Author Topic: Fisheaters Forum: Quis and Vox are Divorcing (Read 15721 times)

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #30 on:** July 23, 2011, 09:04:04 AM »

FWIW, I was just at FE...the forum has been effectively shut down. Let us pray that all involved find the peace of mind and heart they desire, regardless of where FE does or does not go from this point forth.

TheHarlequinKing · « **Reply #31 on:** July 23, 2011, 09:21:08 AM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch

!?!? Holy Moly! HK banned? Dude, you seemed so...neutral. What on earth would they ban you for? (PM me, if it's too private.)

Hail, Laramie! Quis was mad that I insinuated (half-jokingly) that he and MoreCoffee were the same person in a thread titled "Something is Fishy in the State of FishEaters". It turns out, though, that Laura and MoreCoffee, and the other dead roommate, and Laura's mom, were all the same person.

You can't check it now, though, because Quis got so mad he ѕυιcιdє-bombed the whole forum. Whatever. You can see his final note there.

wallflower · « **Reply #32 on:** July 23, 2011, 09:23:47 AM »

I was there this morning and it was running. Just went back and saw Quis' note. Makes me sick to my stomach. A few things I had feelings about but after struggling for a couple of months I decided I preferred to be supportive just in case. This is certainly not a victory for anyone and anyone feeling any satisfaction needs to make a serious examination of conscience. Very sad and disturbing.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #33 on:** July 23, 2011, 04:34:48 PM »

Quote from: Miss_Fluffy

The main thing that is creepy about this thread, besides it's very existence, is the assumption that their divorce is a good development.

We have so little information about their lives, their histories. Just pieces here and there. How can we possibly know that their divorce is somehow leading them away from sin?

As Catholics, we aren't supposed to assume sin on anyone's part, and to assume it when we don't even know these people personally. In reality, 99.999999% of their lives is a mystery to us strangers.

Not to mention that it's rather nasty to tell someone in the midst of great suffering that it's a great thing they're suffering. Some people have no sense of tact.

We actually have much information we need. They've admitted they were civilly married (only). They were not married in the Church (Quis said this). He made light of the terms 'living insin' and 'concubinage' etc. He didn't seem to think the distinction was important. If true, whatever you think of him, it was objectively a sinful arrangement.

People commenting on it is natural, and as Matthew has pointed out, it's unrealistic for them to expect privacy around what is essentially a public declaration, a marriage, especially whilst running a *traditionalist Catholic* forum.

Why don't you see that?

LordPhan · « **Reply #34 on:** July 23, 2011, 04:40:19 PM »

Quote from: Iuvenalis

Quote from: Miss_Fluffy
The main thing that is creepy about this thread, besides it's very existence, is the assumption that their divorce is a good development.

We have so little information about their lives, their histories. Just pieces here and there. How can we possibly know that their divorce is somehow leading them away from sin?

As Catholics, we aren't supposed to assume sin on anyone's part, and to assume it when we don't even know these people personally. In reality, 99.999999% of their lives is a mystery to us strangers.

Not to mention that it's rather nasty to tell someone in the midst of great suffering that it's a great thing they're suffering. Some people have no sense of tact.

We actually have much information we need. They've admitted they were civilly married (only). They were not married in the Church (Quis said this). He made light of the terms 'living insin' and 'concubinage' etc. He didn't seem to think the distinction was important. If true, whatever you think of him, it was objectively a sinful arrangement.

People commenting on it is natural, and as Matthew has pointed out, it's unrealistic for them to expect privacy around what is essentially a public declaration, a marriage, especially whilst running a *traditionalist Catholic* forum.

Why don't you see that?

I agree with this poster, them living in sin is public sin and scandal it is our duty to denounce them, it is uncharitable to them to allow them to believe it is ok to sin. To allow them to believe it is ok, is to want them to go to hell. It is also the sin of indifference to sin aswell as scandal.

Petertherock · « **Reply #35 on:** July 23, 2011, 04:51:20 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Quote from: Iuvenalis
Quote from: Miss_Fluffy
The main thing that is creepy about this thread, besides it's very existence, is the assumption that their divorce is a good development.

We have so little information about their lives, their histories. Just pieces here and there. How can we possibly know that their divorce is somehow leading them away from sin?

As Catholics, we aren't supposed to assume sin on anyone's part, and to assume it when we don't even know these people personally. In reality, 99.999999% of their lives is a mystery to us strangers.

Not to mention that it's rather nasty to tell someone in the midst of great suffering that it's a great thing they're suffering. Some people have no sense of tact.

We actually have much information we need. They've admitted they were civilly married (only). They were not married in the Church (Quis said this). He made light of the terms 'living insin' and 'concubinage' etc. He didn't seem to think the distinction was important. If true, whatever you think of him, it was objectively a sinful arrangement.

People commenting on it is natural, and as Matthew has pointed out, it's unrealistic for them to expect privacy around what is essentially a public declaration, a marriage, especially whilst running a *traditionalist Catholic* forum.

Why don't you see that?

I agree with this poster, them living in sin is public sin and scandal it is our duty to denounce them, it is uncharitable to them to allow them to believe it is ok to sin. To allow them to believe it is ok, is to want them to go to hell. It is also the sin of indifference to sin aswell as scandal.

Until Quis's post on FE I never knew about this. I guess I haven't been on FE long enough to have been there for that. I truly pray for Quis and Vox because I don't want either of them going to Hell. But it's a fact that Quis created a public scandal and rather than getting angry like he did, he should have been asking forgiveness for his scandal. However, since it's likely that Quis is suffering from mental illness and physical illness I am willing to overlook all this and just pray for him. As someone who suffers from mental illness myself, I can relate to what he might be going through. I am just glad to have this forum where when this all blows over we can get back to discussing the problems in the Church. Hopefully enough of the good people from FE will be here so we can go back to having sip sips. :cheers:

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #36 on:** July 23, 2011, 04:52:04 PM »

The only 'charity' their arrangement was due is *if we did not know* they were civilly married or were granted annullment and married in the Church, but we do know this now.

If not before, certainly as a result of his final post, in his own words.

Charity would actually require apologies to those who were run out of town for denouncing them in the past, who were clearly correct in retrospect, and not believed.

Charity would not mean dancing on the grave of their misfortune, but to acknowledge the error of their 'lifestyle' and the obvious implications and effect that had to have on the site/forum and all the pain and suffering that has caused (for themselves, their kids no doubt, forum members now) is hardly uncharitable.

In fact my claim that Quis is mentally ill in my opinion should serve to inspire additional prayer for him, not schadenfreude.

Iuvenalis · « **Reply #37 on:** July 23, 2011, 04:54:50 PM »

Darryl, agreed. I always gave them the benefit of the doubt even though the rumor had been around awhile. Benefit of the doubt was my charity.

Once it's out in the open however, I think it is worth addressing and is relevant.

Raoul76 · « **Reply #38 on:** July 24, 2011, 12:34:17 AM »

And the winner is Iuvenalis... Exactly what I was thinking.

There is nothing even remotely wrong with repeating a piece of information released to the worldwide web by one of the people involved, nor is there a "scandal" involved here at all. The scandal is their civil marriage -- both of them were excommunicated as soon as they did that. Actually, let me rephrase that. Their civil marriage was mortal sin, but the scandal came into play when they began running a Catholic forum despite no longer being in the Church, while ( presumably ) acting as if they were Catholic. Of course, I can't find the canon law that says this action is scandalous, but it's at least nauseating, let's put it that way. Kind of like FishEaters as a whole.

A divorce could not be more public. What are the complainers saying, that we should all know about the divorce but not say anything about it? These people run one of the most visible "Catholic" sites on the Internet! I personally feel no schadenfreude, since I never was on Fisheaters and therefore was never banned from there or held a grudge, etc.

But yes, it's good they're no longer together. That isn't the tragedy; their invalid marriage was the tragedy. They were FORNICATORS, people. Hopefully the ugliness of the word will make you see that it is not gloating over their "misfortune" to be glad they're breaking up, because it isn't misfortune at all. Or are you saying fornication is something positive?

Raoul76 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 24, 2011, 12:37:21 AM »

Iuvenalis said:

Quote

Charity would actually require apologies to those who were run out of town for denouncing them in the past, who were clearly correct in retrospect, and not believed.

Charity would not mean dancing on the grave of their misfortune, but to acknowledge the error of their 'lifestyle' and the obvious implications and effect that had to have on the site/forum and all the pain and suffering that has caused (for themselves, their kids no doubt, forum members now) is hardly uncharitable.

Exactly, Iuvanalis... And hopefully the day will come when SSPX people show the same charity, and apologize for calling us BLEEPS and treating us like nutters, kicking us out of seminaries and off websites until there is almost nowhere we can speak, etc., while defending gross heretical actions of anti-Popes.

Charity appears to cut two ways, doesn't it? You put it very well. Pseudo-charity that defends error always seems to turn back on itself and become intolerance for the truth.