Wow, I wonder why something like this will draw me out of retirement (from the frying pan into the fire)?  

I also wonder why something like this -- romance in the Internet? -- needed to be announced publicly.  I would have kept in under wraps; it's nobody's business but the two of them.  Thus no scandal -- that is, if both were regular FE members, nobody would raise an eyebrow.  But Vox is a public person, almost everybody knows her.

I am as perplexed as most people here.

http://www.alcazar.net

Gee Benedicta, do you think having a life coincides with God's will? I heard the same "get a life" argument from pro-murder drivers when I pray before Planned Parenthood. Secularism is a virtue, and the only vice is working for the glory of God.

Of course you will deny this assertion, but realize no one is forcing you to post into a thread and contribute, and your only contribution was that of passive secularism.

Having read a little bit over there, it would seem that by making this situation public, a clear explanation of the relevant circuмstances also needs to be made at some point.  Eighteen years and three children is pretty heavy stuff, although one day and the right circuмstances (which are usually present) would be similarly heavy.

If I want to keep my business private, I keep it private.  Such is easily done.  If I choose to publicly announce something like this, it only makes sense that it will become necessary to provide certain details in order to prevent scandal.  Not knowing much about the facts, I will simply say that the chances of two (four) such people being invalidly (non-)married is slim - not an impossibility, but very unlikely.  That said, these strange days seem to see more and more of what was once rare.

I'm going to keep my comments to myself and pray for them.  I wonder what it would be like if more people tried that.  It's just that, I have this thing, it's called a life.

I think the 'self-righteous folder' is on page two of the forum homepage. :wink:

Btw, if you left out the second half of the post, you would have been fine.

This whole thing is a sham. Either they shut down the forum and stop allowing their immorality to flourish on it, or they should do a public retraction. We have an obligation to point out this travesty.

I was deleted after I posted on the 2nd page. Trust me when I tell you they wanted a welcome party, not a Catholic voice. They wanted to celebrate and I gave them the line "it's not lawful to marry your brother's wife" line and they freaked out.

I agree that FishEaters is a scandal to to those who seek the path to holiness in true Catholicism. Not just this situation was a scandal but also there have many many other scandalous posts (ie.. views on immodesty, rock music, allowing obscene photos, graphic sɛҳuąƖ posts, etc...

FishEaters is the traditionalists version of EWTN. EWTN has many conservative and true Catholic elements to it, but it also has many elements that are modernist and don't lead people to true holiness. Just as many good-willed Catholics and potential converts are led astray by EWTN (thinking it represents true Catholicism) so it is that many people are also being led astray by the often worldly elements of FE.

I read your post. There was nothing in it that would warrant having your account deleted - nothing at all. I'm shocked. I can understand if someone had a history of being rude, obnoxious, attacking on FE. But to delete a post you did that was charitable in tone and attitude is appalling. But many people have been deleted from there unjustly also. Vox and her Gustapo tactics acts the same way as communists try to silence those they don't want to be heard.

Here's what was admitted so at least my statistical average is correct. Tracy (Vox) said:

He is getting an annulment

Now she says she doesn't need one, yet won't say whether or not if she and her husband were both Catholics.

Either way it proves my A and B scenario which is 100%.

Now we know Joe is married by God and by the Church 100%. He was married 18 years. His defense for this act is very simply that she asked for the divorce. Instead of fighting it he agreed and now within a year he's getting shacked up with another woman.

The only true answer is to wait and do things properly in the eyes of God. I don't know any man who after 18 years of marriage can say to God they weren't married.

Thank you guys for at least bringing up this terrible issue.

You wrote that VOX stated Joe is getting an annulment.

Until a person gets an annulment from the Church, they are not allowed to even date (because they are still married until the Church decrees that they are not).

Even if a person sincerely believes that their marriage was invalid and will qualify for an annulment, they cannot date anothr person because it is not up to them to decide but the Church. If it was up to a person's personal belief about the validy of marriage, then why even bother having an annulment tribunal through the Church?

So, Vox and Joe committed sin if they started dating before Joe received an annulment from the Church.

Apparently, you haven't read Vox's explanation. Also, Mike's post on the thread wasn't deleted. Another one was.

Apparently she never allowed my other post to stand which was similar and was not harsh. I never attempted to flame anyone over there. The other post for which I was deleted was no flaming of the sort. If you were allowed to see my post you would see it was me telling the other posters not to celebrate in someone seeking help about their life and opening up their soul in order to get help. After the poster was being treated like a long-lost hero instead of trying to give good advice she got more bold when asked about how to remedy her life in marriage. This same poster and author of the thread involved shouldn't have said she didn't care about having a nice wedding but that she wanted mariachis and good friends which was more important and no one said a word other than people doing this -->  :rahrah:

My post for which I was deleted was a simple reminder of what's important as a Catholic and our obligation to help and not encourage others who come to us with problems. I can guarantee you it had more to do with my post about their marriage and they are going to use the excuse that my other post is why I got booted. If so... why not keep it up and you be the judge? I can tell you why, because it would uncover their unstable position of saying it was for something else and because other people already responded to what I said about their sham marriage which made deleting my posts and account an easier excuse after people saw and responded to my post. I received no warning. I've read much, much worse with no banning from other people and they were warned first. I never used inappropriate language or said anyone was evil, wicked, or the like.

And I'm not upset I'm banned, it's not my forum and she can do whatever she wants, I'm upset that the person who owns the site claims to have traditional leanings in Catholicism and makes such a declaration publicly of living in public sin for years with a man who we now know is not her husband, then running to a married man. The details should have kept quiet. Mind you, if Vox (Tracy) wanted to stop me from posting terrible things and really wanted to keep me around she would've warned me, her approach was more about her, and I can assure you of that and her cover-up saying it was about my other posts is a farce. She's seen me argue with people over there and she knows I would ask harder questions, but I can solemnly assure you I would not excoriate her and belittle her. Bottom line is she knew what was coming and she wanted no more of it.  

This entire thread is for the purpose of stopping public scandal and an atrocious example as a traditional Catholic who does wield influence.  

Perhaps you're referring to some of my posts. I, at least, always attach warning labels to those who would be scandalized at my posts. Still, I'll admit I was a bit careless with some of my posts.

It's a sad day when a traditional Catholic has to post warning labels to their content. If you were careless you have to understand the damage that can be done when you post something. Ideas and words have consequences, and while I understand you may retrospectively realize it was careless, you have to understand the overall effect your words have.

We are all role models. What I've seen at FishEaters is the Protestant version of Catholicism in morals and the unbelievable approval of such immorality. I mean you have a skin-headed woman over there who says asinine things, labels herself "nice" as her screen name, while having an obsession with a wonderful Catholic woman Colleen Hammond. It's the worst type of neo-Catholicism because they pretend they love the Church's traditions while giving approbation to decadence.

Magdalene is right, it's like EWTN, but worse. EWTN would never say congrats to public declarations of indecent situations. Have we become so blind that while pretending to love the traditional expressions of the faith we don't love the harder truths of Our Blessed Lord and Holy Mother Church that should've inspired us in the first place?

It baffles me the me the most that the cronies over there think I'm some type of monster for saying these things while someone who is in the process of committing public adultery and  admitted to living in public sin with a false husband is more problematic than the person who said this should have all been discreetly done never mentioned publicly to begin with. One moron said I shouldn't cast stones, and I wasn't, I was finishing the line to the sinner that everyone forgets that Our Lord said:

GO AND SIN NO MORE