Security guard shot at Family Research Council in downtown D.C.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(08-25-2012 11:50 PM)myotch Wrote:  THIS SHOULD BE THE RADIO TIME YOU BUY

You are right. If you can produce this information, I WILL devote an entire hour to the subject.

Catholics deserve to know that

1) they do not need annulments and can receive the Eucharist anyway, OR

2) these are the kind of filthy dogmatic lies perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church.

I am very upset, as I said, by what you have written. So, be assured, it WILL be covered, in depth, every jot and tittle of the law. I have saved two and a half years of correspondence from the Canon lawyer who handled my case(s), as well as the Bishop and Diocese of Charleston, and I will be reading aloud from these verbatim.

I would like to read the pertinent information from the catechism, to go with this.

Thanks. You are doing an important public service for people who are currently being TORTURED by the church.

The lies need to stop, NOW, as I am sure you will agree?

[DaisyDeadhead]

(08-25-2012 11:50 PM)myotch Wrote:  I don't know, Daisy. It just sounds like there should be more to the situation than "I got divorced, the church found out, and I was denied the sacraments."

Wait, what do you mean "you don't know"?

You just lambasted ME for my ignorance in this situation and you DON'T KNOW?

Not only was I denied, so was my husband, who was classed as "adulterer" for marrying a divorced woman, even though he was never divorced himself.

Along these same lines, it has broken up lots of marriages, that one person can receive and the other cannot... you know that, right? Do you know the stress that places on a marriage?

Go ahead and find the pertinent quotes, I'll wait.

[myotch]

Again, I don't know your situation and could not know how many times you've been married or what the circumstances of the last divorce was. You made it sound like you were a member of the church in good standing, your husband divorced you, the church found out, and >POOF< you were denied communion.

Again, in this scenario and just this scenario, there would be nothing keeping you from receiving any sacrament.
http://www.ehow.com/info_8776606_communi...vorce.html

Quote:2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

^^If this applies to you with no other circumstance...
-----
Thank you for not bringing up Galileo.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(08-26-2012 03:32 PM)myotch Wrote:  Again, I don't know your situation and could not know how many times you've been married or what the circumstances of the last divorce was. You made it sound like you were a member of the church in good standing, your husband divorced you, the church found out, and >POOF< you were denied communion.

Again, in this scenario and just this scenario, there would be nothing keeping you from receiving any sacrament.
http://www.ehow.com/info_8776606_communi...vorce.html

Quote:2386 It can happen that one of the spouses is the innocent victim of a divorce decreed by civil law; this spouse therefore has not contravened the moral law. There is a considerable difference between a spouse who has sincerely tried to be faithful to the sacrament of marriage and is unjustly abandoned, and one who through his own grave fault destroys a canonically valid marriage. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

^^If this applies to you with no other circumstance...
-----
Thank you for not bringing up Galileo.

Is this the best you can do? One paragraph? You have informed me that you know better than I do, and have repeatedly called me ignorant... and you haul out one lame-ass paragraph to justify your outrageous statements?

Again, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Could you translate this unreadable and ungrammatical paragraph into English please? Sound like more gibberish. I am stupid and need you to translate this stuff for one as simple-minded as me. Remember? You said so yourself.

I was told, the problem was MARRYING AGAIN. Funny, you didn't seem to catch that detail, in all your love-of-legalism. THAT was the error, genius. This is why your nuns can be divorced, they have confessed and are now celibate. Its if you MARRY AGAIN that they put the screws to you.

I have been married three times. First marriage annulled under Pauline/Petrine privilege, as he was Jewish and that is automatically regarded as invalid. But it still must be formally declared so by the diocese.

Second husband Catholic, and there was the hang-up. Both marriages were under civil law, and yet annulments were required for both.

The 24 pages of single-spaced, typewritten replies to questions, referenced earlier, went into all the gory details of both marriages, which I decline to provide to you here, thank you very much.

Third marriage was under civil law (later convalidated in the Church after obtaining annulments). We were both denied the Eucharist until the annulments were granted. Applied for annulments after five years of marriage and that still wasn't considered long enough. (In November, it will be 25 years we have been married.)

Why was HE denied the Eucharist too? He was not divorced. I was. This would seem to be the canonical impropriety, according to the legalistic gibberish you have linked to. Nonetheless, according to what you have linked to, he was counseled incorrectly. He went without the Eucharist for TWO AND A HALF YEARS on my account. INCORRECTLY. (What else is the church doing incorrectly, one wonders?)

Right before the annulments were granted (married seven years by this time), we were even forced by the diocese to get "counseling" by a feminist nun with Mary E Hunt and Mary Daly books on her bookshelf, and had to pay for it.

In fact, annulments are big business for the church, the new version of INDULGENCES. I learned on the annulment-forum I mentioned, that they can typically run as high as $3000 for a Canon lawyer, and if its very complicated, can cost lots more. (One person's tab was running upwards of $12,000, way more than his civil divorce had cost.) I had mine handled by a generous Jesuit and friend, who believed in the "social gospel" and did not charge us for them... however, he DID charge his parish, unbeknownst to them. SOMEBODY paid for those annulments, if not us. MONEY. WAS. MADE.

That's the reason for the annulments. It's called EXTORTION. INDULGENCE$. MONEY.

People like the Kennedys can get divorced over and over, and if they contribute to build a new wing of the church, they can get their annulments virtually to order, and much faster than us mere mortals... THEY don't have to wait two and a half years, as we did. Look at the record of their church memberships, and this is obvious. (Unless of course they didn't bother to get them at all, as I suspect.)

I was surrounded by people who were divorced, who were sitting in the pews with the kids from their first marriages. SITTING THERE, with their kids who had been baptized by the priests. (One of them got his second wife a gig on the parish counsel.) The thing is, they were big contributors. Like the Kennedys, THEY are calling the shots, not the regular people like me.

THAT is why my Jesuit cut corners for me, he knew that, and even told me this stuff. It disgusted him. I heard lots, lots more from the annulment forum. This is typical: different rules for different people.

I remember thinking, well, at least I am going by the book, and my soul will benefit. (Ha! We see how well THAT worked, don't we?) But I honestly did not see that these people whom I knew were by-passing the rules, were suffering at all for it, they seemed like faithful Catholics to me. I was tortured by this, what I saw all around me; I wondered whether I was needlessly putting my husband through so much hell .... and for WHAT? Turns out, according to your links, this was unnecessary and wrong. It was a total waste of two and a half years.

This is the church you defend, that you think represents the MERCY of Jesus Christ. My ass it does.

You might be able to quote books, but it is obvious you know nothing about the way things really work in the Catholic church. Please do not preach arrogantly to those of us who do.

And I haven't even started on the abuses on the girls who were raped and got abortions, or who were forced to give birth, their babies stolen and given to rich parishioners. Do you want links to those forums, too?

YOU are the one defending these injustices, you are the one who quotes books and laws, instead of caring about the human heart.

One thing is certain: You're in the right place.

PS, I got links too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magdalene_Sisters

Keep defending your church, but please, do NOT defend it to ME.

[myotch]

Daisy, I have no illusions about the Catholic Church and the "perfect people" in it. I have no pretense that some Catholics have not done terrible things, from Popes to laymen. I'll even grant you that red tape regarding annulments and even conversions can just simply get too long and complicated.

When I first became Catholic, my wife could not take communion. I won't say it was a strain on the marriage more than it felt a nuisance.

We weren't fed a steady diet of "if she can't take the Eucharist, she's going to hell." As a matter of fact, everybody helping our conversion was helpful, encouraging, and positive.

I will take issue when you say that I am defending injustices like rape, forced abortions, and stolen children. I haven't defended those acts, you know it, and the other readers know it. Nor would I defend those acts. I would condemn them, as I do now. Your straw man here is dishonesty, and you know it - but as your experience with the Church is obviously an emotional trigger, I forgive your slander and slight.

I expect no more of it, though. Understand? You are an adult, fully in control of your emotions and words.

Now, to your need for annulments. You have to see the discussion from my perspective, Daisy. You say you were denied the eucharist because your husband divorced you. I didn't think that was the whole story, but that's how you presented that. Next, you said you had to get an annulment before you could receive the eucharist. I didn't think that sounded right, on the surface, and knew there was more information. Finally, you said you needed two different annulments from two former marriages. Each time you make a new revelation about what went on, you seem to get more upset and emotional. I get it - emotion trumps actual facts.

The scripture, especially Jesus' own words, have some very specific things to say about marriage, about the finality of it. Not only should marriage be entered into soberly, but any dissolution of the marriage, from the spouse's end and the church's end should be considered, gravely considered, sometimes over a period of time. I share with you the concern that some rich and powerful seem to get passes and "fast routes" and preferences, and that should be addressed, too. But I don't think the answer is to allow everyone a fast track.

This is not a defense of the Church, at all. I wish for more common sense on all sides. I also wish I knew a little more about how you think things should have gone in your case, and how realistic your "way" actually is.