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.

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

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.  

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.

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.

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

I don't need all the facts, ...

Nuff said.

Clare.