Skip to content
Letters

June 2005

by The Walrus Readers

Published in the June 2005 issue.  » BUY ISSUE     

          Facebook         Stumble        RSS

Divorce is a fact of life, notes a progressive Catholic activist in Ms. Bryden’s story. It is dismissive for the Catholic spokesperson in the article to characterize those of us who object as “disturbed or immature or things like that.” I envision a future in which people try to cope with reality, not circumvent it with false and cynical pretenses. The $4,000 spent by the Catholic Church for each annulment proceeding could better be used to help address the root causes of divorce, rather than pretending “defective consent” is the problem.
Christine Wilson
Colville, Washington


In the midst of his dissertation on charity and love, St. Paul is quoted as saying, “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” This passage is often used in marriage ceremonies, the context of which suggests that spouses are expected to grow up and learn to accept responsibility for their decisions. Yet while some spouses later choose adulterous behaviour, which is ultimately childish, those who attempt to defend the legitimacy of marriage in annulment proceedings are labelled “contentious”—a demeaning and offensive use of the term.

The entire purpose of annulment seems to be to nullify the personal guilt associated with walking away from a sacred, valid commitment in order to selfishly pursue a new relationship. Since the reforms of Vatican II, petitioners seem to be rewarded with annulment regularly, with the endorsement and blessing of Holy Mother Church’s tribunals.
Marilyn O’Brien
Antigonish, Nova Scotia


I am a convent-educated, practising Catholic—and now, it appears, a statistic. I seem to be part of the 2 percent of Canadians who can’t get their marriages annulled. Twice I approached the Church and twice, like Martha in Bryden’s article, I was met with hostility and a total lack of compassion from the officials, who turned me away.

To this day, I don’t know why I was denied access to the canonic machinery that would have declared my marriage null and void. Was it because of gender? Most annulments seem to be graciously granted to men. Was it because, in an excess of ecumenical fervour, I married a Lutheran? In this case, as in many others, Mother Church seems to favour some at the expense of others.
Mari Carmen Capin-Hopf
Montreal, Quebec


Ethical Research?
While I accept the importance of Dr. Rupert Kaul’s search for an hiv/aids vaccine, I must question whether the research being done on the Nairobi prostitutes described by Larry Krotz (“Medical Mystery,” April) is being conducted in an ethical manner. The article implies that the women involved in the study are being used as the basis for an observational study on the natural progression of hiv/aids, and receive free medical care in return. What is not clear, however, is whether they are receiving the best possible care once a diagnosis of hiv/aids has been made, such as receipt of antiretroviral drugs, especially if they are pregnant. Nor is it clear what preventive measures the researchers have taken to ensure that more women are not infected with hiv/aids: measures such as sex education or the provision of condoms—both of which would be considered the “standard of care” and the hallmark of ethical research here in Canada and in other developed countries.

Are these researchers adhering to a lower standard of care in Kenya than they would in Canada simply because the same standard of treatment and/or care is not generally available where their study occurs? Such behaviour would perpetuate the ghettoization of medical research, where researchers set up shop in localities where the standards of care are relatively low and, therefore, research is cheaper.

Comments

Comment on this article


Will not be displayed on the site

Submit a comment online

Submit a letter to the Editor


    Cancel

GET THE WALRUS NEWSLETTER