“Lurv” And Modern Society.

St Valentine converted to Christianity, not to stupidity.

St Valentine converted to Christianity, not to stupidity.


Today is St Valentine, which is rapidly advancing to Stupidest Day of the Year (after Halloween).

Countless people will go out and eat in an expensive restaurant with their second of third spouse, to which they will probably (if we are lucky) express their undying faith in eternal love. Restaurants owners milk this for all they can, and I have heard a couple of colleagues moan aloud already (whether they dared to do it at home, I did not want to ask).

My parents never ever went out for St Valentine, as their generation did not have money for such luxuries. They made children instead, funny people as they were. Fifty years of happy marriage, though. I wonder about all those third-marriage, “romantic and very expensive restaurant” couples.

St Valentine is a good indicator of our modern world. Marriages get more and more expensive, and their average life gets increasingly shorter. It’s fair to say a good minority of marriage live less long than a car. But the business of “lurv” goes on undeterred.

I read some ten years ago a statistic of divorces in Frankfurt am Main, Germany: 70% in the first ten years. Congratulations to the Bride and the Bridegroom. Better to decide now who will keep the new car, though…

I remember seeing a romantic comedy called “The Heartbreak Kid” some years ago. He marries twice in two or three years’ time. She marries “only” once. At the end they marry each other, but hey, they “understand what it is to be married to someone you don’t love”. No, they were not talking of buying a wrong garment. They were talking of marriage.

Americans must have found the entire “three divorces in one and a half hour” funnily romantic. I do not even know a single Italian who was married twice. Not even a widower! To me it wasn’t romantic at all. It was madness.

“Love” has become a commodity at high content of fluff, a very expensive chasing of a dream which, once dreamt, will be substituted by another dream, and so on.

I once was at a business dinner with a chap in his early Sixties. His children had children, but he was talking at lenght about his “girlfriend”. I felt pity for the poor man, but he seemed to be living a sort of mini adrenaline rush, and hoping that this state of excitement never ends.

Oh it will. Leaving, perhaps, another broken family.

I am sure the man had very expensive St Valentine Day’s dinners. These people are the joy of restaurant owners.






Posted on February 14, 2015, in Traditional Catholicism. Bookmark the permalink. 18 Comments.

  1. I married my far better half on St Valentine’s Day, 24 years ago…what a blessing!

  2. You will most certainly not endear yourselves to the many happily married, happily divorced, finally annulled (or not), happily remarried couples out there, you know. After all, “love means never having to say your sorry” and all that, and many parents probably have yet to apologize to their kids for making them a set of numbers in some researchers study. The spouses are happy, the lawyers are happy, the judge is happy, but the kids mostly have painted-on smiles to appear happy, just so mom and/or dad stay happy. Is this not the modern way – the kids sacrifice their happiness so that mom and/or dad can finally find “peace & luv” with another? I mean, certainly Christ did not suffer just so they would be required to suffer through an insufferable marriage, right? they ask…Surely this is not what “I do” meant, was it? they ask…He wants us all to have happy marriages, doesn’t he? they ask…to raise good, Catholic orthodox children, right? they ask…

    I read today that Eve Marie Saint, the Oscar winner from “On the Waterfront” has been married for 63 years – to her one and only spouse and who she vowed to love, honor and obey til death…An oasis in the cesspool of Hollywood marriage-go-rounds that surprised even me. And she is Catholic to boot, apparently. Just goes to show you it can be done.

    My parents had a contentious marriage for 50+ years…yet, stayed together, became very good friends, drove around the country in their motor home during retirement til mom got sick and became comatose. It was Dad who nursed her to the end – in the comfort of the home they shared for most of those 50+ years. Such is the dichotomy of two marriages – and in between you have all the Catholic divorced and remarried’s wanting back “in” after ditching the marital Cross and first spouse they vowed to uphold and honor til death.

    Forgive me if I don’t cry over their spilled and spoiled milk. The “DRM’s” (divorced & remarried’s) got nuthin…those two couples above have and have had it all – in spades – simply because of the green under the ring on their fingers.

    Sorry for the rant, M…

    • Here in Europe it is not so easy to get an annulment. I think it depends on the fact that marriage was traditionally seen as a sacrament in many Countries. I do not know any “annulled and remarried”, but if a marriage has been annulled I would say we go with the Church and consider it annulled, unless we see patent abuse going on (say: both lied, and so on).

      Of course, there would be huge problems looming if madmen like Francis impose their implicit view that everyone who, say, marries an atheist has a right to annulment. Then we would be in front of the very Pope demolishing a sacrament.

      Again, I do not have any experience of these “annulment people”, so I talk from a theoretical perspective.

      Congratulation to your parents. My parents used to say marriage is “the prison you chose”. A happy couple, though. But it shows you the mentality with which they went into it. Very rare to find it nowadays.


    • Unfortunately, I have direct experience with being “annulled and remarried”, being one myself after 22 years and 10 kids, so my perspective is anything but theoretical. I agree that if the Church pronounces ones marriage as annulled, we are bound in Conscience to accept its validity. But as the majority are – at least in the US – been overturned upon appeal from the many errors of the tribunals (mine unfortunately, was not), reason alone causes one to extend to that statistic valid arguments to question their justice and charity.

      Regardless, when you have (1) petitioners who are the only one of the two spouses involved that wants out of a marriage and marital vows, (2) the Church requires civil divorce before accepting annulment petitions and (3) the Church simply refuses to acknowledge the damage done to Children in civil divorces and proceeds on-wards as though it is only petitioners who are affected and are deserving of their happiness, it all becomes just one, extremely large and very un-Catholic gross violation of the greatest of the Theological Virtues – Charity. And this can only be said of post-VII annulments, as statistics bear out. The liberal application of “self-fulfillment” in post-VII annulments has overtaken Charity, as well as justice, in my opinion.

      Sociologist Robert Vasoli’s book laid to bare the travesty that is post-V II annulments and, though 20+ years old, is still a good read to gain needed insight.

    • Can you explain a bit better, Dave? It is not clear to me whether you are one seeking annulment, or resisting to it. And what does it mean that many are overturned? The first degree says annulment, and the appeal says “no, you are still married”? I understand this would be a huge issues where both spouses want to get rid of their vows and therefore do not appeal the decision.


    • My apology for the lack of clarity…respondent in both divorce and annulment, never actively promoted either, tried to stop both. Former wife remarried; parent-child estrangement is still extant after 5 years; still faithful to both first vows and one and only wife.

      Robert Vasoli’s 1998 book “What God Has Joined Together” documents over 10 years worth of statistics that revealed an above 90% rejection of C.1095 US annulments by the Rota. It’s an excellent book still valued as an authoritative source by many.

      If both spouses want divorce and annulment, can’t argue that point. But I will argue when only one wants it, especially when kids are involved. The Church tacitly approves divorce by accepting that civil divorce=irreparably broken marriages. How do they know its irreparably broken when they hear of and talk with only one spouse, and then fail to apply the numerous Canon Laws to attempt to reconcile the spouses?

      I don’t and have never denied the need for the annulment process and, again, agree that they must be believed valid by all, as you stated above. But the statistics for both pre and post VII annulments tell that something is seriously wrong, either with the process or with C.1095.2 & .3 defective consent application. It’s in the book…

      The documented harm that divorce inflicts on children is reason enough to keep in place severe restrictions on annulments, not expanding those reasons to make them easier to obtain.

    • I have, in fact, a problem with “if both want a divorce can’t argue” point. It cannot be that the Church becomes accomplice to a system where first decision ends with an annulment almost by default; it would mean that consensual divorce and remarriage is factually open to Catholics. Absurd.

      Could it be that the increase in annulment is due to the increase in stupid marriages? Just saying. I wonder how many people married in Vegas, or the like, 50 years ago. Whilst the Vegas option is not open to Catholics, in Europe we do have the impression many of you do not really get what a marriage is.

      Again, just saying.

      My solidarity to you. You are a loyal Catholic and your stance does you honour.


    • …one wants a divorce and the other simply acquiesces is more close to my point, then…it almost happened to me before I woke up to the truth, albeit too late. But annulment by default is, nonetheless, seemingly the norm once initiated, considering their meteoric rise, at least here in the US.

      Stupid marriages? Probably, though I doubt in and of itself that would qualify as an invalid marriage.

      Thank you for the complement…there are others doing the same, and for far longer than I have. It’s what the “I Do” truly means, if one truly understands Catholic marriage. “…to Love the unlovable” as Bp. Sheen said, is the unspoken, but inherent possibility in every marriage, Catholic or not. We never know what our answer will be until the question is upon us…

      Keep up the defense of Catholicism, M…I may add your name to my front defensive line list.

    • Beautiful words, Dave.
      Wish you all the best.

    • Mine was a rapidly failed marriage, when I found out my husband was not who he claimed to be (literally). He did not contest either divorce or annulment, but returned to his home country, Australia, to avoid paying child support I believe. I never remarried. He died 20 years later. I raised my sons with the help of my parents, who had a difficult marriage of many years (and eight children). My parents grew to be great friends. My adolescent sons and I cared for them in the years preceding their deaths. I and my sons and their wives and babies are quite close, as a direct result, I think, of helping my parents. I think God gave us that grace.

      You’re right, Mundabor. At least in my case, this American had no clue about marriage, perhaps in part as a result of the wrong university education (psychology) but also as a result of the surrounding culture, which is very much protestant, or post-Christian. I pray that it will not affect my children or grandbabies.

  3. Happy St. Valentines Day to you Mundy:+) God bless~

  4. Thank you for speaking up for the annulment people, Mundabor. I am one of them.

    • Well not saying that everything must be fine in all cases. But as an obedient son of the Church, I will believe first what the Church says.

      If one has gone to confession and has received absolution I will also not question the absolution. The Church says it is so, in principle it is so. If one has lied to the confessor it’s a different matter altogether, but it’s not for me to say.


  5. In the States, shotgun weddings are very much part of the culture. One or more myopic (or insane) parents would plough the process through, and the post-VII Church tends to simply go along with it here. As a matter of fact, I’ve heard more than one howl from irate SSPX parishioners (parents) who’s chaplain insisted the loving couple of next generation wait til baby was born before they’d sanction the marriage.. As was traditional practice…
    In the Old World, Esposito or FitzWilly were not the pariahs they might find themselves in some circles here 😉

    • Not much of a priest, this one….

      By us there’s no “shotgun”, and the mentality of “I luv you and will support you in your decision” isn’t there, either…

  6. It’s no wonder that the Synod is so anti-marriage and family, when the Church has been requiring applicants for annulments to dissolve the marriage insofar as civil recognition goes. If the marriage is valid, the parties ought not be divorced. If the marriage was not valid, the civil authorities ought to recognise this fact. I’m very sorry, David, for the dismissive attitude of the Church toward your marriage. And after, ten children, I would have thought that evidentially, your wife’s actions over 22 years would have tended to confirm consent at the time of entry into marriage. I’m aware that there are many men in your situation, and many hurt children.

  7. Dear Marykpj, If as you say the man that you thought you married had misled you as to crucial aspects of his identity, the marriage could not have been valid, and the state ought to have recognised this and declared it null and void an initio.

%d bloggers like this: