    I watched the wedding, and the couple looked happy and attractive. But it is all a show, as you wisely observe. Meghan and Harry both have a history of outrageous acts (Harry's swastika armband, his wide Las Vegas visit; Megan's scantily clad acting scenes, and one in which she performs oral sex on her partner in a car). EWWW.

    It's not surprising that Harry and Meghan cohabited in their favor and grace residence (provided by the Queen). Kate and William also cohabited before their marriage with royal approval. The Royal Family is becoming very politically correct. Meghan's official court biography identifies her as a feminist, and she is a virulent one.

    Ironically, Meghan reminds me of the first American who disastrously married British royalty: divorcee Wallis Simpson.

  4. A agree, min-bee, she does look a little like Wallis Simpson.

    Kurt, don't you think "first lady" is a political term? There are a number of women who served as "surrogate first lady" for a president.

    As for Melania Trump, whatever she has done in the past, her behavior in the White House has certainly been dignified and ladylike. Very few modern presidents pass the fidelity test either because they were known womanizers like JFK and Bill Clinton or they are divorced and remarried.

    We live in sad times for marriage!

  5. Oh, it is "dignified and ladylike" to be the hussy for a trice "married" man? She is a presidential concubine no different than her competitor Stormy Daniels. No Catholic can accept this. We certainly do live in sad times for marriage when Melania/Melandie pretends to be his "First". Not even close.

  6. Meghan was baptized in a private ceremony in the royal chapel in St James Palace in London a week before she married Harry.

    Kurt, the term "First Lady" means that she is wife of the President or Head of state. It has nothing to do with whether the First Lady is the man's first wife or 5th. Personally, I think Melania is a fantastic First Lady.

    One flaw of the wedding is that they did not show Idris Elba. I only watched a few YouTube clips and didn't see him at all. He's one of my favorite actors.

    I wish them well but Harry still looks a bit wild to me. He also didn't look thrilled to be getting married. Meghan looked as if she were acting the part of a bride in a wedding, not actually being the bride. It was all a bit too weird and staged for me.

  7. I'm not sure what you are saying, Kurt? Is it okay for Catholics to "accept" a rapist and sexual predator like Bill Clinton with his foul-mouthed wife as "first lady" because they've remained married (apparently for politics)?

    As a Catholic, I believe in redemption. Donald and Melania are not in the queue for canonization that's for sure. Like all of us, they need a lot of prayer. Maybe that's one of the reasons he's president. And he has certainly delivered on his pro-life promises unlike all the ostensibly pro-life presidents before him.

    As my mom used to say, "actions speak louder than words" and Melania's actions in the White House have been dignified and respectful. As a Catholic I'm praying for them both as well as for Meghan and Harry. Those who have been given much will be held to a heavy accounting on Judgment Day. In charity let's pray for them.

  8. It's Catholics like Kurt who force me to side with Pope Francis about "rigid Catholics". Through Kurt's words I clearly see what Francis says and am on his (Francis) side on this.

    Kurt's rigidity leaves no room for conversion of another for the other person must be perfect, as Christ is perfect and like Kurt must be perfect. There is no shred of goodness in the other person. They must be excoriated, judged as not following Catholic rules and regulations to the "T", given no room for conversion and must be sent to hell for freely living their life as they see fit with the free will given them by God.

    The other person is judged by rigid Catholics, torn to shreds by doctrine and dogma and must walk on eggs around them for fear of a reprisal.

    Rigid Catholics forget love and kindness, but most of all they forget about joy because joy cannot seep into a rigid iron rod.

  9. Well, our own diocesan newspaper, the Arlington Catholic Herald, had nothing to say against the wedding and its reporting. But, who would listen to the Herald for truth? Certainly not me. Mary Fran

  10. Kurt, go soak your head. You need to cool off.

  11. Kurt, the term "First Lady" means that she is wife of the President

    She is not his wife according to the Catholic faith (if that means anything to you). Certainly she and Stormy both have a certainly relationship with him. But just as Catholics have religious freedom not to recognize gay marriages, they have the same freedom (and obligation) not to recognize Melania/Melandie.

  12. I don't get it. Meghan is shamed for the same thing as Melanie gets a pass on. I guys I'm a wet blanket too.

  13. I don't know about the rest of any of you reading this, but I for one am GLAD THAT KURT IS NOT GOD and I'm sure Melania would be worried about that possibility..

    We'd all be cast into hell with one glance of Kurt's glaring, fault-finding eyes looking for every little thing we do wrong, anything not in compliance with every canon law and every paragraph of the Catechism, every single word in Scripture and every bit of every writing of every pope, plus all the writings of every saint who ever lived.

    Actually, if judged like that, the only person left on the face of the earth would be KURT! Or rather, we'll all be in hell and KURT will be the only person in Heaven, making sure God doesn't do anything wrong.

    Because it's all about "not doing anything wrong". Right? Nothing to do with invincible ignorance, hope, future spiritual growth, conversion or kindness, mercy, forgiveness, joy and love. No smiling, no laughing, no loving, no mercy. Just walk the line, or ELSE!

  14. Can we all take a deep breath here.

    Kurt has made a legitimate point -- i.e., that Melania is NOT the legitimate wife of Donald Trump according to God's law. Neither is Meghan the legitimate wife of Prince Harry. They are both, like the woman at the well.

    Rohrbach, your use of the word "shamed" is like a neon sign of political correctness. No one has given Melania and Donald Trump a "pass" on the marriage issue. I am simply saying that she has behaved in a way that doesn't reflect badly on the role of "first lady" however you define that term. And the president has done more for the babies in these short two years than any president before him. Thank you, Donald Trump.

    I don't know enough about Melania Trump and Stormy Daniels to know whether Kurt's comparison is valid. I'm aware that Melania did some pretty lewd photo shoots as a model. Has she also been a porn movie star? Frankly, I admire her reticence. She isn't out there shooting off her mouth all the time like Michelle Obama.

    The fact is most of us have things in our past that we'd hate a spotlight shining on. At least I do. So let's, as Christians, cut each other some slack. I hope Meghan is as dignified as Melania in her new role as Princess. It's hard to live in a goldfish bowl.

    I'm praying for both the ladies and the only people I think should be ashamed are those Catholics who act like being a glamorous celebrity merits gushing admiration.

  15. Kurt et al, circle around Melania. Kurt, you cast the first stone.

  16. The first stone was cast by Mary Ann Kreitzer is the OP, if that is your test.

    Forcing Catholics (real ones, not fake ones) to call someone the wife of the President when she is not is a violation of our religious freedom to define marriage according to the Church. Instead you claim Catholic religious freedom is politically incorrect and Catholics should just keep quite about true marriage of out fear of upsetting powerful people.

    Marriage -- claimed and real -- are public acts and therefore the public may comment on it. You note I have not brought up Melania's erotic and lesbian photos, which are private matters.

  17. Kurt, this is a little disingenuous. How has anyone "forced" you, (presumably a "real" Catholics as opposed to those you think are "fake" Catholics) to say or not say anything? Have any of your comments been deleted or not published?

    We can have an argument in the Socratic sense or engage in a litany of ad hominems. I'm about to close comments if the nonsense continues. Let's all act like grownups.

    You know Bathsheba could be described as the "hussy" of KIng David. That didn't keep God from establishing the kingdom of Israel through his line and then the kingdom of God through his Son Jesus who was born in the line of David. God sometimes uses strange instruments to accomplish His will.

  18. I believe in the Church's teaching on marriage. And I don't change my view to please a favored politician. Therefore I cannot refer to her as "First Lady." At best, she might be his Third Lady, if you count Stormy as the Fourth.

    You are like the liberals who defend Obama because the abortion rate went down in his presidency, saying that results matter more than behavior. Or the ones who say we can never judge right and wrong in our society.

    You had no difficulty writing May 25, 2018 at 10:16 PM

    Mary Ann Kreitzer said...
    Is it okay for Catholics to "accept" a rapist and sexual predator like Bill Clinton with his foul-mouthed wife as "first lady" because they've remained married?

    I am just consistent. I don't accept any of this behavior. (I do believe marriage is for life, so yes, I am not one those hypocrites that said Hillary should have left Bill, cad that he is No Catholic can say that).

    God first, politics second.

  19. "God first, politics second."

    I agree, Kurt. Does that mean you never vote because none of the politicians are perfect?

  20. My faith is not compromised by a political calculation. Whomever I vote for, I witness Catholic truth without reservation. Are you saying we make some political calculation and then stay silent or deny Catholic truth? You seem to be a real liberal relativist.

  21. I don't need them to grovel but trump and wife don't seem repentant about their past lives, leading me to assume they could revert to type just as easily. Most of his accomplishments have been on paper or hot air. Even Judge Neil "Scalia - walking around person's" Gorsuch.
    Alan Keyes, while not perfect, is a lot more impeccable ( and thus less vulnerable to feminist whinging). He has suffered a good deal from media abuse over not embracing daughters lesbian lifestyle. He acutely understands the problems of today.
    He deserves our support for 2020.

  22. Well, Kurt, you seem to be prone to severe rash judgment. It is not a relativist position to choose and vote for a candidate from a field where all are flawed. Of course, one can write in Mickey Mouse or G. K. Chesterton (as one member of the Chesterton Society advocated last election cycle). That just seems stupid to me. I always vote for the candidate who I think will do the most good or the least harm.

    I disagree with your assessment of Trump's accomplishments all being on paper, rohrbachs. The USCCB's pro-life chairman has acknowledged Trump's pro-life accomplishments.

    We don't live in a perfect world and making the best decisions one can in prayer seems to me to be totally in line with the struggle to do God's will and advance the gospel.

    I'm glad your faith is "not compromised by a political calculation," Kurt. Neither is mine. Since God is the Creator and lover of the babies in the womb, my "political calculation" always puts them, the least ones, at the center of my political decisions. It's why I was a rescuer and went to jail. I think Jesus and His Blessed Mother would heartily approve.

    It appears you are a real Trump hater, Kurt, and nothing he does can possibly be deserving of praise. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But taking pot shots at a woman, regardless of her past, is unmanly. Don Quixote converted Aldonza by treating her like Dulcinea even when she was a "slut" (self-described) or a "hussy" as you would describe her. Jesus, Himself, said people like that were getting into heaven ahead of the pharisees. But perhaps he was "liberal relativist" too.

  23. Kurt is an iron rod, the rigid type Catholic that Pope Francis talks about. There is only the law for him. The Lord will judge Kurt as Kurt judges others. For Kurt's sake, let's hope he is perfect.

  24. One more comment...It isn't as if there was never interest in Donald Trump as a Republican candidate. Way back when, Ronald Reagan asked Donald Trump to run as a Republican candidate for the Presidency. However at the time, Trump was getting a divorce from Ivanna. Ivanna had just published a book on how terrible Trump was (her emotions speaking) and Trump, in his wisdom, told President Reagan that if he ran, he would never win because public opinion was against him at the time. That must have been true because I read Ivanna's book and thought he was terrible and never would have voted for him then. Situations change in thirty years and God works in mysterious ways.

    We had Benedict XVI and Obama, that is, a holy pope for the Church holding up God's commands to the world vs Obama, upholding evil - abortion, euthanasia, transgenderism, Islam. Then we had Pope Francis and Obama - liberalism for the entire world for a few years.

    Francis wasn't going to hold to orthodoxy and someone had to do it or the good half of the people of the world would have been swallowed up by the bad. Who is standing in the way of evil? Donald Trump.

    So we have the roles reversed with President Donald Trump upholding God's moral law, while the Pope seems to destroy it.

    Also, Trump's IQ is 156, almost at Einstein's level of 160.

    Not everyone is Catholic and King Cyrus wasn't Jewish but God can use anyone where He sees fit to fulfill His will. Just think what might have been if the Cardinals had listened to the Holy Spirit in the last conclave and not elected Francis. They followed their own wills, not God's. If a storing orthodox pope had been elected, perhaps Hillary would have would have been too good to be true to have a good pope AND Donald Trump.

  25. Mary Ann Kreitzer said...
    It is not a relativist position to choose and vote for a candidate from a field where all are flawed.

    No, it is not. What is relativist and a political calculation is once you have chosen a flawed candidate to refuse to acknowledge his flaws and demand others remain silent as well. Especially when his flaws go to the core of Catholic teaching. Somehow you are far to the Left of "Amoris Laetitia" when it comes to Trump. Maybe you think A.L. should have been MORE permissive.

    But taking pot shots at a woman, regardless of her past, is unmanly.

    So you also think I should not have been critical of Hillary? (As I was and am)

    For that matter, didn't you say? Mary Ann Kreitzer said...
    Is it okay for Catholics to "accept" a rapist and sexual predator like Bill Clinton with his foul-mouthed wife as "first lady" because they've remained married?

    There really is a stink developing here.

    And let me just add to rohrbach's very insightful observation on Gorsuch. He has yet to rule on an abortion case, so praise can be held off until then -- or at least demanding that others share your prediction of future events (soothsaying is a mortal sin BTW, so have some humility on this). My guess is that he might (MIGHT) vote pro-life on strict interpretation grounds or some other rationale. But he worships at a parish that celebrates same sex marriages and promotes abortion. He might be of the minority opinion within his congregation on these questions, but he certainly feels that good Christians can be pro-abortion and pro-same sex "marriage" and even put him under the pastoral yoke of a minister who does, and receive communion from the hand of a minister whose same hands may have performed a same sex "marriage the day before. (note bene of course, this "communion" is no more valid than Trump's marriage to Melania/Melodie. )

  26. Who's predicted future events?

    And who ever said that Trump has no flaws or Melania for that matter?

    I find your comments baffling and, frankly, somewhat ridiculous.

    So go haunt another blog because I've decided your statement that we're demanding you be silent to be appealing, so I'm not posting any more of your comments. You can go exercise your fingers on someone else's blog.

    And you're right about the stink. I smell sulphur in most of what you've written here. The only virtue that exists after death is charity and you have shown very little of it, but a huge dose of self-righteousness and rash judgment.