I have seen Missouri court filings stating SSPX priest Father Duverger is living in Florida with an 18 year old girl. Father Pagliarani is visiting Sanford these days. What is going on with Sanford Fl SSPX?
https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=24AE-CC00184&inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0001_CT06#docket
Not to be worldly or trite, but 18 years old is legal age in the United States.The issue at hand seems like SSPX lied about Fr Duverger. Lots of fishy stuff in Sanford
Yes, for a priest to be with any woman is a scandal. That goes without saying.
But would the US courts get involved if a priest wanted to commit sins of sacrilege and sensuality? Those are not crimes in America (unfortunately) nor are they punishable by law.
In America, the law of the land is "do what thou wilt" at least in relationship matters. It is legal to date, be intimate with, whoever and whatever you want, divorce, you name it.
The issue at hand seems like SSPX lied about Fr Duverger. Lots of fishy stuff in Sanford
The issue at hand seems like SSPX lied about Fr Duverger. Lots of fishy stuff in Sanford
Old or neoSspx?
How is that Jacas situation related to this? At no point did Jacas say that Fr. Duverger ever touched her or do anything more than ask what she considered to be inappropriate questions.I imagined that if Fr. Pierre Duverger's name was on this Alias Summons, maybe somehow it involved an event from way back. But now I see that Stephen Sanborn is on the docket : 7/07/2025
On April 4th, 2024, in Gap, France, Rostand was convicted (https://www.complicitclergy.com/2024/04/12/society-of-st-pius-x-priest-admits-to-years-of-sɛҳuąƖ-misconduct-with-minors/) of molesting seven children on scouting trips to Switzerland, France, and Spain between 2002 and 2018.
Not to downplay the significance of the SSPX adhering to bad 1983 laws or how bad the crimes are especially for priests to commit, but the fact that there are 2 different priests involved with the same family makes me wonder if Sanborn's wife was part of the cause.
1000% she's part of the problem, if not THE problem.What do you make of the alleged "relationship" between Mrs. Sanborn and Fr.D?
let's try to disentangle the SSPX wrecking families, which appears to be more and more common these days, where the SSPX are playing "White Knight" and taking the side of disgruntled women and justifying many of their feminist attitudes. Of course, the women will claim that I am justifying "abuse" ... yet they can look at the threads where I denounced those advocating corporal punishment of wives, but the issues manifested itself most egregiously in a piece of trash put out there by Father Adam Purdy SSPX in an interview given to LifeSite News.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-catholic-priest-says-effeminate-men-are-the-root-problem-in-marriages
Absolutely absurd. While Pudy denounces lack of leadership from men as the cause of most problems in marriages (I dispute that and my experience is that it's feminist attitudes from women ... that SSPX promote), so, according to Purdy, it's almost always the men who are at fault in not making sure that the "rules are followed", but then ironically in the second part of the article denounces men who think of wives "more as one to be told what to do rather than to mutually enhance each other". Not only do I want to stick the old finger down the back of my throat with the "mutually enhance" lingo, but this gives ammunition to the feminsts who refuse to be "told what to do", as he characterizes that as an "abuse of the idea of the authority of the husband".
So, now, according to Purdy, who's engaging in a nauseatingly effeminate and obsequious "White Knight"-ing to the wives declares that a husband who, at the end of the day, expects a woman to do what she's told is abusing the notion of authority.
What do you make of the alleged "relationship" between Mrs. Sanborn and Fr.D?
I suspect that Sanborn is using it as additional ammunition for his lawsuit, just as women often make up allegations of abuse during divorce proceedings, etc.
No different from secular women, slandering their husbands and justifying the reason for the divorce. Women are way more ruthless in court than men because they are rewarded for it. And it might lead them getting full custody of their children.
Absolutely absurd. While Pudy denounces lack of leadership from men as the cause of most problems in marriages (I dispute that and my experience is that it's feminist attitudes from women ... that SSPX promote), so, according to Purdy, it's almost always the men who are at fault in not making sure that the "rules are followed", but then ironically in the second part of the article denounces men who think of wives "more as one to be told what to do rather than to mutually enhance each other". Not only do I want to stick the old finger down the back of my throat with the "mutually enhance" lingo, but this gives ammunition to the feminsts who refuse to be "told what to do", as he characterizes that as an "abuse of the idea of the authority of the husband".
We had some issues early on in our marriage and thought that seeing a priest might help. This was in the NO at the time. The priest was trying to be neutral but I could see him kind of siding with me. I didn't see this benefitting because I think I knew on the inside that I could be doing things better instead of constantly thinking my husband was in the wrong.
Obviously, this type of attitude of JUST thinking of a wife as a servant and an order-taker, taken to an extreme, can lead to tyrannnical husbands, and there are some of those out there, but after demanding that husbands show leadership and make sure rules are followed, and blaming their failure to do so on most of the trouble in familities, he completely pulls the rug out of under them and UNDERMINES their leadership, by declaring it an abuse of authority to expect the wife to do as she's told, i.e. to be obedient to her husband at the end of the day. AT NO POINT does Purdy address the plague of women who think they cannot be told what to do. I know "Traditional" wife, attending SSPX chapels, who constantly deride their husbands for "countermanding" them ... if they don't agree with something they've ordered, and actuall if they don't obey what they have commanded themselves. In other words, not a few "Tradwives" expect obedience from their husbands rather than the other way around. That's a massive plague in a society that's permeated with misandry and the derision of "toxic masculinity", etc. ... and IMO it's THE chief cause of problems in families, hands down. Not only does Purdy not address it, but he throws gasoline onto the fire that's wrecking most families.
Just because you dress modestly, have 10 kids, SAHM/homemaker, "traditional", doesn't mean you're not going to be a harpy. Recently, I've noticed some trad Catholic women take on the finances because they have the financial background and their husbands don't. I think there's a difference between the husband being too busy and giving his wife the job of doing it vs the wife thinking she'll be better at it. I also notice secular women doing that and the husband seems beta for the most part. Personally, I think men do a fine job managing the finances and it gives him a sense of masculinity.
Overall, I think that Mr. Sanborn is going to play up the checkered past of these priests in order to have a better chance of a verdict in his favor, since he knows it's his only chance. I'm not sure that's perfectly honest either ... just that he migth feel he needs to do it in order to combat the dishonest techniques that would be used against him. Once a woman alleges abuse ... proven or not proven ... 95% of the time it's game over for the husband/father. It's like the old "Me Too" movement. Then, to make it look good, before they file for divorce, they'll stage some incident and get a restraining order. It's all part of the tactic to maximize their take in the divorce proceedings.This is why a lot of men are reluctant of getting married nowdays or are extremely picky. Ladies the men are like cats, slowly you gotta get their attention, they will test you and sus you out to make sure there are no red flags, but if you spook them, they are gone.
I know of two cases in the same SSPX chapel, where women divorced their husbands, completely unjustly ... and were given positions at SSPX chapels, teaching at the school, being a school secretary, and other responsibilities. Both of the husbands compained to me, shaking their heads, that SSPX is the place to go for women who want to divorce their husbands.To be fair, even though that may not have been the case here, if the first marriage were ipso facto invalid due to lack of canonical form, and if the situation could not be (or should not be) rectified by convalidation or sanatio in radice, the Catholic spouse would do well to get out of it.
Or, if, because the legal system has been stacked against men, and so have SSPX now, the husband just gives up and becomes passive ... since exerting himself would do nothing but result in an escalation that would give the woman fuel for charges of abuse in their impending divorce hearing. I've known TradWives who incited their husbands to anger and, despite their being no physical abuse, would record them just so they could take it to divorce court. Then about 3 weeks after the divorce they're shacked up with the REAL reason they made the charges of abuse against their husband, while he's forced to pay for the adulterer's presence in his own home via alimony and child support. In the meantime, prior to the recent developments, the wife went to the Novus Ordo diocese to get the marriage annuled due to SSPX (and in some cases independent) priest not having the requisite jurisdiction. Now of course the Novus Ordo presbyter will witness marriages, making that move harder, but the NO readily gives annulments anyway, just that it's slightly harder for them now.
I've seen this exact scenario play out from TradWives going on double-digit times now, with people I knew fairly well. I've seen only one case where the husband filed for divorce against his wife's wishes. In all the other cases, it was the wife filing, against the husband's wishes, and the husband fighting it the entire time. TradWife claims abuse, in a couple cases claimed that the husband was trying to raise the children in a "cult" (characterizing Traditional Catholicism that way for additional ammunition). In a couple of the TradWife was shacked up in short order after the divorce was finalized, and the courts added insult to injury by making the divorced husband pay for the entire adulterous arrangement.
15 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=15-#x)The horseleech hath two daughters that say: Bring, bring. There are three things that never are satisfied, and the fourth never saith: It is enough.[15] "The horseleech": Concupiscence, which hath two daughters that are never satisfied, viz., lust and avarice.16 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=16-#x)Hell, and the mouth of the womb, and the earth which is not satisfied with water: and the fire never saith: It is enough [Proverbs 30:16] (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=16#)21 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=21-#x)By three things the earth is disturbed, and the fourth it cannot bear: 22 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=22-#x)By a slave when he reigneth: by a fool when he is filled with meat: 23 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=23-#x)By an odious woman when she is married: and by a bondwoman when she is heir to her mistress.
...
18 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=18-#x)Three things are hard to me, and the fourth I am utterly ignorant of. 19 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=19-#x)The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man in youth. 20 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=20-#x)Such is also the way of an adulterous woman, who eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith: I have done no evil.
18 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=18-#x)Three things are hard to me, and the fourth I am utterly ignorant of. 19 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=19-#x)The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the way of a ship in the midst of the sea, and the way of a man in youth. 20 (https://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=22&ch=30&l=20-#x)Such is also the way of an adulterous woman, who eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith: I have done no evil.I know, right? I'm with you on this, Solomon. I don't understand it either.
No, something along the lines of what Father Purdy claims might SOMEtimes be the case, if there's one single most common problem in marriages, it's FEMINISM.Feminism is as bad as wokeism. It’s truly a psychological problem which many, many women have. And it’s only getting worse.
While deriding "effeminate" men, he attempts to castrate them in the very same article. While denouncing them for not enforcing rules, he says that they shouldn't expect wives to do what they're told. So ... how do you "enforce rules"? You plead with your wife, and then if she happens to agree, then you get credit for enforcing rules. But if she says, "Purdy said you can't tell me what to do.", then it's their fault?
Or, if, because the legal system has been stacked against men, and so have SSPX now, the husband just gives up and becomes passive ... since exerting himself would do nothing but result in an escalation that would give the woman fuel for charges of abuse in their impending divorce hearing. I've known TradWives who incited their husbands to anger and, despite their being no physical abuse, would record them just so they could take it to divorce court. Then about 3 weeks after the divorce they're shacked up with the REAL reason they made the charges of abuse against their husband, while he's forced to pay for the adulterer's presence in his own home via alimony and child support. In the meantime, prior to the recent developments, the wife went to the Novus Ordo diocese to get the marriage annuled due to SSPX (and in some cases independent) priest not having the requisite jurisdiction. Now of course the Novus Ordo presbyter will witness marriages, making that move harder, but the NO readily gives annulments anyway, just that it's slightly harder for them now.
I've seen this exact scenario play out from TradWives going on double-digit times now, with people I knew fairly well. I've seen only one case where the husband filed for divorce against his wife's wishes. In all the other cases, it was the wife filing, against the husband's wishes, and the husband fighting it the entire time. TradWife claims abuse, in a couple cases claimed that the husband was trying to raise the children in a "cult" (characterizing Traditional Catholicism that way for additional ammunition). In a couple of the TradWife was shacked up in short order after the divorce was finalized, and the courts added insult to injury by making the divorced husband pay for the entire adulterous arrangement.
THAT is what I'm seeing. I do occasionally run into a guy who's very tyrannical towards his wife, but for every one of those I see, I run into dozens where the wife refuses to obey, and nags, derides, mouths off ... until she gets her way, and feels entitled to getting her way. And what's sickening is that when the husband accuses them of being disobedient, they actually claim that they HAVE been obedient, doing everything the husband had ever asked of them. I find myself utterly perplexed about what alternate universe they actually believe that to have been true in. Invariably the TradWives claim abuse, brainwashing in a cult, will immediately get a restraining order on the husband for physical abuse ... simply for having administered regular (not excessive) spankings when they were called for, and that's just to set the stage for getting very favorable divorce settlement. Before they intend to file, months before, they start making recordings of the husband getting angry with them for mouthing off, and they edit the recording to cut out the part where they instigated it. Oh, and get this ... in one case, the TradWife who did this, claimed abuse, got restraining orders, won full custody of the children as a result, claiming that they kids were abused and in a cult, the divorced husband (a relative of mine) actually offered to keep paying her child support just so he could have custody of the kids. In other words, she would get child support while he would actually financially support the kids, who would live with him ... i.e. where she would sponge up the child support for herself. She was perfectly fine with that arrangement ... thereby sending her kids off to be subject to "abuse" (this guy should have filed child endangerment charges, since if you claim he was abusing them, why's she sending them over there? -- except that then the kids would have ended up with CPS). I don't think this TradWife "mom" visited her children, at her divorced husband's place more than 2 or 3 times in about 10 years or so. Instead she spent the husband's child support on her and her adulterous concubine, shacked up in a house that he had paid for and that she got. But he was OK with making that sacrifice so that the children could be away from her pernicious influence.
So, this fantasy land of "effeminate men" causing most marriage problems from Fr. Purdy absolutely discredits him and the SSPX, and this attitude is likely behind what the SSPX did to Mr. Sanborn's family.
I know I've had this argument before, but this is a case where married men (married priest or even just a lay consultant) would be in a MUCH BETTER situation to do marriage counseling, etc. than these celibate priests, who in their minds perhaps liken all women to reflections of Our Lady, due to their inexperience with them, unaware of how many of them are very adept at manipulation, and so they fall victim to their wiles, where the SSPX priest undoubtedly went over to Mrs. Sanborn's house and was met with great sobbing, wailing, moaning, many tears, and gnashing of teeth ... as she describe the unspeakable abuse to which she and the children had been subject. Then, after she sensed the priest(s) buying her version of events, she'll lighten up, acting happy and comforted, and even smiling at the priests, thanking them effusively for helping her in her dire predicament (also engaging that instinct of males to help women in distress and emotionally getting them attached to her), reinforcing their buy-in to her story. Said women undoubtedly also practiced what even the courts have acknowledge and termed "parental alienation" by poisoning the kids against the father. When the father is away at work, the mother can get to work programming the kids, explaining how the wicked and abusive husband and father is really the cause of all their troubles, and then convinces the children that the father abuses them. In fact, I knew of one case where the mother smacked the kids around orders of magnitude more than the husband every spanked them ... where I personally witnessed her smacking them up with the slightest provocation, with the husband pleading for her to have a bit of restraint ... and then had the temerity not only to claim abuse of the children, but then had coached the children to make the same accusation. Years later, the kids often feel guilty and then recant, explaining they had been told to say that by their mother, sometimes because the mother claimed that if they did not, they would end up in foster homes. In one of the most egregious cases of "parental alienation", this actually happened to one of my brothers, whom some of you know well ... where during a visitation shortly after the divorce proceedings, my brother, who's about the most gentle individual you'd ever meet, had a restraining order filed on him and could only visit the children supervised at a police station ... and so one time my brother took some cookies for the kids. Then, one of the kids, looked over to his mother before accepting the cookie, but was extremely nervous about accepting it. She nodded her assent, and despite that he still appeared rather reluctant. Now, my brother couldn't figure out what was going on. Well, on a later visit, one of the kids spilled the beans and blurted it out that the TradWife mom (mover and shaker at an SSPX chapel after said divorce) had told them that my brother and his mom (my mom / her mother-in-law) had been poisoning their food trying to kill them. True story. I kid you not. So these TradWives that Fr. Purdy puts up on a pedestal ... these preists are gullible, naive, get easily played by these master manipulators and, yes, LIARS. Many of these women will shamelessly lie like it's going out of style, slandering and calumniating their husbands. And the SSPX priests probably just lap it up, being manipulated by the poor woman in distress, expecting them to ride in like White Knights to save them ... and they oblige. They should let experienced marriage counselors make assessments of situations before passing judgment. They should also interview third parties, instead of attempting to resolve the he-said-she-said on their own, knowing that both sides are likely exaggerating culpability and one or the other side or both will lie.
I do hope that Mr. Sanborn wins the lawsuit and makes SSPX feel the pain, and force them to think twice about wrecking families.
Not only are the women (that Ladislaus refers to, who divorced their husbands) evil and trying to fool God that they aren't evil, who do they think they're kidding?
Do none of them have any children? Don't you think the children will be affected by this horrible example?
Just for starters, it's difficult to look at your children with a straight face and say you love them, while hating/wronging their father, WHO IS HALF OF WHO THEY ARE.
When a mother rejects the father, or the father rejects the mother, you're rejecting HALF OF YOUR KIDS SUBSTANCE. Remember that. They are a lot like BOTH PARENTS. And don't think the kids don't know that, at least deep down. Regardless of how "amicable" the divorce/separation was. If you could stand them at all, you'd still be together. And you're not. So you are annoyed/disgusted/whatever by your ex-spouse -- which means those children who have many of the same looks, mannerisms, habits, personality, strengths/weaknesses, etc. are going to be equally annoying, disgusting, etc.
Again, kids understand this IMPLICITLY without being able to put it into words. But it's why divorce is forbidden by God. Because it ruins children's lives. It causes depression, under-achievement, daddy issues, and a countless train of other evils.
This is why a lot of men are reluctant of getting married nowdays or are extremely picky. Ladies the men are like cats, slowly you gotta get their attention, they will test you and sus you out to make sure there are no red flags, but if you spook them, they are gone.For however down voted me. Lions are still cats. A wise man is going to be very prudent in picking a wife. He's seen how men are easily destroyed by modern courts and does not want his labour to be stolen from him.
For however down voted me. Lions are still cats. A wise man is going to be very prudent in picking a wife. He's seen how men are easily destroyed by modern courts and does not want his labour to be stolen from him.
I have seen Missouri court filings stating SSPX priest Father Duverger is living in Florida with an 18 year old girl. Father Pagliarani is visiting Sanford these days. What is going on with Sanford Fl SSPX?
https://www.courts.mo.gov/cnet/cases/newHeader.do?inputVO.caseNumber=24AE-CC00184&inputVO.courtId=SMPDB0001_CT06#docket
I read every single filing on the court website. The plaintiff has attempted for almost a year to serve Fr Duverger and failed because false addresses were provided by "someone". Either the plaintiff's counsel is incompetent or the SSPX is hiding that priest, utilizing faithful in the most despicable manner. This indeed is a scandal that should completely shutter every SSPX chapel in the US. Not to mention what happened at Post Falls...
No, something along the lines of what Father Purdy claims might SOMEtimes be the case, if there's one single most common problem in marriages, it's FEMINISM....
Everything you said is 100% inline with my experience. It's a plague.
This entire affair is sordid. There’s no other word for it.As I married man, I couldn't agree more. I have had characteristics of a loner since I was in elementary school. I should have never married. I now understand it better than ever, as a Traditional Catholic. Maybe I don't want to carry this cross, someone has a heavier cross than me for sure. But when I see how my mother, and aunt (wife of father's brother) still obeys amd respects her husband, I almost never experience that with my wife. And they still attend NO mass, go sometimes on pilgrimages, pray the rosary everyday. My mother in law also was submissive but had a also wrong choice of a husband. She suffered a lot from him (smoking and alcohol addiction, etc.) and his mother. She had to work 12-15 hours a day in a franciscian monestary and cleaning the camps, apartments. And my wife (her daughter) was left on her own most of the day, or with her father who was at home more than her mother. It's so unnatural and also bad company in a small village had to do dmaage and it did. She became antisubmissive, "anticross", very hard to acceept unjustice, ofter swearing, using bad language, yelling, disobeying, even stealing my card and spending my money when she was unemployed. I just can't realize still why I haven't divorced from her when we still haven't had a child.....
I thank God for depriving me of a religious vocation, marriage, husband, and motherhood.
The life of loner, misfit, and reject is far better than the drama, “As The SSPX Turns.”
As I married man, I couldn't agree more. I have had characteristics of a loner since I was in elementary school. I should have never married. I now understand it better than ever, as a Traditional Catholic. Maybe I don't want to carry this cross, someone has a heavier cross than me for sure. But when I see how my mother, and aunt (wife of father's brother) still obeys amd respects her husband, I almost never experience that with my wife. And they still attend NO mass, go sometimes on pilgrimages, pray the rosary everyday. My mother in law also was submissive but had a also wrong choice of a husband. She suffered a lot from him (smoking and alcohol addiction, etc.) and his mother. She had to work 12-15 hours a day in a franciscian monestary and cleaning the camps, apartments. And my wife (her daughter) was left on her own most of the day, or with her father who was at home more than her mother. It's so unnatural and also bad company in a small village had to do dmaage and it did. She became antisubmissive, "anticross", very hard to acceept unjustice, ofter swearing, using bad language, yelling, disobeying, even stealing my card and spending my money when she was unemployed. I just can't realize still why I haven't divorced from her when we still haven't had a child.....
This story about SSPX priests in Florida is very bad example and scandalous. I sometimes think that "trad wife" would be different than mine, but clearly that is not the case. Feminism and globalization, internet made it destructive almost everywhere excepts some tribes maybe.
I read every single filing on the court website. The plaintiff has attempted for almost a year to serve Fr Duverger and failed because false addresses were provided by "someone". Either the plaintiff's counsel is incompetent or the SSPX is hiding that priest, utilizing faithful in the most despicable manner. This indeed is a scandal that should completely shutter every SSPX chapel in the US. Not to mention what happened at Post Falls...I agree many SSPX chapels are a mess, but shutting down every single SSPX chapel in the USA is a bit extreme! Think of all the souls that rely on SSPX for Mass and Sacraments. Think of all the souls that will either go back to the novus ordo, most of which I’ve come to believe have invalid priests therefore invalid sacraments. Many will cease to practice the Faith, go out into the world, or even become Protestant. Thousands of souls could be lost. In many places, the SSPX is the only option. Sanford, N. Carolina, and Post Falls (was it a chapel or a school?) have had now open scandals. What about the probable majority of people NOT involved in any way, and chapels where scandals have NOT occurred? They should all be punished? Christ warned that there will be scandals, and woe to those who cause them. They should be fitted with millstone necklaces and dumped into the sea. He didn’t say their victims should be punished! It is also true that the victims of scandals will suffer, but they have the choice of whether to take scandal and let it destroy their souls, lose the Faith, or to forgive and go on, however difficult that may be. Depending upon the circuмstances, that may mean having to switch chapels, accept the loss of friendships, endure a fractured family, lose one’s job and suffer poverty, move away, or go “home alone.” Why would anyone WANT innocent parties to suffer for the sins of a few evil doers? God may will it as a test or strengthening, but that is not something an individual without proper authority may rightfully impose upon thousands of souls.
If you are validly married, you cannot divorce your wife, no matter how much of a pain she is. There are many people who suffer due to bad marriages. You are not alone. Good wives are the exception these days, even among "Trads", I dare to say.Thank you Giovanni Berto for encouraging words, I feel weak for even writing this personal details of my family life. I realise now that my complaining to anyone didn't produce any good only for the moment for me. I opened up to some of my family members about it, and it only brought more problems, conflicts. At the same time, it was unbearable for me to have nobody to talk about it, like true Catholic faith, Tradition, etc.
I believe that a part of what you say is right, but another part of it might be a temptation from the Devil, for you to think that you would be better elsewhere.
If I am not mistaken, you have just have your first child less than a year ago, right? Even if your wife is not the best, now is the time to make the best out of your marriage, for the healthy development of your child. You have to be a good husband and to be a good father. You have to give the child a peaceful home, and avoid fights. Easier said than done, I know, but don't be disheartened.
Thank you Giovanni Berto for encouraging words, I feel weak for even writing this personal details of my family life. I realise now that my complaining to anyone didn't produce any good only for the moment for me. I opened up to some of my family members about it, and it only brought more problems, conflicts. At the same time, it was unbearable for me to have nobody to talk about it, like true Catholic faith, Tradition, etc.
I have a baby daughter which in a few days will be 2 years and 5 months old. I love her more than myself and I know my wife also loves her. She sometimes is more harsh towards her than me, but for a good reason. I remember my mom used to tell that her mother (born in 1920.) was raised that way that when her husband comes in house, she would stand up every time. But for a 40-50 years already it has started to look ridiculous, humiliating for women. How so many things have changed. My late mother's mother was a saintly, humble, obedient women. Only one of my aunts is similar to her, she only knows Novus ordo religion but is quiet, humble, always stayed at home with many children. She even helped to watch and raise more than 5-6 grandchildren while her daughters and sons are at work. It's so rare and hard to comprehend, even more because she was from a very wealthy family (her dad was a rich lawyer, worked in Germany for years) and she married to my good uncle when he returned from military service.
Today that type of love, sacrifice, commitment is unimaginable, in real life and on the Internet.
I need to embrace my cross with love, which I have a difficulty, it's human nature. But Our Lord Jesus Christ suffered innocently, as did Blessed Virgin Mary. They both did only God's will, and suffered more than we will ever will if we don't end up in Hell. Maybe Jesus suffered more than sinners in Hell shall suffer...that thought should make us all humble and stop complaining, or the sufferings of martyrs in the early Church....horrific.
People should stop using secular or Church, I mean, Novus Ordo courts because rarely they make judgements based on justice and Catholic moral laws. They are mostly infiltrated by the freemasons, (neo)communists, globalists.
So sad what SSPX has been tolerating, similar like the modernists. Especially when they use Code of Canon law 1983. when suites them..."recognize and resist", sometimes "recognize and make use of it when it suits us"...