Author Topic: FishEaters Insanity (Read 24746 times)

MichaelSolimanto · « **on:** June 15, 2007, 02:13:40 AM »

Everyone and I mean everyone who goes to Fisheaters needs to post at the gross immorality being posted there in the spirit that many of us have been kicked off their forums for being too Catholic.

Anyone who still has rights there has a need in charity to tell Vox and Quis that getting divorced, and then civilly re-married is immoral, as they already left their current spouses. I tell this to you in the same way as Christ who tells us to tell their brother, and then tell the Church. This is not made for detraction or to hurt their reputations, but we need to say something for the immortal souls of those involved.

My account was already deleted for what I posted on page 2, but I implore you in charity, not in a spirit of putting her down, or anyone down, but to remind her of this deep responsibility we have to our spouses. I have not posted there in a while, but this has to be said. I knew they talked about sɛҳuąƖity immorality a bit too loose over there, but now I know it comes from lifestyles, and not a simple denial of Catholic morals.

Here is the link:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1958895&trail=14

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #1 on:** June 15, 2007, 02:49:35 AM »

I'm not maligning anyone Daniel. These are the facts:

-4 people got married
-4 people got divorced and within 1 year...
-2 of those people are getting married to one another in civil matrimony and not by the Church which is an invalid marriage and cohabitation by the rules of the Church and immoral

"What God has joined together let no man put asunder."

Having 2 people who want to be public figures in Catholicism is scandalous. Young people who read that will have the idea that good Catholics can be divorced, remarried, and not need the Church. No matter what the reasons it cannot defy the will of the Church by objective moral grounds.

-There is no subjective reason for civil marriage which trumps the objective
-The grounds for annulments by a Catholic cannot be accepted by adults who have been married for several years unless there is hidden consanguinity that was later discovered, all other claims are spurious at best
-Public releasing of said information is deemed material reason for refutation and exposition and frankly shunning

Our Lord tells us that when someone does wrong we try to correct them, I did, and I was thrown off. Read my post, it was kind and yet pointed to Church teachings with the words of Our Blessed Savior on the immutability of divorce. I was thrown off instead of being addressed on how this is licit to discuss in public.

This isn't detraction, but charity. Detraction has to do with secret faults becoming public. This isn't secretive and it was Tracy (Vox) who brought this to light. Her reasoning notwithstanding does not face the scrutiny of Catholic teaching, and your defense for her is not based on Catholic teaching but sentimentality. I ask you to revise your statement according to Catholic teaching by any legitimate teacher (e.g. saints, popes, Our Lord, etc.).

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #2 on:** June 15, 2007, 02:51:03 AM »

Remember Daniel, it was not I who made this declaration of marriage public, but the parties named therein. I don't see how my asking for help in helping the sinner is in any way misappropriated.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #3 on:** June 15, 2007, 03:58:02 AM »

Sorry Daniel, I stand by the words of Our Lord. Your argument is with Him, and so is Tracy's. Tracy's wanted to be congradulated. Look at her first post of the thread with a champagne bottle. Joe's defense is ridiculous because she no one knows her last name on that board.

No one knows her last name on that board. She was exposing herself and other Catholics to scandalous behavior for a welcoming party of love.

There is nothing that she can make public that would solve the issue and make me look stupid. What can she say? That she was abused, mistreated, hated, etc? And can Joe say the same thing simultaneously and plan evenly spaced divorces within the last year and resort to civil marriage?

No details can change this is wrong. There is nothing on this earth that can change how this is wrong.

You tell me, how could I look stupid? What detail is going to come out and tell me Ne Temere of St. Pius X was wrong, or the teachings of the Council of Trent? Or the teaching on the indissolvibility of marriage. St. Paul tells us how sacred this bond is when he tells us how the unbelieving spouse shall be saved by the believer, and how Our Lord reminds us that those who turn away their spouse make them an adulterer. Nothing is plainer, nothing is more sacrosanct.

It would be like a priest leaving his vocation for marriage and then declaring, "Well you don't know the details. You wait." Sorry, there is nothing to buy. One's bond is for better or for worse. You swear before God and man that your bond is until death.

Then, to make matters worse they boot me off so I cannot stop their celebration of such an event. I was the party pooper and instead of addressing the situation I got booted because it was obvious they want a party, not a reminder of the gravity of the sacrament.

2 closely timed divorces, 2 people marrying each other civilly without the authority of the Church. Sorry Daniel, but you are wrong, and on the wrong side of this. I have nothing to fear that would make me look stupid. No amount of abuse or vitriol of the spouses is going to take away those bonds and those stern admonitions from Jesus Christ, so strong that Peter said, "It is better not to marry" (than to get married and break the bond).

What part of "What God has joined together" to civil unions could I be wrong about?

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #4 on:** June 15, 2007, 04:26:11 AM »

Hey Daniel... still think I'm wrong when someone says (and you aptly note):

"Believe me when I tell you that it is very very tempting for us both at this point to just take off for Las Vegas and "tie the knot". And now, when I see what you two are doing, I really have to wonder why we don't."

My reasons were manifold:
-There is no good reason for what they are doing
-It would cause public scandal (proof above and what you noted)
-Other posters who are bragging about getting knocked up might find solace in the strength of Tracy who just consults a priest and forgets the famous line of St. John Chrysostum that the floor of hell is covered with the skulls of priests

Now tell me where I could be wrong in bringing this public? She needs to be publicly admonished for this, and if at the very least silent about it.

Magdalene · « **Reply #5 on:** June 15, 2007, 04:50:49 AM »

Mike,

Vox was not really married to Ron because it was a civil marriage between them- which means it was never acknowledged as a true marriage in God's eyes.Vox wrote, "I will be civilly married to him for reasons I don't care to delve into; I will do so after a divorce from a civil marriage with Ron". (I underlined the telling part)

As for having a civil marriage with Joe and then later having a sacramental marriage with him, as long as they don't live together or have sex or are causing scandal (but make sure everyone they know knows they are not living together or having sex), I guess there's no real harm in a civil marriage if they are doing it for civil benefits. In other words, if they are married in a civil ceremony first, it changes nothing between their relationship because they will still have to act chastely towards each other as they did when they were just dating (under pain of mortal sin) and they would have to make sure everyone knows this (or else they commit the sin of scandal).

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #6 on:** June 15, 2007, 05:14:43 AM »

Then the scandal gets deeper. A woman who is civilly married should not be making a Catholic forum and promoting Catholicism. This is a travesty beyond all recognition and should be denounced. Secondly, Joe admitted she "moved", and it leaves to the logical understanding that she moved in with him.

2 divorces within a year and now marriages? They left their spouses for each other.

I doubt Joe was just civilly married too. The odds are 1 in 4 if that's the case, and if that's so they should never have started that forum. Public sinners should not be leading others in Catholicism.

There is no guarantee that they will be validated by the Church, and how real is the validation going to be when they left their real spouse (at the very least in Joe's case).

And yes, it's a mortal sin to live with someone in civil union. Proximate occasions of sin which are avoidable are mortal sins. "Lead us not into temptation" has ramifications. I cannot enter a brothel without contracting mortal sin if it was avoidable. Now if my sister became a prostitute and I wanted to go into a brothel and get her out I would be permitted to for the greater good of my attempt. Living with someone you intend to have marital relations with (as Tracy said) is a proximate occasion of sin. They are already romantically entangled so there is a serious issue here and a public scandal and terrible example.

Now the question was whether or not Tracy was a Catholic when she was civilly married. If she was not a Catholic than her and Ron still married. Was Joe a married man and a Catholic? There is a reason why they are going civil, and its because one or both need an annulment, and yes you need an annulment if both of you were non-believers when you got married. It's a valid, non-sacramental marriage. I can give you Church teaching on it.

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'll call you today BTW, I'm up early and I don't know if you haven't gone to sleep yet or just woke up, but I'm wide awake and my work doesn't start until 9am CST.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #7 on:** June 15, 2007, 06:13:46 AM »

Clare,

Traditional clergy means nothing. Some traditional clergy advocate divorce left and right, I haven't been too impressed looking at the situation when I see divorced people and the idea of granting annulments.

The question is what does Our Lord say? Bishop Sheen asks that question and what it means to have said, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder." He asks rhetorically: "Does that mean God asks us to suffer? OH YES HE DOES!"

Any Catholic clergy, traditional or not, who ascribes to civil marriage and co-habitation lacks the mind of Christ, a pre-requisite when giving counsel.

What benefit of the doubt is there when they declare living as public sinners according to Catholic teaching.

I'm almost beginning to think we shouldn't learn or remind people of the Catholic faith, just "listen to your heart" as Tracy (Vox) tells us. Who needs Our Lord anyway when we have the benefit of the doubt against His own words and the words of the infallible Church on marriage.

I don't mean to get so upset over this, but the bad example this leads to, the lax morality of traditional Catholics leads me to ask a question "When the Son of Man comes again will He find faith on earth?"

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #8 on:** June 15, 2007, 06:19:55 AM »

Let me clarify what I mean about clergy...

A traditional clergy must believe in what the Church has taught traditionally. People confuse traditional clergy with priests who say the traditional Mass. They are not the same no matter what group they belong to, or where they say Mass.

It's the word "traditional" as an adjective that is supposed to define that priest. A priest who says the traditional Mass and advocates divorce, re-marriage, and marriage by civil union is de facto not traditional no matter what Mass he says or if he wears a cassock, or belongs to a nice group of priests who look priestly. A priest is traditional when he follows the immutable word of God and His Church.

God first, man second. Clergy are meant to give the mind of Christ, not their opinions, not the opinions of modern minds, but the mind of Our Blessed Lord who tells us:

WHAT GOD HAS PUT TOGETHER LET NO MAN (that includes priests) PUT ASUNDER

"For better or worse, until death do us part" is a vow to God. No man, even a priest, can break it.

Trinity · « **Reply #9 on:** June 15, 2007, 06:35:05 AM »

Sin blinds to sin. So if we hold back/retain even one sinful thing it soon leads to more sinful things. This certainly explains Vox' treatment of the true traditionalists. Kind of like, Make me holy, but not just yet.

I have your request under advisement, Mike, but I must think it through first.

clare · « **Reply #10 on:** June 15, 2007, 07:26:34 AM »

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

WHAT GOD HAS PUT TOGETHER LET NO MAN (that includes priests) PUT ASUNDER

"For better or worse, until death do us part" is a vow to God. No man, even a priest, can break it.

Yes, but God did not join Vox and Ron together.

And I don't know anything about Quis's marriage. Perhaps that was only civil, or invalid, too.

Whatever, they know what they're doing. I trust that they are receiving sound counsel.

You and I don't know them or their situations. We don't know the status of their previous marriages. Their confessors do.

It's best left at that.

Clare.

cathman7 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 15, 2007, 07:35:33 AM »

I am utterly confused. Even if things are going to be "worked out" why even make such a thing public knowing that it will be the cause of much confusion. Sure I want to give them the benefit of the doubt but Mike has raised some extremely valid points.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #12 on:** June 15, 2007, 08:05:08 AM »

Quote from: Clare

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto
WHAT GOD HAS PUT TOGETHER LET NO MAN (that includes priests) PUT ASUNDER

"For better or worse, until death do us part" is a vow to God. No man, even a priest, can break it.

Yes, but God did not join Vox and Ron together.

And I don't know anything about Quis's marriage. Perhaps that was only civil, or invalid, too.

Whatever, they know what they're doing. I trust that they are receiving sound counsel.

You and I don't know them or their situations. We don't know the status of their previous marriages. Their confessors do.

It's best left at that.

Clare.

You can be married by the justice of the peace and it can be valid in the eyes of God if neither of you are Catholic. God can bind them. I recommend a good Catholic catechism in your home, or refer to St. Thomas Summa online at www.newadvent.org and look under marriage.

Also, co-habitation before marriage is always sinful so no matter what this is wrong no matter how you want to look at it. This is a fact. Are you going to deny this Clare? Be honest, that's your argument. That their co-habitation is ok and if a priest says so it's ok because what does Our Lord mean anyways?

You're cloaking the argument with using a priest as a shield. I should know, after spending 8 years of my life seeing how people used priests as shields for their decisions (finding negligent priests).

Now Joe has to be Catholic. Now if he got married by the justice of the peace it could be invalid. Hence you now have 2 invalid marriages, but 2 people who pretend to act as Catholics living in mortal sin before they arranged their rendez-vous.

Now they plan on getting a JoP wedding and living in sin some more.

Sure I don't know all the facts, but anyone with any modicuм of Catholicity would scream how insane this is. Your argument is that I don't have the facts and I should trust priests. Well priests got us into this mess with Vatican II, and bad priests have been leading souls to Hell since the inception of the Church with bad priests doing much damage to the Church starting heresies and leading souls to Hell.

Speak on facts Clare. Your personal opinions are worthless, so are mine, that's why I'm basing it on Church teaching.

Some other lady has already declared she's thinking of eloping to Vegas because of Tracy's (Vox) declaration. Read my quote I gave.

You're defending the indefensible. It's time you talk like a Catholic, not a secularite. As St. Catherine of Siena told us that the world goes to Hell on account of silence. Don't be silent in the face of evil, and quiet those who speak on behalf of God's truths.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #13 on:** June 15, 2007, 08:08:52 AM »

The very fact I tried to remedy this directly with Tracy and she kicked me off speaks volumes about what's going on behind the scenes. I wasn't nearly as vocal, but I pointed to perennial Church teaching.

It's time for us to stand up to this utter scandal and confusion to others and take a stand. Obscurus, if you are considering this you should at least, like Daniel, request her to retract the thread and recommend a retraction as a bad example.

If people don't see the danger in this, look at the woman named Robin now considering eloping to Vegas in reaction to this. Evil begets evil.

John Steven · « **Reply #14 on:** June 15, 2007, 10:12:38 AM »

This is very disturbing. When I first read the thread after clicking on the link I thought it was some sort of joke. My stomach was in knots after reading it all the way through.

I'm removed my profile over there some time ago so I can't comment directly, but I agree with you Mike. I really want to give them both the benefit of the doubt, but that is hard even with what little information was provided.

Maybe I didn't read close enough, but I didn't see anywhere that they said they will be living together? If that is the case, I agree it would be cause for scandal even if they are living as brother and sister. We can't even give the appearance of sin to our neighbor without grave consequences as you have already noted.

Let's all pray for some sort of remedy to this situation.