Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: 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
-
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.).
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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?"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
...
Speak on facts Clare. Your personal opinions are worthless, so are mine, that's why I'm basing it on Church teaching.
...
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.
To be fair to Clare, she never said co-habitation before marriage wasn't sinful. Neither was she using priests as a shield. I don't know where you're getting these notions from. :confused1:
Also, it was my impression from reading catheotimus' post that she wasn't implying that she wanted to elope to Vegas, but she was indirectly criticizing Vox and Quis for going off and getting a civil marriage.
That said, it was always my understanding that civil marriages were valid in God's eyes (though not Sacramentally valid), so I have a hard time understanding how Vox and Quis can get married if they are already married, albeit civilly.
-
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.
I know, but we're not talking about marriages where neither of the party is Catholic!
I know Church teaching on 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.
We don't know that they'd be co-habiting.
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?
That is not my argument. My argument is that their confessors know they're situations. We don't.
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).
Negligent priests? Perhaps they've found perfectly orthodox priests who KNOW they're situation, and what they're situation will be after the civil ceremony.
Speak on facts Clare. Your personal opinions are worthless, so are mine, that's why I'm basing it on Church teaching.
I don't know the facts. My personal opinions are based on Catholic teaching too. Pharisaic scandal and all! Not judging. Assuming the best, not assuming the worst.
We don't know how they came to be in this situation. We don't know how they will be carrying on after the civil ceremony (though Vox has hinted that they'll be waiting till the convalidation before doing what the sacramentally married can do!).
Clare.
-
I suppose we can thresh this out here, since people seem to be alternating between this forum and FE. It's unfortunate that only one opinion is allowed on FE, because that leaves no room for the finding of error and it's correction if need be.
Are you suggesting, Clare, that this couple has a purely non sɛҳuąƖ union (can't think of the word right now). I'm confused about the civil marriage in light of the sacramental marriage later. If they are doing a civil marriage for economic or other mundane reason, why bother with the sacramental? And if they want a sacramental marriage for the privileges it gives them, why bother with a civil?
Minding our own business and giving the benefit of a doubt helps no one when souls are at stake. God does expect us to warn one another.
-
Here are the facts...
Joe (Tracy's "fiance"/Vox) said:
The reason anything was posted at all was not to get congratulations or cause scandal. We posted it so people would understand why Vox's name changed, why she moved, etc. Questions were bound to arise, and we just wanted to make it clear what was happening.
Where did she move to? Near Joe or with Joe? No answers but definitely an issue...
Tracy (Vox) said:
I really want to reiterate: each person reading this and who may be scandalized by thinking the worst (that Joe and I are going to marry civilly and behave like most married folk do behind closed doors)
She says they will not be having sex... but she claims she's getting married for civil benefits of marriage, and for "love and pragmatic concerns". Now why would you get for civil benefits?
-Insurance and tax benefits
-Under one roof, which is implied by speaking about what they will or will not do behind closed doors
Now is anyone here stupid enough to believe she moved to where Joe is and they aren't going to live together? Please I'd love to hear this one. The arguments used are like blind parents, "Oh my son is a good boy, he wouldn't do anything like that" as he runs out with his car and a case of beer in his hand.
So now Clare you have 2 choices please pick:
A. Either neither of them were sacramentally married and they were both living in sin while starting a trad Catholic message board and now are a horrible example to other Catholics as they plan on co-habitating by the very virtue that they are doing this for "pragmatic reasons"
or...
B. One or both of them was sacramentally married or validly married and hence they are committing adultery and then co-habitating
Now if you don't think they are not co-habitating and getting married simultaneously I really think you are making up anything in order to pretend you are making a point.
Pick which one. Each choice is horrible and wrong. No confessor has the right or authority to help one sin. We know both A and B are the only choices that is happening. No one can pretend she is moving to be near Joe to move down the street while getting married after just getting divorced in a civil union.
You don't need to be a confessor to know this is wrong. The buzzwords are proof enough with "listen to your heart" by Tracy. You are using the confessor/priest card as a shield to what could be right when neither solution is moral. The solution is to wait and truly look at God's will because at the very least Tracy was a public sinner and living in sin.
Confessors are not rules to sanctity. What does St. Francis de Sales and St. Teresa of Avila tell us about confessors? That most lead souls to Hell. That's 500 years ago when people didn't get divorced like it's going out of style.
If they want to do the right thing (even though I'm personally against the whole annul the world mentality), they would seek annulments (if necessary because one of them is probably validly married) and get married by the Church DESPITE the economic benefits of civil marriage.
The right answer is to wait, the wrong answer is to broadcast it to the world and pretend that your situations aren't completely scandalous.
-
Are you suggesting, Clare, that this couple has a purely non sɛҳuąƖ union (can't think of the word right now).
The word is platonic, and they admit their relationship is romantic and pragmatic by their own admission. How romantic no one knows.
I'm confused about the civil marriage in light of the sacramental marriage later. If they are doing a civil marriage for economic or other mundane reason, why bother with the sacramental? And if they want a sacramental marriage for the privileges it gives them, why bother with a civil?
Here's a quick overview on the validity of marriage:
-If 2 people aren't Catholics and get married by the JoP than the marriage is valid but not sacramental. God sees this a true union
-If one or both people are Catholic the marriage is invalid if before the JoP
References are Ne Temere of St. Pius X and Council of Trent. Both are on the link I provided on my first post look on the 2nd page.
Minding our own business and giving the benefit of a doubt helps no one when souls are at stake. God does expect us to warn one another.
It's not just them, it's the example they give others who admire Tracy. Their soul and those that like or admire them will also be affected. This is more serious than to be expected, and I know I won't convert doubting Claire, but at the very least FishEaters should be questioned on the prudence of this move (even if you dislike my logic, questions to clarity or pulling the thread are necessary), and also to remove it. If not the board should post on the thread that they do not approve of this and not as a gang up on Vox, but to show other Catholics such behavior is a bad example.
The moron over there "Erin is Nice" said we shouldn't cast stones. But I'm not casting a stone, I'm saying "Go and sin no more."
-
How romantic no one knows.
Case closed then.
Clare.
-
Wait, so let me try and understand this. If two people who are not Catholics get married, then the marriage is valid in the eyes of God. The same with two Catholics who get married, although the latter is Sacramentally valid whereas the former is not. But if a Catholic marries a non-Catholic in a civil marriage, then it cannot be valid, right? What if the mixed couple is married within a Catholic church according to the Rite of Marriage? Would the resulting "union" be a (Sacramentally) valid marriage?
Seriously confused :confused1:
Jason
-
Any Catholic married outside the Church is in an invalid marriage. Married inside the Church, it is sacramentally valid, even though one partner may not be Catholic.
-
Any Catholic married outside the Church is in an invalid marriage. Married inside the Church, it is sacramentally valid, even though one partner may not be Catholic.
Thanks :).
-
How romantic no one knows.
Case closed then.
Clare.
That wasn't the point of how romantic they act out their "love", but whether or not they are co-habitating. Good attempt of switching the debate.
-
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.
-
The people over at fisheaters who are reading this you should reconsider your position against the dictates of Almighty God who tells us that going to another person after you are married is adultery without the blessing of Almighty God, and God will not bless that union, no matter what man says because of their vow "until death do us part." You have a responsibility to denounce this action at the very least as publicly scandalous. We have a responsibility to say the truths of Almighty God at all times because "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my Father in Heaven."
If your spouse has a moral heart attack you still cannot leave your marital state. St. Paul reminds us that the unbelieving wife is saved by the believing husband. Even if your spouse leaves you, you cannot leave your spouse because it is your job to sanctify them through your devotion to God and your vow. Our Blessed Lord explains this in no uncertain terms:
"What God has joined together, no man put asunder."
and...
"If anyone wishes to be my disciple he must deny himself, pick up his cross, and follow me."
That's it, you are married, but better or for worse so you must pick up your cross and follow him. The example given by the owners of the site is scandalous and their wanted attention for celebration was spoiled when someone told the emperor they had no clothes. I don't want attention, I want Vox to do what is morally right and either close her message board to stop giving a bad example, or to post a public retraction and take down the thread. Whether she wants to admit it or not her views do influence people, and her desire was clearly celebrate her actions using a champagne glass, it was not for informational purposes only.
Vox banned me, and her pretense it was something else I don't think is entirely true. I posted to a woman who just got pregnant that we shouldn't celebrate such a pregnancy outside of wedlock, and this same woman who opened up about her sɛҳuąƖly promiscuous life commented that she didn't care about having a nice beautiful Mass but having mariachis do the reception with her friends. I thought so many people were aggrandizing the situation without calling to mind the gravity of what was happening. If that is the matter by which I was banned I will remind everyone that no one would ban someone like myself for saying that unless they were upset about something else.
And my posts were deleted, which I'm sure if Vox left up anyone would see they weren't vicious, but said for her good and the good of the community who were acting disproportionately to what was said when it was clear she was coming with a troubled conscience and ended up being supported into a false security.
I honestly believe my censorship over there (which Vox has a right to, it's her board) has more to do with her situation than what I posted to another member of her board. It's a bit disengenuous for her to claim it was for my other post.
Do what is right. Don't follow your heart unless your heart is leading you to do what is right according to the teachings of Almighty God. In a world of broken marriages should someone who makes a message board and shows herself as a Traditional Catholic expose her position of adultery?
When someone admits having romantic feelings for a married man, that alone is adultery, to continue into a civil union for someone like Vox is wrong if she decides to publicize it. Bad examples must be denounced once they go public, that's not gossip. Gossip by it's very nature is to take what is not known or private and take it publicly, or to take what is rumor and talk about it. This is not gossip whatsoever, this is 100% Catholic accountability. Our Lord tells us to tell the erring person and then tell others to correct the sinner. To comfort the public sinner as a poor, maligned person is to blind people to the situation is wrong and blind yourself because of your friendship. "If I be pleasing to men, I be not pleasing to Christ Jesus" St. Paul reminds us.
If the matter was private I would never have said a word. This is a public scandal to have someone who support open adultery have a message board for traditional Catholics and moderate the board. My judgment is nothing, but the judgment of Jesus Christ is clear on this issue and for people to celebrate adultery in the name of traditional Catholic views and beliefs is scandalous and horrible.
-
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.
Of course she doesn't.
She's a Catholic in a civil marriage. It makes no difference whether her civil husband is Catholic.
Clare.
-
I posted to a woman who just got pregnant that we shouldn't celebrate such a pregnancy outside of wedlock...
I dunno about that. A few years ago I bumped into an unmarried former work colleague who told me she was pregnant. I wasn't sure whether to congratulate her or not, so I just chatted generally, "when's it due?" that kind of thing.
I asked an SSPX priest if it was ok to congratulate an unmarried mother to be, and he said yes. So from then on, I have done. Children are blessings.
Clare.
-
Here are the facts...
Joe (Tracy's "fiance"/Vox) said:
The reason anything was posted at all was not to get congratulations or cause scandal. We posted it so people would understand why Vox's name changed, why she moved, etc. Questions were bound to arise, and we just wanted to make it clear what was happening.
Where did she move to? Near Joe or with Joe? No answers but definitely an issue......
I think the tenses are confused there. Perhaps it should be "why Vox's name will have changed, why she will have moved". Because, since the civil wedding won't be until the 4th July, her name won't have changed yet. So it's fair to guess that that past tense was a grammar slip, and so was the one about her moving.
Just guessing!
Clare.
-
Hmmmm. I was once told that public sinners had to do public atonement. Is this true?
-
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
-
Any Catholic married outside the Church is in an invalid marriage. Married inside the Church, it is sacramentally valid, even though one partner may not be Catholic.
Yes the marriage is sacramental, but the convalidation or marriage in the Church cannot proceed until you have the dispensation from the bishop to marry a non-Catholic in the Church. But that's not obstacle. Also, no nuptial Mass if one party was married before and obtained a decree of nullity (I'm sure this is the case).
-
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.
-
Any Catholic married outside the Church is in an invalid marriage. Married inside the Church, it is sacramentally valid, even though one partner may not be Catholic.
This may have already been said, but your response is not entirely correct.
In the case of disparity of cult, a Catholic is often married to a non-Catholic 'outside the Church' - provided he has obtained the necessary dispensation. Sometimes this ecclesiastically-approved marriage is in the Church, but it is not strictly necessary that it be so. Such a marriage is valid, but not a sacrament.
A valid marriage involving only one validly Baptized person (be they Catholic or Protestant) is never a sacrament - both receive the sacrament, or no one does.
-
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.
-
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.
Not when the entire business is voluntarily made public. This goes double as we are living in a time of rampant, often-absurd 'annulments'.
-
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.
-
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.
Of course it's a sin to live together if you are not married. So when I said that, if they are civily married, they should act the same chaste way with each other as if they were dating, it was a given that it meant that they would continue not living together.
-
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.
-
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.
Apparently, you haven't read Vox's explanation. Also, Mike's post on the thread wasn't deleted. Another one was.
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...
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.
-
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.
-
Mike, I read the thread on FE again, and in my opinion you have accomplished your purpose, thanks in large part to Dominus Tecuм and a few others. After reading the updates I don't think anyone can get the idea that this is morally neutral or good. DT made an especially good appeal to reality, particularly about the "we have our reasons, don't question them" argument.
It is possible, though not probable, that they do have circuмstances free from the stain of sin. The problem, of course, comes in when others who do not take this as a green light and carry forward the same plan to their detriment. The only thing I wish is that Vox had issued a warning, not a disclaimer as a role model. That smacks of Lady McBeth and Pontius Pilate. Truth is, the most humble among us is a role model, and if we have to answer for our every careless word, how much more so something as weighty as this. Vox and QUD need to give up something to avoid scandal and worse, leading some astray. Still, thanks to you and that few others, error has not held sway; the truth you upheld will now uphold those who want the truth. For those who do not want the truth, there is nothing we can do but pray.
-
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
-
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?
Your posting to Vox is still there. Vox has taken plenty of criticism about this from other posters who haven't been deleted. So I believe it was for the other posting (which I never saw) on the other thread that you and it were deleted. 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
We don't know that they were. But until previously her profile did give her vocation as "civilly married". I did scratch my head when I spotted that, to be honest!
I can assure you of that and her cover-up saying it was about my other posts is a farce
Rash judgment. You're effectively accusing her of lying.
This entire thread is for the purpose of stopping public scandal and an atrocious example as a traditional Catholic who does wield influence.
It's just prolonging scandal, and adding to it with insinuation, reading of motives.
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
Our Lord didn't cast a lot of stones before He said "Go and sin no more" though.
You are just assuming the worst.
I agree it is an odd and unsatisfactory situation. However neither of us is in possession of all the facts. So it's wrong to cast aspersions. It's a lot of guesswork, filling in gaps. Well the way you are filling in the gaps may well be mistaken, and may well make all the difference to their case!
Clare.
-
Mike, I read the thread on FE again, and in my opinion you have accomplished your purpose, thanks in large part to Dominus Tecuм and a few others. After reading the updates I don't think anyone can get the idea that this is morally neutral or good. DT made an especially good appeal to reality, particularly about the "we have our reasons, don't question them" argument.
It is possible, though not probable, that they do have circuмstances free from the stain of sin. The problem, of course, comes in when others who do not take this as a green light and carry forward the same plan to their detriment. The only thing I wish is that Vox had issued a warning, not a disclaimer as a role model. That smacks of Lady McBeth and Pontius Pilate. Truth is, the most humble among us is a role model, and if we have to answer for our every careless word, how much more so something as weighty as this. Vox and QUD need to give up something to avoid scandal and worse, leading some astray. Still, thanks to you and that few others, error has not held sway; the truth you upheld will now uphold those who want the truth. For those who do not want the truth, there is nothing we can do but pray.
Trinity, if they want to do their thing that's between them and God and I don't know them or will ever meet them more than probably. The problem was this went public and now we all know. I agree that what I'm not going to convince them, but I really believe people should make a stand over there and risk the possibility of getting deleted rather than allow them to masquerade that this is ok.
As Magdalene rightly pointed out no one can even date while still married by the Church, that alone leaves them in the untenable position of knowing the mind of the Church for at least the present that is 100% sinful no matter what a priest says. Most priests are for annulments and I wouldn't go to a man, whether he be a priest or not, who hasn't a track record of stopping more annulments than granting them. They should have a 1000-1 record in the favor of stopping an annulment before I would consider him sound advice. My own priest last fall, during my marriage prep, actually talked our future 2nd spouses after our current upcoming marriage fails and how much easier it is the 2nd time around. This priest is loved for being so traditional, and here he was talking to us about our future divorce and annulment before we were married. I couldn't make this up to you if I tried, and me and my now wife never fight so this was just out of the blue advice about our future spouses and annulment. This is an old traditional priest saying this.
These are my 2 big issues right now with what's happening:
1st This should have been private. They wanted to announce a celebration of something we know 100% certain is not morally permissible. You cannot date or be romantic with a married man. When she threw up the champagne glass in her post most everyone cheered. That frankly is horribly disturbing and a terrible mindset for any Catholic to do. We shouldn't cheer such an occasion of civil marriage with a married man in the eyes of God.
If they want to do what's right, and I know I'm not going to convince them, they should just wait. Call me crazy, but allowing the Church to rubber stamp an annulment is the least they can do. The whole thing should have never been spoken about.
2nd That the same people who find fault in what I'm doing find it more problematic for me to say something rather than Tracy and Joe to keep such an event quiet and not public. The excuse Joe uses on page 2 that they only did so in order that people don't get confused why Tracy moving is not honest. Tracy wanted to celebrate her love and it's apparent in the first post she makes because she's "toasting" with a champagne glass. It's a sad day when the boy who claims the king has no clothes is more at fault than the publicly exposed naked king.
They should have kept quiet. It was really just that simple. The damage they are causing to souls is more than they realize. I wish they never affiliated themselves with traditional Catholics.
I do agree with your sentiments, but I do want to correct you by saying we can know they are sinning. They plan on living together before Catholic marriage which is always sinful, and they plan on having romantic feelings for each other while Joe is validly married.
-
-
There are good people there at Fish Eaters and good Catholics. Not everyone at Fisheaters is a wicked pagan. The insanity is the permissiveness that portrays itself as charity in the face of evil and I'm not saying everyone is complicit in it, but the vast majority there are more about personalities than principles. I'm sure I would even like Tracy (Vox) in person because I used to chat with her on her chat board.
My problem was the public exposition of such knowledge. It's really that simple. The idea that I'm denouncing her a heretic or to her death is incorrect. The liberal buzz-lines of "casting stones", "you're judging people" is a feminized version of the faith that Jesus Christ would not recognize as people use these labels to stop rational discourse of what He told us to keep as principles. To abuse Our Lord's words against those who do His will is an attack on Jesus Christ Himself.
Our Lord used strong speech of calling people "broods of vipers", "venomous thieves", "hypocrites", etc.. Saying one cannot discuss matters of the faith publicly and then using the admonitions of Our Blessed Lord to stop such discourse is more wicked than the ones who seek to cast the stones 2,000 years ago because it blasphemes the intention for which those words were used by Our Divine Savior, and uses Our Lord's clear intention for Christian accountability against His Kingdom by liberalizing the meaning for which Our Lord said those things. It is a clear misrepresentation of the intention of Christ who calls us to expose those who do evil and cause scandal.
I thought it to be important for people to defend the faith to someone who people like and find important to hundreds of Catholics. People need to make a stand for Our Lord. I will not apologize for the message, for that is Our Lord's, but I apologize if I upset anyone with how I may have said it. I have watched my father defend his marriage for 9 years. 3 priests told him to get an annulment, and he looked at them and said, "What God has joined together let no man put asunder." Everyone has told him to get an annulment and all I can tell you is that I turned to him, against the advice of priests, family and friends, and reminded him of the words of St. Paul, "The believing husband shall save the unbelieving wife."
My father, after listening to Bishop Sheen on the sanctity of Holy Matrimony over 200 times, can tell me with as a man of God that this is his cross that you carry when you get married. She divorced him after he fought it in court, and he will fight any annulment procedure because he knew the vow he took was valid. It's a vow, it's sacred, and it's sacramental. We are responsible, even if tribunals are complicit in the evil, because when you get married its YOU who promises to God that you will keep this vow inviolate, not the tribunal. God makes you swear on that vow and that vows binds you to Heaven or Hell depending on how you live it. No tribunal can take away your vow if you took it properly. Sure, we can make excuses: "she left me", "I didn't know what I was doing", etc., and I know that the tribunals now have the "insufficient deliberation" as an excuse to destroy the sacrament for any cause but on judgment day only one thing will matter:
"What God has joined.." God joins us and judges us on how we are faithful to his joining. So close is this joining that Christ relates it to His Church, His Mystical Bride, as One thing. The day you separate husband and wife, you separate God from His Church.
We all have this duty, and if I have upset anyone by how I have given this message I hope I have not disrespected you. People should rally around defending marriage, and if we don't like the idea that we shouldn't get annulments and divorces like kids in a candy store that's a good thing. We must defend the honor of God and stop public scandal.
"In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." I John 3:16 We must lay down our lives for the sanctity of the sacraments.
-
These quotes are such an inspiration it gives me goose bumps. I whole heartedly agree with these saints---makes one want to march out and fight. I once wrote my (then) novus ordo priest that the church has become passive, permissive and politic and sited such examples I'd seen as this one about FE. He sent the letter back to me--no response. Years later I learned about novus ordo and that the true Church is hard to find these days. Fortunately I've found it in the CMRI. I do NOT believe that those in Rome come in the name of the Lord.
Mike, if it's any consolation, I have had my dust up about the incredible passivity of people. Had it on this forum. People are happy enough to talk, but "action" is a dirty word. You lose more friends and get into more trouble for putting your money where your mouth is and advocating it for others. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is the new religion and political persuasion of almost everyone. I don't see how we can change that, but it doesn't exempt us from seeing, hearing, speaking, does it?
Another little thing. Vox' thread is not the disease, but a symptom of the disease. For quite some time now she has been closing off the tributaries of real Catholics, and it shows, I think. FE will become, if it hasn't already, just another muddy, stagnant pond with no life in it. But this time, at least, the truth IS mixed in with the error, and I really believe that it was a job well done and will have appropriate fruits. Honestly, Mike, you got no more or less than Jesus said you would if you follow Him.
-
I just got caught up with (most of) this thread, and the original on FishEaters.
I certainly need to contribute to this thread.
Here are a few points that come to mind:
1. Michael Solimanto has done a good job of putting forth the truth, in a Catholic and charitable manner. His points about public scandal and bad example are excellent. He is also correct that it isn't about "imputing bad motives" but rather calling a spade a spade. When a man comes up to you with blood on his hands and says, "I killed a man", it isn't rash judgement to believe he has committed murder!
2. The biggest issue here is the PUBLIC NATURE of the scandal. Vox brought this out into the open herself, and choosing to reveal "part of the details" without revealing the mitigating excuse that makes it not sinful is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
To get personal here, Jennifer and I bought a house 5 months before we were married. Of course only one of us (myself) lived in that house until we were married (she quit her apartment and moved in with her mom), but I had to make sure everyone in her family (as well as our neighbors) knew the deal. We were only buying the house ahead of time so we could start paying off a house (stop throwing away money on rent), etc.
3. Vox is a role model, whether she likes it or not. Also, the fact that FishEaters is HER forum will certainly favor her point of view of things -- because most of the censored/discouraged/deleted posts will have contents that disagree with her. People's thinking on what it is to be a good, healthy, "sane" Catholic will be guided by Vox's views and censorship. That is a fact. FishEaters is NOT a small board. A lot of people look up to her as a role model of how to be a solid, non-prudish, charitable Catholic. She points to Michael and I and says "Don't go there. They lack Christian charity." even though we are only charitably pointing out the truth -- in and out of season, as St. Paul would have. Not only that, we have been "excommunicated" as it were -- which really sends a strong message to the surviving members of FE.
4. Many people on FE need to hit the books and learn the nature of "gossip". Gossip is when, for no good reason, one party talks about and overly concerns himself with, the personal life of another party -- usually the MISDEEDS (sins) of that other party (See: Detraction).
This thread contains no gossip because
A) The information we have came from the public forum -- literally! It all came from Tracy and Joe's own mouths (or hands, in this case).
B) The motivation for most of us here is zeal for the edification and salvation of souls.
C) "Admonish the Sinner" is one of the 7 Spiritual Works of Mercy. If you don't know all 7, I suggest doing a quick Google search. The Spiritual Works of Mercy are even more important than the Corporal Works of Mercy, because their end is the good of the SOUL rather than the BODY. Everyone (even in the Novus Ordo) respects the Corporal Works, but few realize the importance of the Spiritual Works. "Counsel the Doubtful" and "Instruct the Ignorant" are also relevant to this issue.
5. In answer to Trinity's question: Yes, a public sin must be atoned for publicly. If John Kerry were to convert/repent, he would have to publicly announce that he no longer supports abortion, and that he has been to confession. ONLY THEN could he receive Holy Communion without giving public scandal. When a Catholic is scandalized by Kerry's reception of Holy Communion, it is NOT THE CATHOLIC'S FAULT. It just shows that the scandalized has a Catholic sense! If you or I confess a private sin in confession, we can receive Holy Communion right away. But in the case of a NOTORIOUS (well-known in a bad way) sinner, there needs to be a public announcement -- the penance must be as public as the sin was, otherwise GOOD CATHOLICS will be rightfully scandalized.
6. There is certainly matter for scandal in the Tracy/Joe issue. For one thing, Joe admitted that he had "almost divorced" a couple times in the past. What caused him to "give up" this time? The fact that he had someone else lined up? He said that it was his wife who asked for the divorce, and that it wasn't because of Tracy. Maybe he is telling the truth, or at least the truth as he sees it. But those personal details aren't relevant, because EVEN IF it was all his wife's doing, he should still resign himself to a life of celibacy. He certainly couldn't go wrong there. This life is all about penance.
It does show the necessity for Catholics to NOT consider divorce ** AND ANNULLMENT ** as valid options. ANY Marriage is difficult at times; only the prospect of living ALONE the rest of your life will convince the couple to work out ANY problem that comes along -- even an ugly one.
But as Mike pointed out, the facts are clear: We have a self-styled Traditional Catholic woman, "civilly married" for years on end, now divorced and about to enter into "civil marriage" with a divorced man (his marriage has NOT been annulled yet). She has obviously dated this "married in the eyes of God" man for a period of time. How is this not scandalous?
I know they lived hundreds of miles away from each other, and didn't do anything immoral "physically", but sin is consummated in the Will. If I (a married man) send a romantic e-mail or text message to another woman, I commit a grave sin. Meanwhile, I could shake hands with a woman in a social setting and commit no sin.
7. Joe was wrong; I (actually, the Catholic Church) was right. About what? About the possibility of close, platonic, exclusive friendship between men/women. I distinctly remember Joe giving out himself and Tracy as a good example of a platonic friendship between man & woman. Guess what? It turned into something more, as it always does. Human nature is very predictable. Man and woman were meant to work closely together and complete each other -- in marriage.
8. There is certainly a lot of sentimentality in this case. Notice that they both publicly defended Rock music, and I don't mean just "popular" music either -- I mean hard rock, classic rock. I wonder how much their music and TV habits influenced their thinking in the matter. "All you need is love." ...?
9. Our Lord was not "casting stones" when He called the Pharisees "hypocrites", "sons of your father, the devil", etc. Our Lord was virile and always spoke the truth. He was neither wimpy nor feminine.
In Christ,
Matthew
-
These quotes are such an inspiration it gives me goose bumps. I whole heartedly agree with these saints---makes one want to march out and fight. I once wrote my (then) novus ordo priest that the church has become passive, permissive and politic and sited such examples I'd seen as this one about FE. He sent the letter back to me--no response. Years later I learned about novus ordo and that the true Church is hard to find these days. Fortunately I've found it in the CMRI. I do NOT believe that those in Rome come in the name of the Lord.
Mike, if it's any consolation, I have had my dust up about the incredible passivity of people. Had it on this forum. People are happy enough to talk, but "action" is a dirty word. You lose more friends and get into more trouble for putting your money where your mouth is and advocating it for others. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is the new religion and political persuasion of almost everyone. I don't see how we can change that, but it doesn't exempt us from seeing, hearing, speaking, does it?
Another little thing. Vox' thread is not the disease, but a symptom of the disease. For quite some time now she has been closing off the tributaries of real Catholics, and it shows, I think. FE will become, if it hasn't already, just another muddy, stagnant pond with no life in it. But this time, at least, the truth IS mixed in with the error, and I really believe that it was a job well done and will have appropriate fruits. Honestly, Mike, you got no more or less than Jesus said you would if you follow Him.
Well thank you for the consolation, but after seeing so many people lose the faith to the love of personalities I realize the danger. As Matthew pointed out (very succintly and very well done) the problems there are real and dangerous.
I never wanted a fight, what I wanted is for people to back the sacrament before the personality. One poster on FishEaters actually went so far as to all this "loyalty"... but loyalty to who? God or man? I'm not saying to stop being friends, or stop being nice, but to honestly admit there is a problem.
When you get civilly divorced, whether the other spouse started it look at what Matthew said, we are obliged to be celibate and alone. There is an obligation to stay single and celibate after your wife leaves you.
No one is easily divorced and you have to want to allow it. My dad fought it for 3 years and the state granted it on the grounds they were physically separated for 2.5 years. The point is he fought it. He dad is one of the finest examples I could have had. My mother was a wonderful person for 21 years of my life and she snapped and had a mid-life crisis. The whole thing was horrible, but what I saw and learned was that we can be celibate, we can fight against sin, and we can sanctify our the unbelieving spouse. I only bring this up because all I hear over the years is "my husband was horrible and left me" or vice versa as the grounds for getting re-married. All I see is people giving up their vocations that they have vowed to uphold when things get bad. I've seen priests leave, families break-up, etc. all because their vows aren't worth fighting for.
A woman came to Padre Pio after years of being abused and having her husband commit adultery. He said, "Go back to him, he's your husband, fight for your marriage." How many couples today face less worse crisis and the first thing they do is look for the door.
2 people getting divorces very close in time to one another, then announcing civil marriage must be rebuked in charity. If I didn't care I wouldn't say anything. As Leo XIII tells us we have heard enough of the rights of man, it's time to speak of the rights of God, and that right is power and sanctity of marriage and the gravity of scandal.
-
Yes, I saw Searlson's "loyalty" post and thought the same thing you did. Loyalty to God and His truth has to come first. I do get your point and commend your fight, wouldn't have you any other way. But you must have noticed the percentages. Actually I was very pleased to see so many stand up with you. Sad to say, those few constitute many these days.
Chant really hit the nail on the head when he said their stand wasn't acceptable.
-
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.
Those posts I referred to were certain series that I wanted to post, for those who are mature, who just want to listen to classical music, or those who like a good detective story. I have never wanted to see any of the stuff that is sometimes put in there, and have stated as such. But I am sure of my soul, and I find nothing that would cause me to sin, at least in those series.
-
Those posts I referred to were certain series that I wanted to post, for those who are mature, who just want to listen to classical music, or those who like a good detective story. I have never wanted to see any of the stuff that is sometimes put in there, and have stated as such. But I am sure of my soul, and I find nothing that would cause me to sin, at least in those series.
This isn't the forum/thread for such a discussion, but never be sure of your soul and what's best for it if it's not leading to the direct contemplation and meditation of the sacred mysteries of God.
If you want to read someone about the subject you should read St. Jerome on his love of Cicero and when God visited him in his dream and asked who he was. He said, "I'm Jerome, a Christian." God declared, "No, you are a Ciceroian" and ordered him to be flogged. When he woke up he had marks on his back of truly being struck. He gave up all such reading.
Now I'm not saying that necessary, and again this isn't the thread for it, but never be certain unless it leads to Divine Union with God through greater penance and prayer.
-
This isn't the forum/thread for such a discussion, but never be sure of your soul and what's best for it if it's not leading to the direct contemplation and meditation of the sacred mysteries of God.
If you want to read someone about the subject you should read St. Jerome on his love of Cicero and when God visited him in his dream and asked who he was. He said, "I'm Jerome, a Christian." God declared, "No, you are a Ciceroian" and ordered him to be flogged. When he woke up he had marks on his back of truly being struck. He gave up all such reading.
Now I'm not saying that necessary, and again this isn't the thread for it, but never be certain unless it leads to Divine Union with God through greater penance and prayer.
Who made you the Pope? jk
Being serious, you make a good point about how everything we read, watch, etc. should direct us to God. I suppose the important thing when dealing with any secular material (Cicero, anime, whatever) is to take out of it what is Christian and leave the rest. If something contains nothing Christian at all (e.g. all Tarantino films), it's best to not bother with it at all.
-
I'm no great mind, so I can't add much more to what Mike and Matthew have already stated. To summarize the situation I'd like to quote what friend of mine has heard from his priest from time to time:
"Are we Traditional Catholics, or just anti-Novus Ordo?!"
And that servant, who knew the will of his lord and prepared not himself and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not and did things worthy of stripes shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given, of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him they will demand the more. ~Luke 12:47-48
We have been given much in having access to the Traditional Sacraments. God have mercy if we act no different than our unenlightened neighbor. Much will be asked of us in our judgment. The good news is that what was at one time easy and required no effort when people lived in an age of Faith now can at times take heroic effort and gives us the chance to merit many graces and a greater crown in heaven.
Let's all pray for the grace of final perseverance for ourselves and our neighbor.
-
Rash judgment. You're effectively accusing her of lying.
Yes, I'm saying she's lying, and I'm calling you an accomplice to sin because you openly defend her before you defend the sanctity of marriage and it's indissolvibility.
I don't need to defend the sanctity of marriage and its indissolubility here (though I am on a Novus Ordo forum!)
She conveniently deleted my post.
She didn't. It's on this page: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1958895&trail=28
Clare.
-
BWAHAHAH! This entire thread is self-righteous.
Most of you here are a bunch of losers. LOL HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!
Honestly. You are embarassing yourself.
Please tell me your 12-year old posted with your account.
Matthew
-
Troll. Judgment day determines who are the losers and who are the winners. My Jesus mercy!
-
I don't need all the facts, ...
Nuff said.
Clare.
-
You defend public sin and then pretend it's about me.
I have not defended public sin. I have defended two people, neither of whom I know even!
I've been semi-patient with your defense of evil,
I have not defended evil, nor would I. I have defended people.
but it is clear what side you fight for, and it certainly on the fight for the sanctity of marriage. You are disgraceful and now it's clear I need to say that to you in charity. You are part of the wolves who seek to cover up evil to the sheep.
Get a grip. You know you do not possess the full facts. You say you don't need to. I would need to possess the full facts and find them unsatisfactory before hurling around charges of "living in sin" and "evil". You seem confident that you can do that without all the facts. Sorry, but that is not Catholic!
Have you picked A or B yet? No, you avoided the situation because you know you are wrong and when faced with this situation you throw it on me. Brilliant.
Let's see the choices again:
So now Clare you have 2 choices please pick:
A. Either neither of them were sacramentally married and they were both living in sin while starting a trad Catholic message board and now are a horrible example to other Catholics as they plan on co-habitating by the very virtue that they are doing this for "pragmatic reasons"
or...
B. One or both of them was sacramentally married or validly married and hence they are committing adultery and then co-habitating
Perhaps neither. I do not know the full facts!
I just trust that they are receiving counsel from sound, traditional Catholic priests who know the full facts better than you do!
I'm sure you would blame Jesus Christ, if you didn't know who He was when you met Him, of rash judgment.
Please! You're sure of that, are you?
That sounds preposterous to you I know,
Yes it does. Because you are not comparable with Jesus! As far as I know you cannot read hearts! I would be mistaken to accuse Him of rash judgment, if I didn't recognise Him, but unless you are He, I am not mistaken in accusing you of it! Are you Jesus, Michael? Do you really think that because Jesus can read people's hearts, you can too? Perhaps it's a charism you have. If so, I apologise, and stand corrected. You are quite right, Vox and Quis are unworthy to be called Catholics!
but you deny His very judgment: WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER
I do not deny that at all! God did not join her and her "husband" together. And if Quis's marriage turns out to be void too, He didn't join him with his wife either. If the annulment isn't granted, then, yes, there'll be an insurmountable problem.
You're argument is with God, not with me
No, it is with you, Michael.
All this time you have defended her and never once have you said a word to the public scandal over there.
Plenty of others have done so, and Vox and Quis have responded. I can't add anything. I assume Vox and Quis are as familiar with Catholic teaching as you are, and know what they are doing.
You are an accomplice and when evil comes before the world you will point the finger at the one speaking God's word instead of those who do public evil.
I don't know that they are doing public evil yet!
Prove me wrong, show me where you have spoken out about this over there, and at the very least show me where you told them over there we shouldn't celebrate. You are part of the problem.
I haven't. I just said "All the best" which was a fair enough thing to wish anyone, no matter what!
What's there to insinuate? Married man --> marries before annulment and lives with another woman who has a Catholic forum and causes scandal. What part of that don't you understand?
What bit of the fact that you do not know all the facts do you not understand?
Our Lord didn't cast a lot of stones before He said "Go and sin no more" though.
What stone have I cast? Have I ordered her death? No, I publicly announced that she shouldn't publicly post scandal, that's the "go and sin no more" part you don't understand. You are blind to what's happening and an accomplice to public scandal by your silence. Your hypocrisy of finding fault is astounding.
For goodness' sake. You've admitted you do not need to know the full facts! Yet you cast stones in a trigger happy fashion (mixed metaphor).
You are just assuming the worst.
Where's the assumption? Married man marries woman before God ratifies the situation and then posts this to the world and causes scandal and bad example.
The assumption is in that you admit you do not know all the facts, and that furthermore, you don't need to know them to make a judgment!
Sorry Clare, you are blind to the reality of sin.
No I am not. I am just giving a couple of individuals the benefit of the doubt, assuming that they know what they are doing, that they are receiving good advice. I may take a similar line to you if they were Novus Ordo Catholics, because I would doubt the soundness of the advice they were getting. In fact, I have been in a similar argument on a Novus Ordo forum, taking a similar line to yours (though I was not attacking the couple, just the advice that a priest had given them), and yes, I got banned for a spell!
Clare.
-
Clare,
Is it not a known fact that Joe is a validly married man until the point at which a marriage tribunal declares otherwise? Is it not also a fact that he considers himself to be in a relationship with a woman other than his wife?
Why do you see no problem with this?
I just tossed in the garbage an invitation to a "wedding" of this sort earlier this week. I've know that person my whole life and was an attendant in her sister's wedding, but I will not be there to support her "marriage" to a man who has not yet obtained an annulment from his first, valid-until-proven-otherwise marriage.
-
Why do you see no problem with this?
I can see plenty of problems with it.
I also know that I do not know the full facts.
I just tossed in the garbage an invitation to a "wedding" of this sort earlier this week. I've know that person my whole life and was an attendant in her sister's wedding, but I will not be there to support her "marriage" to a man who has not yet obtained an annulment from his first, valid-until-proven-otherwise marriage.
Fair enough, hers was a case you knew.
Clare.
-
Why do you see no problem with this?
I can see plenty of problems with it.
I also know that I do not know the full facts.
I just tossed in the garbage an invitation to a "wedding" of this sort earlier this week. I've know that person my whole life and was an attendant in her sister's wedding, but I will not be there to support her "marriage" to a man who has not yet obtained an annulment from his first, valid-until-proven-otherwise marriage.
Fair enough, hers was a case you knew.
Clare.
No, not quite. I know her persent situation no better than Vox and QUD. All I know is that her fiance is currently seeking an annulment and it will NOT be done before they plan on moving forward with their relationship (relocating, civil marriage, ect.). I know the same of Vox and QUD. I don't have to guess on these two facts as they have said this much themselves. When you're changing your name to match that of an already married man, how can this be anything but inappropriate for a Catholic?
-
She didn't. It's on this page: http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1958895&trail=28
Clare.
Yes she did. The quote she "banned me" was on a thread totally unrelated. I've said that already. People already saw it and responded to it. She deleted my post with no profanity, no mocking another person, and then she claims it was for that post that she deleted me. If you actually read and understood the chronology I posted I wouldn't have to say this redundantly.
-
I don't need all the facts, ...
Nuff said.
Clare.
Exactly, having sufficient facts is enough. Thanks for finally understanding, I was starting to worry about you.
-
Mike, what day (hour) did you make the post which Vox claims you were banned for, what day (hour) did you make the post you think you were banned for, and what day (hour) were you banned?
-
Mike, what day (hour) did you make the post which Vox claims you were banned for, what day (hour) did you make the post you think you were banned for, and what day (hour) were you banned?
Within 20 minutes of each other.
-
I agree it is an odd and unsatisfactory situation. However neither of us is in possession of all the facts.
This is a monumental understatement, dear.
Mike did not make this a public issue - as such, it is the duty of those who did so to provide the necessary, clarifying facts.
-
Most of you here are a bunch of losers.
-
Requirement for those people who need annulments and the process involved:
http://lcdiocese.org/Annulments/determine.htm It's actually very good.
Secondly, if you marry an unbeliever and consent to live with them you are married still in the eyes of God. Vox can play around all she wants. Here is a quick overview of the Pauline Privilege about such marriages:
The following Scripture passage from 1 Corinthians 7: 12-15 explains:
"If any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever but is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever but is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circuмstances; God has called us to live in peace."
-
You are saying that you posted the reply Vox says she banned you for; twenty minutes later you posted what you believe she banned you for; twenty minutes later you were banned. Correct?
Does the above quote mean that if the unbeliever is unwilling to live with you, you are free to remarry?
-
This is what happened...
I posted on the website about their marriage, shortly after I replied to another post in another thread totally unrelated about 15 minutes after I posted about her marriage. Then when I looked to reply to what was said I was deleted. The entire time elapsed from me sending the original reply about marriage their marriage to posting on the other thread was about 15 minutes.
Five minutes later I was banned and they removed the posts they banned me for. The entire time from me posting about the marriage, to posting about the other woman lasted 20 minutes from start to end. I would only find the assessment fair if they said it was for the other post if they left it up. It was conveniently deleted.
But this is silly, it's not about me getting deleted. It's not about FishEaters, but a public scandal that they initiated by the people in question who should have kept quiet and could do damage to souls who read that and get a confused message. People do things which they shouldn't, but when people who run a Catholic forum initiate such discussion it's wrong. Now if they did all this and never exposed the matter than it would be wrong for me to say anything.
-
Do you feel now that the possible damage to souls on FE has been nullified by the very apt revelation of the truth you and the others posted? I would have posted, too, but there was no way I could have added to what you guys did, or found another approach half so fitting. I know that some will take this incident as approval for similar behavior, but those would be priest shoppers, anyway, just looking for an excuse or opportunity. For those who are concerned about truth, right, and their souls, I think the ground has been well covered. It has been my experience that people do what they want to do and have great talent at making things suit their purpose. No doubt, Vox and QUD will do what they want to do.
-
The questions became too hard to answer... the concerns too genuine.
Too much of the chaff had been dispersed, and the core issue (finally) came to light.
The people asking the questions were too good and honest.
Damage control has come to this? A willful ignoring of the honest questions of concerned Catholics? People are not allow to post something they are concerned about?
Someone's conscience must have been tweaked. "Methinks they protest too much."
Fortunately, all are welcome to continue discussing the issue on this board. Yes, that includes the non-member guests from Fisheaters. Incidentally, you'll find I'm not as bad as some would say. :farmer:
In Christ,
Matthew
-
It looks like Mornac resurrected the thread, after a fashion:
http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/apologia/vpost?id=1964304&trail=28
-
I make copy and pase of my last comment on that FE thread, I can't think of anything else to say...
Here is what the Cathechism of St. Pius X has to say on the marriage:
Conditions and Impediments
14 Q. What is necessary to contract Christian marriage validly?
A. To contract Christian marriage validly it is necessary to be free from every diriment impediment to marriage; and to give consent freely to the marriage contract in the presence of the parish priest (or a priest delegated by him) and of two witnesses.
15 Q. What is necessary to contract marriage lawfully?
A. To contract marriage lawfully it is necessary to be free from every impeding impediment to marriage; to be instructed in the principal truths of religion; and, finally, to be in a state of grace; otherwise a sacrilege would be committed
16 Q. What are impediments to marriage?
A. Impediments to marriage are certain circuмstances which render marriage either invalid or unlawful. The former are called diriment impediments and the latter impeding impediments.
17 Q. Give examples of diriment impediments.
A. Diriment impediments are, for example, relationship to the fourth degree, spiritual relationship, a solemn vow of chastity, or difference in religion, that is, when one party is baptised and the other is not. [This has been altered by the 1983 code of canon law]
18 Q. Give examples of impeding impediments.
A. Impeding impediments are, for example, the forbidden times, a simple vow of chastity, and the like.
19 Q. Are the faithful obliged to make known to ecclesiastical authority impediments of which they have a knowledge?
A. The faithful are obliged to make known to ecclesiastical authority impediments of which they have knowledge; and for this reason the names of those who intend to get married are published in the Church.
20 Q. Who has the power to regulate impediments to marriage, to dispense from them, and to judge of the validity of Christian marriage?
A. The Church alone has power to regulate impediments to marriage, to judge of the validity of marriage among Christians and to dispense from the impediments which she has placed.
21 Q. Why has the Church alone power to place impediments and to judge of the validity of marriage?
A. The Church alone has power to place impediments, to judge of the validity of marriage, and to dispense from the impediments which she has placed, because the contract, being inseparable from the sacrament in a Christian marriage, also comes under the power of the Church, to which alone Jesus Christ gave the right to make laws and give decisions in sacred things.
22 Q. Can the civil authority dissolve the bonds of Christian marriage by divorce?
A. No, the bond of Christian marriage cannot be dissolved by the civil authority, because the civil authority cannot interfere with the matter of the sacrament nor can it put asunder what God has joined together.
23 Q. What is a civil marriage?
A. It is nothing but a mere formality prescribed by the [civil] law to give and insure the civil effects of the marriage to the spouses and their children.
24 Q. Is it sufficient for a Christian to get only the civil marriage or contract?
A. For a Christian, it is not sufficient to get only the civil contract, because it is not a sacrament, and therefore not a true marriage.
25 Q. In what condition would the spouses be who would live together united only by a civil marriage?
A. Spouses who would live together united by only a civil marriage would be in an habitual state of mortal sin, and their union would always be illegitimate in the sight of God and of the Church.
26 Q. Should we also get the civil marriage?
A. We should perform the civil marriage, because, though it is not a sacrament, it provides the spouses and their children with the civil effects of conjugal society; for this reason, the ecclesiastical authority as a general rule allows the religious marriage only after the formalities prescribed by the civil authorities have been accomplished.
All this situation is really surreal however: I haven't felt so disoriented not even after having read Kafka!!!
In any casde, since I don't have almost any element to judge Vox+Quis engagement details, I'll suspend my judgement on the issue, while waiting for more details that should be released, given all the gossiping and feeling of uncertainty in many souls going on here and also in *other* forums.
As we say in Italy: "hai voluto la bicicletta? ora pedala!" (Have you requested a bicycle? Now get around with it!). It's important for your images and alsoi for the forum's one. My earier congrats are valid sub conditione and suspended until we all can find out more about the annulment process, civil marriage etc. As I can't rejoice on the public scandal that, all in all, with all the faith in the "Catholicness" of Vox and Quis might be well on its way.
Matteo out
May I ask one thing? How does the civil/religiuos marriage issue get handled in the US?
Here in Italy, religious marriage has automatically legal and civil effects due to the Concordat. Given all the bagarre in that thread, I assume it isn't so in America?
-
Do you feel now that the possible damage to souls on FE has been nullified by the very apt revelation of the truth you and the others posted? I would have posted, too, but there was no way I could have added to what you guys did, or found another approach half so fitting. I know that some will take this incident as approval for similar behavior, but those would be priest shoppers, anyway, just looking for an excuse or opportunity. For those who are concerned about truth, right, and their souls, I think the ground has been well covered. It has been my experience that people do what they want to do and have great talent at making things suit their purpose. No doubt, Vox and QUD will do what they want to do.
The issue isn't what their doing in their private lives as much as what they said publicly. Can any of us say that if something in our private life was exposed we would be happy? But alas, the person doing it is saying it. Now if someone exposed this problem that would be horribly scandalous to the people and anyone who talks about the issue would be gossip mongers. In this case the issue came to light by the person doing the problem.
Will it nullify it's effects? No, it has intensified them in some ways because people like Tracy and Joe, and I'm sure they are likeable. In all my years at FishEaters Vox has nothing but kind and nice to me. People are rallying around the idea that I, and now others, are gossip-mongering, when in fact we are asking salient questions, and exposing Church teaching on this issue.
People on FishEaters are beginning to polarize the issue into personalities, and making ad hominem attacks. No one is attacking Tracy or Joe as children of God, but pointing out the problems of doing what they are about to do out of charity, and exposing a scandal which can affect souls. The very fact this is a rallying cry on behalf of friends is problematic. They see this (unfortunately) as an attack on them, when it fact it's defense of Christian modesty in speech and not disclosing information which can set a bad example to others.
Let's take just the opposite approach of the argument... let's say they are entire justified in doing what they are doing (just hypothetically). Would you tell everyone this while knowing that members on the board know both parties are married? Vox claims she wasn't bound by God but we don't know if they were both Catholics when they were civilly married, and so it raises more questions than it provides solutions taken from the best point of view and all the questions it raises creates a situation of scandal and bad example to the public even if they were right.
The solution, no matter what was to keep silent on the issue.
-
I do agree with that, Mike, or better yet not to have done what they are doing. I seem to be missing your point, though. My take is this: They are doing what they are doing---we can't stop that. They have already announced it, damage is already done. They probably won't retract or repent---we can't do anything about that. All we could possibly do, in my opinion, is to warn others that this is wrong and dangerous. From my point of view, all that could be done, was done. Do you disagree with this?
-
Do you feel now that the possible damage to souls on FE has been nullified by the very apt revelation of the truth you and the others posted? I would have posted, too, but there was no way I could have added to what you guys did, or found another approach half so fitting. I know that some will take this incident as approval for similar behavior, but those would be priest shoppers, anyway, just looking for an excuse or opportunity. For those who are concerned about truth, right, and their souls, I think the ground has been well covered. It has been my experience that people do what they want to do and have great talent at making things suit their purpose. No doubt, Vox and QUD will do what they want to do.
The issue isn't what their doing in their private lives as much as what they said publicly. Can any of us say that if something in our private life was exposed we would be happy? But alas, the person doing it is saying it. Now if someone exposed this problem that would be horribly scandalous to the people and anyone who talks about the issue would be gossip mongers. In this case the issue came to light by the person doing the problem.
Will it nullify it's effects? No, it has intensified them in some ways because people like Tracy and Joe, and I'm sure they are likeable. In all my years at FishEaters Vox has nothing but kind and nice to me. People are rallying around the idea that I, and now others, are gossip-mongering, when in fact we are asking salient questions, and exposing Church teaching on this issue.
People on FishEaters are beginning to polarize the issue into personalities, and making ad hominem attacks. No one is attacking Tracy or Joe as children of God, but pointing out the problems of doing what they are about to do out of charity, and exposing a scandal which can affect souls. The very fact this is a rallying cry on behalf of friends is problematic. They see this (unfortunately) as an attack on them, when it fact it's defense of Christian modesty in speech and not disclosing information which can set a bad example to others.
Let's take just the opposite approach of the argument... let's say they are entire justified in doing what they are doing (just hypothetically). Would you tell everyone this while knowing that members on the board know both parties are married? Vox claims she wasn't bound by God but we don't know if they were both Catholics when they were civilly married, and so it raises more questions than it provides solutions taken from the best point of view and all the questions it raises creates a situation of scandal and bad example to the public even if they were right.
The solution, no matter what was to keep silent on the issue.
It is simply a classic example of false charity (http://www.cathinfo.com/bb/index.php?a=topic&t=2480) in action. To speak the truth boldly even if it might offend someone is deemed "intolerable" and "mean-spirited". Ah...but was not Our Lord stern with the Pharisees? (As Michael pointed out before). I think there is this fear of being called "too pious" and falling back on the idea that "virtue lies in the middle". But speaking out against error is not "extreme" and in fact it rises above either laxity or true harshness. How far gone we have become? Do we cease to oppose error simply because of an attachment to a friend or a personality?
Read these words from St. Francis of Assisi who is so often portrayed in such an effeminate manner:
"All those who refuse to do penance and receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are blind, because they cannot see the true light, our Lord Jesus Christ...We should all realize that no matter where or how a man dies, if he is in the state of mortal sin and does not repent, when he could have done so and did not, the devil tears his soul from his body with such anguish and distress that only a person who has experienced it can appreciate it. All the talent and ability, all the learning and wisdom which he thought his own, are taken away from him, while his relatives and friends bear off his property and share it among themselves. Then they say, 'A curse on his soul; he could have made more to leave to us and he did not'. And the worms feast on his body. So he loses both body and soul in this short life and goes to hell, where he will be tormented without end."
I am sure if St. Francis said these things today he would be labeled as "extreme" and "mean". Yet the saints were truly wise.
-
From my point of view, all that could be done, was done. Do you disagree with this?
I second this question. It would have been great to see the parties concerned offer something to assure all of those reading FE that they indeed understand the true nature of the situation and that they will not be engaging in any of the possibly sinful scenarios that the information given suggests. However, since I don't believe that will be happening, is there any further responsibily for an individual wishing to do all he can in a spirit of true charity? Has all that can be done already been done? :confused1:
The whole situation is very upsetting simply due to the very public nature of it. :sad:
I hope Michael sends his dad some really terrific Father's Day cards each year for being such a good example of how strong a marriage committment is intended to be. :applause:
-
Wanted to clarify a couple of things as I see something I wrote on another site has been misconstrued.
I grew up in Flint Michigan when things were going downhill fast, back in 1984, my family moved to Texas. My father has always talked about how cool the mariachi bands are here in Texas and talked about how he would have a nice big wedding for me and hire a mariachi band because they are so fun and all.
Anyways, so, since I have ruined those plans, and now my Dad doesn't even want to pay for a wedding, he wants me to get married with a JP, I'm hoping to at least have friends at my reception, and at least have the mariachi band that we always talked about. I know it sounds kinda stupid and contrite given the circuмstances but it does matter to me.
I don't want a big elaborate wedding because it takes time to plan these things and I'm not getting any smaller. I'm truly embarrassed about my situation. Would you rather I have a huge traditional wedding with all the bells and whistles and have an obviously pregnant belly while I take my vows????
It only makes sense to have a downplayed ceremony, without all the extended family present because of the situation. I'm embarrassed about getting married in my condition, and I don't want to make a big hubub about it.
But of course it's important to me that I'm married in the church, would be no point otherwise. My family is not Catholic, and neither is my fiance's so we don't care about the ceremony, only care that it happens, and that it puts things right between us and God and all that.
I'm sorry your post got deleted at FE's Mike. I would have been happy to respond to it. I was ready for more flack actually, which is why I waited until I felt brave to make an announcement.
-
Miss Fluffy,
I never mentioned your name and I'll tell you why. I thought your post was a reaching out and wanting help. You even mentioned you thought it was a scandal. I wrote to you saying that it was wrong for everyone to throw roses at you when in fact they should be encouraging you to change your life and stop giving scandal when we can chose to avoid it because you said those things almost in a spirit of sorrow. I said this because I thought it was wrong to get the :rahrah: :rahrah: parade without first warning caution and ask that you re-consider making some serious life altering changes. I said this for your good, and I was ashamed of the cheerleader brigade that almost found it unilaterally exciting at the announcement when from reflection I thought you were seeking a loving guiding hand.
I thought it was more important for people to give you support in changing your life, to give good recommendations on how to do it, and show support that they were happy you understand your situation and that they were there to help lovingly give advice.
Yes, for that I was banned, but that's what I said.
I also made mention that the focus should be on the beautiful rite and not on the people or the mariachis. You want to down-play the right because you don't find it appropriate under the current situation. I ask you to strongly reconsider because the Mass everything, we are nothing. Our personal failing aside it is God who seeks us and calls us to love Him. We want to give honor and glory to God. Worship means we give what is worthy to the One we are indebted to.
Ok, so you're embarassed... does that mean God doesn't love you? Or want you forever in eternity as a blessed daughter for eternity? Our Blessed Lord died for your sins and there is nothing that can stop you to love Him in return and ask for forgiveness. Of course God loves you and wants what's best for you, so you in your turn give God all the glory in the sacred rite of Matrimony that is permissible to celebrate our love for Him who died for us. Take the emphasis off yourself, and place it on the glory of God. The beauty of the rite is our thanksgiving to God and to make it banal is like not realizing the precious gifts God gave us.
I hope you realize I say this not to bash you, but because I believe you were seeking help and guidance and I really believe you can make changes in your life to become the woman you know God wants you to be.
-
A bent reed He will not break.
-
Who ever said I would not have a Catholic wedding? Whoever said I would make the ceremony banal? I know I mentioned my parents suggested going to a JP, but was mentioning that as something that upset me.
I'm really not sure what you're saying? A Catholic wedding is a Catholic wedding. It will be downplayed because I don't have the money for extra flowers or to dress a wedding party or anything extra like that. But we will stand before God and receive the Sacrament of Matrimony. If you want it to be more spectacular with flowers and bridesmaids and groomsmen and all that, perhaps you're willing to pitch in? And also provide some Catholics to be in the wedding party since we are lone Catholics amongst our family and friends?
What life altering changes are you asking me to reconsider? It seems to me that the situation calls for life altering changes. Life moves on and God demands that we take up our crosses and live by His will.
-
The point is, that you made an assumption, thinking that I would not choose to have a proper Catholic wedding, and then bashed me for it. Saying that a mariachi band was more important to me than a Holy Mass. That is just not true. The mariachi band is important to me, but more important is that I'm married sacramentally.
Try to clear things up before bashing people for things they're not doing.
-
To Laura/Miss Fluffy:
I'm not sure how well Mike knows you -- that might have something to do with it.
When I read your post, I didn't get the same impression that Mike did. Again, it might be because I sort-of "know you" -- I've read many of your posts on FE since last summer.
I also understand why most people on FE did a "pile on" when Mike brought up ANY KIND of criticism of Miss Fluffy -- because she's a kind, truth-loving, humble Catholic who has many friends there.
I don't want to fault Mike too much though, because I think his motives were good. He also has a "love affair" with the truth, and we shouldn't fault him when that is his motive -- even IF he made a mistake in discerning the facts in a given case.
I probably need to re-read my post several times and spend a bunch of time re-wording things, but I need to do my 9-5 job :wink:
So if you have any questions, please respond before getting mad, etc. :cowboy:
In Christ,
Matthew
-
Original post by Miss Fluffy:
So I'm feeling braver today, and feel like sharing the news. I haven't gotten word back from the doc yet, but I'm rather certain that 4 home pregnancy tests wouldn't lie.
I'm having a hard time believing it at times, but things seem to be sticking. I'm not married, but hopefully I will be soon. I suppose we have classes to go to and such, things I'm not looking forward to. My Mom wants me to go to a JP, a suggestion that horrified me!
I really didn't expect this, as I have not eradicated sin completely from my life, nor have I used birth control for many years, and no babies so far. I was diagnosed as having fertility issues (lack of ovulation) several years ago but never followed up on it due to my unmarried status.
I cannot begin to describe the utter joy I feel about this prospect. I really thought I was entering old-maidhood and my chances of having little ones were fast disappearing. I regret the horrible timing, the "late" wedding plans I now have to scramble to make, but I thank God that I get to be a part of bringing a new soul into the world.
I hope y'all can forgive me, and the scandal I cause. I find this forum such a wonderful support, and I'd love to be able to share my pregnancy with you fine womenfolk here.
There were a couple of comments like this one:
Congratulations. It's so exciting to be expecting!
God bless you and keep you.
If you ever regret not having a big formal wedding, don't. They can be a nightmare, and you end up with many bills, blurred memories of the actual ceremony because you are so nervous worrying about all the details of the wedding party, and miffed people who never speak to you again because you didn't invite them.
To which Miss Fluffy responded:
I don't really care about the wedding itself. I just want to be able to have all my friends and family there for the reception. I want a nice big party and lots and lots of good food, and a mariachi band!!!
-
Now I took her last comment to mean "Big wedding, small wedding, no big deal to me -- as long as I'm married in the Church and receive the Sacrament."
On the other hand, "I don't really care about the wedding itself" wasn't exactly the best way to phrase it :)
I can see the potential for misunderstanding there.
And I think what Mike was trying to say was:
Why didn't at least a FEW responses include phrases like "I'll keep you in my prayers, that you will be victorious in your spiritual combat." and "I will pray for you, that your spiritual life will continue to improve." etc.
You can be Catholic/charitable/in love with the Truth without being mean/judgemental/uncharitable.
In Christ,
Matthew
-
The mariachi band is important to me,
Now, lassie...are you Irish or not? Whence comes this need for mariachi??? :laugh1:
-
Thanks Matthew for clarifying things. You're right. When I said I didn't care about the wedding itself, I meant I don't care if anyone shows up, my family is not Catholic after all, and the wedding part means more to the two of us than to our families. I meant that I didn't care if I had fancy flowers, or a fancy dress, or fancy bridesmaids etc. But of course I care that it's proper and Catholic.
If I didn't care at all, I wouldn't even bother getting married, no one else does these days.
I took what Mike said a little rough because I am upset about things not going the way I would have liked. But surely I don't deserve to have everything go my way at this point.
I know I have been tempting consequences with my sins. It has been difficult to get rid of old habits that were firmly in place before I converted. I am sorry for them, believe me.
My fiance and I are making a renewed effort to remain chaste until our vows are in place, pray for us that we get past this, and don't influence our new family badly with our terrible example. I do worry about this bad start, and that it might have some repercussions on our children.
We have an appointment with the priest at the Indult parish tomorrow. I hope it goes well, and that we can get this sorted out. I'm so anxious about money and hope we can start sharing living expenses as soon as possible.
-
Now, lassie...are you Irish or not? Whence comes this need for mariachi??? :laugh1:
:laugh2: Well, it's a Texas thing. I wasn't born here, but I got here as fast as I could. Ha ha!
When I was 12 and we first moved here, my Dad absolutely loved the Tex Mex food. We would go to this restaurant all the time and they sometimes had a mariachi band. He embarrased me and asked them to play a song for me at our table. (I'm a daddy's girl at heart).
-
I'm so anxious about money and hope we can start sharing living expenses as soon as possible.
It seems I don't need to remind you of this as I believe you have experienced it personally:
Do what God asks of you and He will provide all you need.
-
Now, lassie...are you Irish or not? Whence comes this need for mariachi??? :laugh1:
:laugh2: Well, it's a Texas thing. I wasn't born here, but I got here as fast as I could. Ha ha!
I don't think Mike has been here long enough to appreciate the importance of a good mariachi band! :laugh1: Such things can be quite confusing for a foreigner and could be the root of much misunderstanding. :laugh2:
-
My fiance and I are making a renewed effort to remain chaste until our vows are in place, pray for us that we get past this...
For what it's worth, I believe this statement nullifies many of the concerns true friends should have--valid concerns which were being ignored in the FE thread and led to Michael's bannished post.
Many people, especially all-knowing family members, will tell you that now is the time to marry and most will add that it should be quick and discreet. However, an unexpected pregnancy doesn't immediately make the father a good choice for a husband (and father of future children). Your husband still has to be a man who will lead you and your children toward Heaven whether they are biologically his or not. For example, if your fiance didn't agree that chastity is still important between now and your wedding, he wouldn't be worth marrying. However, given the statement above, it seems that's joyously not the case.
We'll keep praying for the two (three) of you as you find your way through this uncertain time. :pray:
Enjoy your pregnancy and if you need any help getting ready for the baby, just ask. :baby:
-
Speaking of babies, everyone here knows that MaterDominici (my wife) is expecting again, right?
Due date is late July, and we already know that Dominic is going to have a little sister.
Matthew
-
That's awesome!!! Congrats to the two of you :)
-
Well, it's a Texas thing. I wasn't born here, but I got here as fast as I could.
Well, I was born in Texas - Austin to be precise. I love Tex-Mex, too, and mariachi is fine music - but Eamon Patrick Shea cannot be havin' his fellow Irishmen forgettin' their Irishness.
-
We'll give the little one a good traditional Irish name to make up for it ;)
-
Who ever said I would not have a Catholic wedding? Whoever said I would make the ceremony banal? I know I mentioned my parents suggested going to a JP, but was mentioning that as something that upset me.
I'm really not sure what you're saying? A Catholic wedding is a Catholic wedding. It will be downplayed because I don't have the money for extra flowers or to dress a wedding party or anything extra like that. But we will stand before God and receive the Sacrament of Matrimony. If you want it to be more spectacular with flowers and bridesmaids and groomsmen and all that, perhaps you're willing to pitch in? And also provide some Catholics to be in the wedding party since we are lone Catholics amongst our family and friends?
What life altering changes are you asking me to reconsider? It seems to me that the situation calls for life altering changes. Life moves on and God demands that we take up our crosses and live by His will.
I think you are confusing having a nice liturgy with having an expensive one. When you said that you didn't care too much about the ceremony as the mariachis it lead me to believe you just didn't care.
You said: "I don't really care about the wedding itself. I just want to be able to have all my friends and family there for the reception. I want a nice big party and lots and lots of good food, and a mariachi band!!!"
All I was saying is go before God with a beautiful TLM. Flowers and all the rest of that stuff is not important. That's all I was saying about the liturgy and that you should care if the ceremony is beautiful (not necessarily the ornamentation).
As far as changing things in your life is who you are hanging out with. You said some pretty stinging things in your post that should make someone cringe like not breaking away from lifestyles. Most of the time it's who you spend time with. Spend time with people from church and you will spend more time doing more wholesome things by and large. That's all that I was saying. That's part of what it means to follow His will too.
-
Speaking of babies, everyone here knows that MaterDominici (my wife) is expecting again, right?
Due date is late July, and we already know that Dominic is going to have a little sister.
Matthew
Yes, and we're praying for you.
-
There was a time when naysmith's where valued for the important service they rendered and people actually paid for their criticism, even if ultimately their argument was ignored they where a great aid in helping people to live a virtuous life, now it seems people are so ruled by their ego that any criticism is treat like an attack on their very souls, when people start to again be willing to listen to the arguments of naysmiths and then reason them out instead of getting emotional and moving immediately to protect the eqo they will have moved one step closer to achieving their true end, the eternal beatitude with which God rewards the righteous.
-
On the other hand, "I don't really care about the wedding itself" wasn't exactly the best way to phrase it :)
I can see the potential for misunderstanding there.
I don't know anything about Fluffy either. I don't read her posts on FE. But when I went to read the one she wrote about this issue, I also (like Mike) got the impression that she cared more about having a mariachi band than having a Catholic wedding.
Like Matthew said, many times people can misunderstand a post because the wording of the person who posted did not articulate what they wanted to convey in a clearer way.
-
There was a time when naysmith's where valued for the important service they rendered and people actually paid for their criticism, even if ultimately their argument was ignored they where a great aid in helping people to live a virtuous life, now it seems people are so ruled by their ego that any criticism is treat like an attack on their very souls, when people start to again be willing to listen to the arguments of naysmiths and then reason them out instead of getting emotional and moving immediately to protect the eqo they will have moved one step closer to achieving their true end, the eternal beatitude with which God rewards the righteous.
This is so true. Even though my feathers get ruffled sometimes, I truly appreciate criticism.
-
Scripture talks again and again about how the Wise Man seeks out correction, and improves himself -- where the Fool gets upset and rejects criticism.
The Wise Man ends up more wise and perfect, while the fool ends up a disaster -- both because of their respective choices.
Matthew
-
Once you come to understand the measure of God's love for you then you will no longer crave the fickle love of the world which will no longer hold any value in comparison and then you will be free from the servitude under which the ego which craves the love of the world places you and so seperates you from God causing your soul to be in much torment.
You can never do enough to satisfy the demands of the ego or the body both of which will rule you like a tyrant whose lusts can never be satiated, seek instead the just and merciful king, that is Our True Lord Jesus Christ and submit yourself to his rule so that you might be free of the twin tyrants, against whom Our Lord will protect his faithful servants.
So many actions in this life are done by people seeking the favor of the world, but what is this favor worth, what reward does the world bestow on us for acting as it wishes that can compare to the supreme blessedness which God has promised us if we serve him faithfully.
Salt when thrown into the water becomes indistinguishible from it, Catholics who are called to be the salt of the earth, easily absorb the spirit of the world when unnecessarily in contact with it.
-
I just wanted to add a little to this thread. Mike, I commend your spirit, however, I think Clare has a point. You could stand to be a bit more charitable, and I mean that in the most charitable way.
With that said, it is disturbing to say the least, that this whole thing on FE was announced publicly. Yes, it is scandalous and has the potential to cause acceptance of such a choice as a Catholic solution. I've thought about it with some intent on trying to understand why someone would choose to marry civilly while one is seeking an annulment. They're obviously certain that they are going to obtain an annulment and feel this is the way to have the benefits of being "married," whether that entails relations between the two or not. Too many things wrong with that to mention, besides Mike has them covered. Unless they don't intend to ever live together, in which case opens another can of worms in the legal sense. I don't think that is the intention though judging by Tracy's desire to live as man and wife with Joe in ever sense, as she stated on FE.
I'm literally stunned by these events.
-
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
And what would be gained? That would be trampling women's rights you know. Women run the forum, they are the mods.
They behave as modernists, they are infected with modernism,
and, as such, :rolleyes:we should not violate the spirit of Vatican II, all of that old morality is old and out dated, we need to conform to the demands of the modern world you know, and promoting morality is the dull old corpse of yesteryear, it has to be new now and happening. We should be open to the new possibilities that the law has opened up for us. Divorce is not immoral, we should all change our spouses like we do our shirts, it's the modern fashion. Let's all be ecuмenical, not only doctrinally, but morally, we should be open to the pagan ideas, instead of saying that the old Catholic way is the only way, you can't say that! :really-mad2:
This is the mindset, battling that there is futile, there is nothing to be gained, they will apply the boot :drillsergeant:to whomever does. Fisheaters is a hopeless cause; and it is not Catholic, it is the forum of a couple of women who hold their modernist views as dogma. We must do our part to let everyone know what really goes on there, and what they are all about, and that they do not hold traditional morality.
-
Women run the forum, they are the mods.
Of course, the forum is now co-owned by a man....!
it is the forum of a couple of women who hold their modernist views as dogma.
Of the ten moderators, four are women.
You seem to be piling all the blame on the womenfolk!
Clare.
-
God Bless Michael S. for standing up for truth. I have been following this post from the begining from FE. all the way over here. I think Michael has taken much critisism for defending our faith, He is 100% right about this matter, it is a scandal, a scandal that nobody would know about if Vox had not have made it known. I know somebody personally (a family member) who after having read the post from Vox now thinks that it is ok to get married at the JoP and "make things right later" with a convalidation, I do not know all the facts with Vox's situation however , I don't need to know all the facts to agree that this is indeed scandalis and it does effect others just as Michael S. has graciously pointed out in an early post. It has effected my family personally. I would recommend out of prudence to anyone to stay off Fisheaters and to pray for the site owners and all who have been pursecuted and effected by this scandal. I hope that I haven't been offensive to Vox, Qud or anyone here for that matter, that was not my intention if I did, scandal can spread like cancer and we owe it out of love for God to watch out for one another. I pray for the salvation of all souls and the conversion of all sinners. God Bless
Yes Elizabeth, you are very right. Sin is what brought them down to the level they operate at. Matthew does a good job at bringing us back if we get too wild in our language. Not censoring, exhorting us to be better.
-
I'm getting in on this thread late, however I posted on FE for years and did not know this information until I was "banned" for being too Catholic. :laugh1:
Had I known this I probably would have deleted myself long ago. Kudos to Michael for actually standing up for the truth there and getting "banned" for it. Reading the cheer-leader squad encouraging sin and scandal, even years later was sickening.
I've lost some respect for certain posters involved in the '07 posts. Desperation for human respect gone wild.
What a sad sordid tale. I also agree the pictures and video allowed there are scandalous as well as a lot of the Anti-Catholic and immoral views that are given a free pass.
The whole site needs prayers. I just left and I can tell you that in my almost 3 years there it has progressively gotten worse. Pretty soon it will be just Quis, Vox and a few liberal sycophants left posting to each other.
-
The whole site needs prayers.
The whole WORLD is in much the same state, if not worse - and needs MEGA prayers. It will not be long until the rod is applied most firmly to our collective behind. God speed.
-
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're receiving counsel from traditional clergy.
Clare.
If you had any doubt that Clare is a liberal.
-
We mustn't give the benefit of the doubt to sinful actions.
-
In fact, wasn't it the "We're getting married" thread that led Matthew to create CatholicInfo?
-
How is she giving the benefit of the doubt to sinful actions?
She is giving the benefit of the doubt that they would receive counsel from traditional clergy. Totally different. Whether they listen to that clergy or not is a different story but she at least hopes they receive good counsel. How is that possibly liberal?
-
How is she giving the benefit of the doubt to sinful actions?
So do you deny that getting civilly married and living together when being already married is sinful?
Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they're receiving counsel from traditional clergy.
Do you know how to read wallflower? What this means is that we're supposed to presume that what they're doing is okay because we should assume they were counseled it was okay by traditional clergy. That is insane.
She is giving the benefit of the doubt that they would receive counsel from traditional clergy. Totally different. Whether they listen to that clergy or not is a different story but she at least hopes they receive good counsel. How is that possibly liberal?
That's not what she said.
The sad reality is that drunkenness and fornication are the norm in these Trad chapels among the young people. And women with liberal attitudes don't want there to be any social disapproval for it. And they think they're traditional Catholics. The same way Vox thinks she's a traditional Catholic.
Well, they're not. They're liberals.
-
As I've said before, posting on FE for a long period of time is dangerous because it can brainwash someone. The first time I ever visited that site, they were talking about shooting games.
I visited it the other day and they were talking about baseball and ESPN. What are topics like that doing on a (so-called) Trad forum? I am glad I never posted there.
-
"We're getting married" thread on FE started July 07
CathInfo started August 06.
Do the math :)
To answer your question, I started CathInfo to allow more latitude to the "Resistance Movement" type topics -- cօռspιʀαcιҽs, etc. Vox had locked that sub-forum.
About 6 months later I was banned from FE during a personal argument (discussion) with a female member of Fisheaters. She was crying for me to "get out of her thread!" and stuff like that; I was just laying down Catholic teaching, having an abstract rational discussion.
-
"We're getting married" thread on FE started July 07
CathInfo started August 06.
Do the math :)
Oops. Sorry, I had thought it started in 06 for some reason. I would have known it was in 07 had I thoroughly read this thread, but I skimmed over it.
-
That's what I read, as well. From what I understand, it ended with just as much drama as it's announced beginning. I'm suprised the forum is still going.
-
Me too. Maybe the current posters are too new to remember the old drama or maybe they don't care :sad:
-
As I've said before, posting on FE for a long period of time is dangerous because it can brainwash someone. The first time I ever visited that site, they were talking about shooting games.
I visited it the other day and they were talking about baseball and ESPN. What are topics like that doing on a (so-called) Trad forum? I am glad I never posted there.
I posted there a couple years ago and a gαy woman got all upset with me because in Catholic Charity I reiterated the Churches Teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and it was as if the sky was falling. Several people were apparently outraged with me because of my "insensitive" and "Uncharitable" comments including the one you are speaking about and her now ex husband especially. I wondered what happened to him since when I went back there recently after a two year absence I didnt see him on there. Amazingly I wasnt banned- but only because I left because Lent was beginning and I never go on the Computer during Lent.
I joined this forum shortly after that happened but I rarely posted here until recently. So now these things make a little more sense to me.
-
As I've said before, posting on FE for a long period of time is dangerous because it can brainwash someone. The first time I ever visited that site, they were talking about shooting games.
I visited it the other day and they were talking about baseball and ESPN. What are topics like that doing on a (so-called) Trad forum? I am glad I never posted there.
I posted there a couple years ago and a gαy woman got all upset with me because in Catholic Charity I reiterated the Churches Teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and it was as if the sky was falling. Several people were apparently outraged with me because of my "insensitive" and "Uncharitable" comments including the one you are speaking about and her now ex husband especially. I wondered what happened to him since when I went back there recently after a two year absence I didnt see him on there. Amazingly I wasnt banned- but only because I left because Lent was beginning and I never go on the Computer during Lent.
I joined this forum shortly after that happened but I rarely posted here until recently. So now these things make a little more sense to me.
Wow, that is crazy. The gαy woman should have been banned.
-
As I've said before, posting on FE for a long period of time is dangerous because it can brainwash someone. The first time I ever visited that site, they were talking about shooting games.
I visited it the other day and they were talking about baseball and ESPN. What are topics like that doing on a (so-called) Trad forum? I am glad I never posted there.
I posted there a couple years ago and a gαy woman got all upset with me because in Catholic Charity I reiterated the Churches Teaching on ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and it was as if the sky was falling. Several people were apparently outraged with me because of my "insensitive" and "Uncharitable" comments including the one you are speaking about and her now ex husband especially. I wondered what happened to him since when I went back there recently after a two year absence I didnt see him on there. Amazingly I wasnt banned- but only because I left because Lent was beginning and I never go on the Computer during Lent.
I joined this forum shortly after that happened but I rarely posted here until recently. So now these things make a little more sense to me.
Wow, that is crazy. The gαy woman should have been banned.
Example: <<<<Then what are you arguing about? Again, you are simply saying there are contradictions, and I see none.
Malleus: Well just because your eyes are malfunctioning , thats a you problem. I am not arguing , you apparently are.
And no one ever said that claiming to be "gαy" was courageous. Some people said that laurabookworm was courageous, for being open about her struggles. But that's different. So again, what are you arguing? Are you arguing with your own royal "we" in your head? We're all in agreement here, but you're accusing others of being against Church teaching, with nothing to back up the truth of that statement. So basically, you are throwing about grave accusations for no reason at all.
Malleus: I didnt accuse Laura of ANYTHING. I made a broad statement condemning the gαy Agenda and its effects on this Society in which we live. Some have taken it so far as to state its part of their Catholic identity . I cite the Dignity movement for example. IN NOT ONE OF MY CONTRIBUTIONS DID I ACCUSE A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL HERE.
What part of that remains unclear to you?
If you feel the subject of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity itself nauseating, perhaps you should choose another discussion. Saints such as Thomas Aquinas spent a great deal of time discussing such issues at length and I can't imagine them puking and needing smelling salts. Get a grip man.
[/quote]
Malleus: What is nauseating (other than reading the pointless diatribe you just contributed) is the ACCEPTANCE of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity. It has nothing to do with discussing it. Perhaps if you want to know what I think , rather than introduce Strawman after Strawman assuming what I meant - how about another approach , you know like asking for CLARIFICATION for example and thus you may save yourself future embarrassment.
And why is it that LAURA Knew exactly what I was saying and neither you nor Quis is able to? >>>>>
I'll drop the subject now - but I vividly remember being attacked from all sides.
Thanks to all of you for the new perspective.
pax