The New York Times Loves a Good Love Story

[JimG]

Doesn’t everybody?

A few weeks ago, the Times published another triumphant love story, this about two writers and how “the road not taken beckons anew,” how star-crossed lovers finally found each other after years of email and longing. It is the story of how Michael Ruhlman and Ann Hood found each other down through the years and how wonderful it all has been.

A love story with a lot of twists and turns, and a happy ending–depending on your place in the story.

crisismagazine.com/2017/new-york-times-loves-good-love-story

 

[Fiasco]

Doesn’t everybody?

A love story with a lot of twists and turns, and a happy ending–depending on your place in the story.

The only thing i can think of is to DITTO Austin Ruse’s own words:

…what romantic and philosophical bosh!

After thinking that my opinion of the “integrity” of that publication couldn’t sink any lower…
But of course, the writer of that fantasy piece didn’t lie, just left out the inconvenient parts.

Someone should do a Romeo and Juliet piece about the tragic love between Eva Braun and her lover.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Ok, I gather that Mr. Ruse was trying to write about how divorce damages families etc.

What I don’t get is why he needed to pick a seemingly random couple from The NY Times and let us know about their pasts. Maybe Mr. Rhulman is Jewish and received a “get” in order to remarry? What if neither first marriage was sacramentally valid before, but the current marriage is valid now?

Why are the sins of this couple any of my business?

 

[Irishmom2]

The only reason I can see that’s it’s anyone’s business is that they put it all out there for the world to see, Mary Gail.

What a diss to their ex’s and to their children.

And the separated at birth and meant to be together stuff is just so much like something kids in middle school think up. Maybe they deserve to be together after all.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The only reason I can see that’s it’s anyone’s business is that they put it all out there for the world to see, Mary Gail.

What a diss to their ex’s and to their children.

And the separated at birth and meant to be together stuff is just so much like something kids in middle school think up. Maybe they deserve to be together after all.

Reminds me of the Tori Spelling - Dean McDermott “soulmate” combination that conveniently disregarded their prior spouses. Or how Jessica Seinfeld was married when she first started “dating” Jerry yet the only mainstream side-eye I can recall is a David Letterman joke (and Letterman certainly wasn’t known for spousal fidelity himself). Or Brangelina.

On the other hand, Hollywood celebrities have not been seen as marital role models for a long time. Even Johnny and June Carter Cash committed adultery against their first spouses when they got together.

However, it seems that adultery itself has become mainstream. Certainly, few people (including Catholics) find it a problem to be dating someone who is technically legally married but who is undergoing the divorce process. It seems the overwhelming majority of Catholics who divorce either feel entitled to an annulment as a matter of course, or just don’t care about whether they can re-marry in the Church. And most don’t even start the annulment process until they have Spouse #2 waiting in the wings, and then complain it’s not speedy enough.

There are even cases of “legally separated” married couples who aren’t committed to divorce, but do find it legitmate to “date” and have sex with others, then get back together and apparently don’t consider what happened during the separation to count as adultery. (Similar to the whole “did Ross cheat on Rachel, or does it not count since they were on a break” fandom debate during the Friends sitcom run.)

ETA: What I do find odd is people who seem to see marriage as meaningful only when they want it to be. In all these cases, the 2nd (or 3rd) marriage is supposedly meaningful but the 1st one doesn’t count (and they are not people who believe in annulment). Much as people who see a fetus as a beloved child only when they want it to be.

I think it gets to the point that many people actually see marriage itself as having no meaning, they see a wedding ceremony as merely a celebration of a committed relationship that already exists but not actually changing anything about the nature of the relationship.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The only reason I can see that’s it’s anyone’s business is that they put it all out there for the world to see, Mary Gail.

What a diss to their ex’s and to their children.

And the separated at birth and meant to be together stuff is just so much like something kids in middle school think up. Maybe they deserve to be together after all.

I never heard of them until Austin Ruse mentioned them. Could he not have made the same point without pointing at this specific couple or by using a fictional couple?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Ok, I gather that Mr. Ruse was trying to write about how divorce damages families etc.

What I don’t get is why he needed to pick a seemingly random couple from The NY Times and let us know about their pasts. Maybe Mr. Rhulman is Jewish and received a “get” in order to remarry? What if neither first marriage was sacramentally valid before, but the current marriage is valid now?

Why are the sins of this couple any of my business?

So you think Mr. Ruse is essentially guilty of detraction?

Well it seems Mr. Rhulman could qualify as a “public figure” in the food industry though he’s certainly no Bobby Flay (and I could discuss Flay’s very checkered marital past, too, but then maybe you’d accuse me of detraction against him).

Anyway, I don’t think he is guilty of detraction since the information is already public. And just because a prior marriage was invalid doesn’t mean that there were no sins committed in the breakups of those marriages.

This is one of the issues I have, BTW, with the Catholic approach to annulment, that it makes the whole marriage irrelevant as well as any sins committed against the putative spouse. Do you really think these two can get off scot-free in terms of sin, if their past marriages were invalid?

So, let’s say someone cheats on his wife, divorces her, and later the marriage is declared null. All this time, he has not gone to Confession for committing adultery, either because he’s a bad Catholic, or not a Catholic at all. (But AFAIK neither of these things are barriers to getting an annulment.)

Let’s say this guy eventually converts or reverts; does this mean he does NOT have to confess the sin of adultery, since the marriage was invalid?

 

[Crusaderbear]

Concerning the original NYT piece: Love story? Hardly…self serving ego trip, definitely. Praying morality can return to our society!

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Concerning the original NYT piece: Love story? Hardly…self serving ego trip, definitely. Praying morality can return to our society!

What I’d worry about is, even if we bend over backwards to be charitable to this couple and assume all their previous marriages were invalid, we still get to the point that the NYT article is portraying the state of being “in love” with one person while married to another, to be romantic, not problematic.

Now, the idea of romanticizing adultery is nothing new, of course. The King Arthur stories gave us not only Lancelot and Guinevere, but Tristan and Iseut, as well (though the latter may not actually have met criteria for mortal sin as they were under the influence of love potion).

However, one difference is that both these romances end tragically. They lovers do not live happily ever after, at the end.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

What I’d worry about is, even if we bend over backwards to be charitable to this couple and assume all their previous marriages were invalid, we still get to the point that the NYT article is portraying the state of being “in love” with one person while married to another, to be romantic, not problematic.

Now, the idea of romanticizing adultery is nothing new, of course. The King Arthur stories gave us not only Lancelot and Guinevere, but Tristan and Iseut, as well (though the latter may not actually have met criteria for mortal sin as they were under the influence of love potion).

However, one difference is that both these romances end tragically. They lovers do not live happily ever after, at the end.

I think Mr. Ruse should have contacted the couple privately.

He called out their sins. Why? So they can repent, or so that we can learn from it? Well considering that Crisis Magazine is for Catholics, I assume the readers already know that adultery is wrong.

Is this couple Catholic? Is writing about them going to cause them to say, “Oh, let’s breakup because this is wrong?” Is there anything we can do about it except pray?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I think Mr. Ruse should have contacted the couple privately.

He called out their sins. Why? So they can repent, or so that we can learn from it? Well considering that Crisis Magazine is for Catholics, I assume the readers already know that adultery is wrong.

I think Mr. Ruse’s intent might actually be similar to yours, when you have stated multiple times on CAF, your distaste and disapproval of certain comments and actions of the current POTUS. Why haven’t you contacted him privately? And why have you bothered to do that in a Catholic forum, where readers should already know that adultery, making lewd comments about women, and sexual harassment is wrong?

Now, I actually agree with your sentiments on Trump but we both know that is not the case for many on CAF.

Unfortunately not all Catholics even on CAF would agree that all adultery is wrong. I opened a related topic on Family Life as to whether posters would date a divorced person, or even an “almost divorced” person and so far at least 3 posters have stated that they would, or at least wouldn’t judge someone who did (albeit, one of them is Orthodox).

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I think Mr. Ruse’s intent might actually be similar to yours, when you have stated multiple times on CAF, your distaste and disapproval of certain comments and actions of the current POTUS. Why haven’t you contacted him privately? And why have you bothered to do that in a Catholic forum, where readers should already know that adultery, making lewd comments about women, and sexual harassment is wrong?

Now, I actually agree with your sentiments on Trump but we both know that is not the case for many on CAF.

Unfortunately not all Catholics even on CAF would agree that all adultery is wrong. I opened a related topic on Family Life as to whether posters would date a divorced person, or even an “almost divorced” person and so far at least 3 posters have stated that they would, or at least wouldn’t judge someone who did (albeit, one of them is Orthodox).

Well, is the couple in question (whom I don’t know) running a campaign for public office as conservatives? All I know is that they got married and started their relationship while married to someone else. Are they Catholic? What was the point of writing this article? That society tolerates divorce and remarriage? Could he not make the point without specifying this couple?

 

[ThisOne]

Doesn’t everybody?

A love story with a lot of twists and turns, and a happy ending–depending on your place in the story.

crisismagazine.com/2017/new-york-times-loves-good-love-story

I’d forgotten or never really heard those scriptures about the heart. Thanks for posting that link; it’s a truly tragic story.

 

[ThisOne]

Unfortunately not all Catholics even on CAF would agree that all adultery is wrong.

I’m surprised to hear this. Are there any Catholic forums without this sort of infection?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’m surprised to hear this. Are there any Catholic forums without this sort of infection?

I don’t frequent other Catholic forums and I’m not sure I’m allowed to link them, but I’d assume many of the Traditionalist forums would have a harder line about the topic of adultery.

I should point out though that CAF has never restricted membership to practicing Catholics, so it was never the intention of CA to ensure the forum was “free of infection”.

Now, I’m not saying anyone here actually thinks “adultery” is okay if someone does it while married not only legally but still sharing a “common life” with the spouse.

However, once there is a civil divorce in place, it seems many on CAF would not find people who remarry, or even just have sexual relationships, to be guilty of adultery the way they would be if they were still sharing a common life with the first spouse. Certainly, people in such situations are not given a tenth of the criticism, that active adulterers who are still legally married to and living with their spouses get, on the rare occasion they post on CAF and try to justify their adultery.

Although there are certainly many who would state “no that is still adultery and you cannot receive Communion unless and until you get an annulment”. But some think that merely having a conscience that proclaims “the first marriage was invalid” is enough, and going through the nullity process is not actually required.

Others think the Church should make some kind of exception for “innocent spouses” of a divorce and some even think the Church is already doing this on the down-low and granting Decrees of Nullity on specious pretexts, when what’s really going on is “granting mercy” to the innocent spouse, essentially Catholic Divorce with Cause.

Some also think that only Catholics are bound to the idea of marriage as truly “death do you part”. Mary Gail seems to think the man here might be off the hook because he is Jewish and Judaism does allow for divorce.

 

[tomarin]

Ok, I gather that Mr. Ruse was trying to write about how divorce damages families etc.

What I don’t get is why he needed to pick a seemingly random couple from The NY Times and let us know about their pasts. Maybe Mr. Rhulman is Jewish and received a “get” in order to remarry? What if neither first marriage was sacramentally valid before, but the current marriage is valid now?

Why are the sins of this couple any of my business?

Michael Ruhlman is a famous (although not a household name, apparently) food writer - I don’t recognize his lady friend’s name however.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Michael Ruhlman is a famous (although not a household name, apparently) food writer - I don’t recognize his lady friend’s name however.

I think the issue is whether Mr. Ruhlman qualifies as a “public figure” or not. I tend to say “yes” based on his profession, I also doubt the NYT would have found his love life worth mentioning in the first place, if they didn’t think he was a notable person.

John Edwards’s sins were certainly discussed by many people and very few were sympathetic to him, but I don’t recall anyone questioning motivations or asking “What is the point of discussing this on CAF, Catholics should know cheating on your terminally ill wife, fathering a child out of wedlock, and having your underling staffer take the blame for it is wrong”.

However I do recall a book written by an Edwards defender that cast his wife in a very poor light and insinuated she was to blame for the failure of the marriage. And I do recall a recent article on Edwards that was actually quite sympathetic. So yes, there are ways to prettify adultery, but I do think in that case most see his behavior as scummy and indefensible, no matter their political allegiances.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

The other day, while searching for my eye doctor’s on google, I found a write up of his wedding from about 20 years ago. In an important news paper. He’s just a regular eye doctor. But the paper included a short article about his wedding.

I never heard about this Rhulman person.

But, he’s a cook book author, if I understand. I think there is a difference between cooking and being an elected official like Trump or Edwards.

My objection to Austin ruses article is that he wanted to show that divorce and remarriage is not good. And he used an actual couple and critiqued the New York Times for writing about a love story.

Many celebrities have been divorced and remarried. Zhazha Gabor, for example. Or Elizabeth Taylor. Or currently J. Lo. Or Kim Kardashian. Etc.

I do agree that marriage is suffering. Divorce is a tragedy. But I also think he could have made the same point without bringing this specific couple up.

 

[ThisOne]

I do agree that marriage is suffering. Divorce is a tragedy. But I also think he could have made the same point without bringing this specific couple up.

I think his point was that the Times made such a big deal about a supposedly glorious thing when in fact it’s tragic, not glorious.

 

[Irishmom2]

I think his point was that the Times made such a big deal about a supposedly glorious thing when in fact it’s tragic, not glorious.

I agree, that is what I took away from it also. I would think that the couple was okay with the Times story, as they must have spoken to the reporter. The piece linked is an opinion piece on the Times article.