![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Kidman marriage
When a Hollywood marriage is announced, the wisest thing to ask is "when is the divorce due for?" (That can easily be deduced from the pre-nuptial contract, if it is made public.) It is typical of that topsyturvy place that its most famous and enduring love affair, the one that really did go on till death did them part, was between a married man and a predatory bisexual divorcee.
That is why I cannot join in the fuss about Nicole Kidman's Catholic marriage. Anything to do with the Church, of course, tends to be news these days, and the fact that the actress seems to have moved from Scientology back to the Catholicism of her childhood does seem to have made this even more newsworthy than the average Hollywood temporary association - sorry, "marriage". But, as you will perceive, I do not have any great faith in it. To begin with, she seems to have made very light of her previous association with Tom Cruise. While that means that her taste in men is improving, one would like to know on what grounds the annulment she required for her Catholic wedding was granted.
That is only the first problem. The couple signed a pre-nup, which hardly argues a great faith in the duration of this marriage; and nobody seems to have bothered to explain to Miss Kidman why a white dress and veil was grossly out of place in the marriage of a 39-year-old woman with children. Perhaps the average friend or hanger-on does not explain to a woman with an annual income of umpteen-squinchy million that she has made a serious and laughter-worthy error in taste, but a Catholic priest at least ought to be above that sort of consideration. None of this suggests seriousness. One does feel that sections of the Church have gone into this with a surprisingly light and ill-considered attitude, as in the long-ago case of Tyrone Power. (Particularly surprising in that the diocese is ruled by the splendid Cardinal Pell.) Perhaps they consider that sexual misbehaviour and the collapse of unions however consecrated are things so ordinary in Hollywood lives that, even if they happen this time, the scandal caused will be tiny and practically unnoticed and will do nothing to discredit Catholic marriage - at least, to discredit it further. And if this is the consideration, it is cynical but probably correct. But it does not argue a great concern to defend at all costs the sacrament of marriage against the powers of the World, the Flesh and the Devil. Certainly I hardly imagine that Ms.Kidman has been carefully catechized in the meaning of Catholic marriage - that mighty secret of God that takes 600 articles of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Why did Ms.Kidman even do it, if she saw this marriage as the kind of thing that required a pre-nup? There are two possible answers, one comparatively innocent, one frankly cynical. The cynical one is that the Church is on the up; that the Pope is newsworthy and that there is a certain kind of frisson of rebellious fashion about doing something that is, in Hollywood terms, hardly respectable; and that, above all, an Anglican or Baptist or Orthodox marriage would not have got her as much column space - and a Hindu or Sufi or Qabbalistic Jewish one, hardly any (they are subject to inflation). The more innocent one is that she has, in fact, gone back to her childhood - white wedding in church and all; without much consideration of what it really ought to have meant, but out of a sentimental regard for the shibboleths of her family heritage, and, perhaps, a conscious rejection of the Scientological horrors of her last decade. I expect that the truth is somewhere between.
That is why I cannot join in the fuss about Nicole Kidman's Catholic marriage. Anything to do with the Church, of course, tends to be news these days, and the fact that the actress seems to have moved from Scientology back to the Catholicism of her childhood does seem to have made this even more newsworthy than the average Hollywood temporary association - sorry, "marriage". But, as you will perceive, I do not have any great faith in it. To begin with, she seems to have made very light of her previous association with Tom Cruise. While that means that her taste in men is improving, one would like to know on what grounds the annulment she required for her Catholic wedding was granted.
That is only the first problem. The couple signed a pre-nup, which hardly argues a great faith in the duration of this marriage; and nobody seems to have bothered to explain to Miss Kidman why a white dress and veil was grossly out of place in the marriage of a 39-year-old woman with children. Perhaps the average friend or hanger-on does not explain to a woman with an annual income of umpteen-squinchy million that she has made a serious and laughter-worthy error in taste, but a Catholic priest at least ought to be above that sort of consideration. None of this suggests seriousness. One does feel that sections of the Church have gone into this with a surprisingly light and ill-considered attitude, as in the long-ago case of Tyrone Power. (Particularly surprising in that the diocese is ruled by the splendid Cardinal Pell.) Perhaps they consider that sexual misbehaviour and the collapse of unions however consecrated are things so ordinary in Hollywood lives that, even if they happen this time, the scandal caused will be tiny and practically unnoticed and will do nothing to discredit Catholic marriage - at least, to discredit it further. And if this is the consideration, it is cynical but probably correct. But it does not argue a great concern to defend at all costs the sacrament of marriage against the powers of the World, the Flesh and the Devil. Certainly I hardly imagine that Ms.Kidman has been carefully catechized in the meaning of Catholic marriage - that mighty secret of God that takes 600 articles of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Why did Ms.Kidman even do it, if she saw this marriage as the kind of thing that required a pre-nup? There are two possible answers, one comparatively innocent, one frankly cynical. The cynical one is that the Church is on the up; that the Pope is newsworthy and that there is a certain kind of frisson of rebellious fashion about doing something that is, in Hollywood terms, hardly respectable; and that, above all, an Anglican or Baptist or Orthodox marriage would not have got her as much column space - and a Hindu or Sufi or Qabbalistic Jewish one, hardly any (they are subject to inflation). The more innocent one is that she has, in fact, gone back to her childhood - white wedding in church and all; without much consideration of what it really ought to have meant, but out of a sentimental regard for the shibboleths of her family heritage, and, perhaps, a conscious rejection of the Scientological horrors of her last decade. I expect that the truth is somewhere between.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
The marriage cannot be annulled on the grounds of Cruise not being a Christian. There is a thing called the Pauline Privilege, which says that if one of a couple of non-Christians converts to Christianity after marriage, then the marriage can be annulled on the grounds that baptism amounts to a second birth of the person and changes his/her identity; however, if Kidman was still a Catholic when she married him, then it does not apply. The likeliest grounds for annulment is if they could prove that they never intended their marriage to be permanent, which would make it null and void in Catholic terms. I know very little about canon law, but I do know that some American dioceses grant annulments very easily on that ground, and if Kidman sued for an annulment in the notorious archdiocese of Los Angeles - which is probably where the Cruise marriage took place - likely enough she would have it virtually for the asking. I think you would have some trouble annulling a ten-year marriage on the grounds of fraud or of non-fulfilment, and infidelity is not grounds for annulment in the Church. However, one thing I do know is that the infidelities whispered of about Cruise were not with women - if he turned out to have married her without informing her of this little habit of his, that might well make some kind of ground for fraud or fault in intention.
I'm curious now. I know a canon lawyer and I think I will write and ask for his opinion.
no subject
no subject
I'm afraid I don't quite get the objection to the prenups: rich Catholics have been drawing up contracts affecting who gets what and who controls what property in marriage since at least the Middle Ages, to insure that neither party nor their families are defrauded...even if both families obviously judged each other worth mingling, and were not just trying to do this in order to prevent a war or stabilize a blood feud. Keeping the worst case scenario in mind seems me to be just a matter of acknowledging original sin, so to speak.
no subject
My objection to a pre-nup is that it involves the possibility of divorce. It is like shaking hands with your right hand while crossing your left hand's fingers behind your back. Marriage contracts are not the same thing.
no subject
no subject
That's what made me think that you thought she had been a Scientologist.
And I wholeheartedly agree with you. Scientology is evil. I don't pretend to be the best Christian in the world, and I don't pretend to know anything about Scientology, but the little I've learned of it scares the bejesus out of me. I hope never to have to deal with anything having to do with that scam of a cult.
no subject
In case you were wondering, the famous and enduring Hollywood love affair I mentioned, "between a married man and a predatory bisexual divorcee," was Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn.
no subject
no subject
Image is everything.
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt, but my inner cynic won't allow me to hold my breath while I wait.