Lat's Moralizing Falls Short

In reading David B. Lat's column "Imposing Morality is Fun" (column, Nov. 28), I was struck not so much by the supposition that "all laws rely on certain assumptions that are distinctly moral in nature," but rather by the morality of absolutism which his support for a ban on divorce demonstrates.

"There are many different moralities in our pluralistic society. What we must realize is that some moralities are simply better than others." Since I do not particularly take issue with this claim, I would like to point out some of the problems I see in the position of the Roman Catholic Church. (After all, I am only exercising the same right Lat did.)

I do not believe that there is anyone who is particularly fond of divorce. Nor is marriage a contract to be treated lightly. Two people who choose to marry should intend to stick with it for life. But the experiences of a lifetime can alter a situation dramatically. If a woman discovers that her face has been permanently damaged by a violent husband, should she try to work it out to maintain the institution of marriage? I am being slightly unfair in this point, since both Lat and the Pope concede that physical separation may be necessary in the case of abusive relationships.

If a woman who has been beaten by her husband meets a good man and wants to remarry within the Church, what should she do? The Roman Church's answer is annullment, whereby the Church says that the marriage never occurred. This is essentially fancy foot work around the morally disturbing problem that a marriage begun with good intentions can fail. (Here at Harvard we aren't very comfortable with the idea of failure either, since so many of us have very little experience with it.)

There is a great hypocrisy in requiring annulment for remarriage within the Church, since powerful, well-connected people can obtain annullments even without any proof that no marriage ever existed what should be done in cases where clear proof of marriage does exist?

Couples who were forced to marry at gunpoint have living proof of consummation. They would have a much more difficult time procuring an annulment. If they discover that they can not stand each other, over time they will come to resent this child who binds them together. Do man, woman or child deserve to suffer to greatly for a mistake one night in the back of a car? Surely, you can not blame the child, but it is the child who may be hurt the most.

Or perhaps we have a couple who married young, confident in their enduring love. Ten years later they are unable even to be civil to each other. Marriage is never easy. Husbands and wives in healthy relationships do not wake up every morning with smiles on their faces, but they are able to go about the business of life: rearing children, working, finding moments of peace in a home unplagued by constant tension.

What would you say to them, Mr. Lat, when they realize that, despite much hard work, they have failed? Would you tell them to be miserable for the rest of their lives? In its own way, that sort of mental torment can be just as destructive as physical abuse.

Of course anyone wishing to remarry within a Christian church should be able to consider why the first marriage was unsuccessful and to give reasons why the new one will be. In many cases remarriage may not be advisable, but an absolute ban on divorce lacks true tolerance which is based on a sympathetic understanding of the natures and problems of real men and women. Abby Vigneron '97