Tribunal Ignorance

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Greetings,

An annulment was denied me because I no longer keep in contact with the people I knew when I was married. I do not know their addresses nor do I know where my ex-wife is. I don't have the money to find out either, since the marriage "tribunal" extorted an excessive amount of money from me. After a delay of two years the "tribunal" simple denied my case as easily as they would swat a fly.

I am remarried under the only law I can recognize now; The United States of America in the great State of Colorado. I wonder ful I am married to now has joined the Catholic Church through the RCIA. I am writting this at her request. We WILL NOT live under the stupid concept of "brother and sister" as your Eunuch Pope commands. It is not a sin. I never saw you there on the wedding day or honey-moon.

I cannot pursue another annulment is my understanding. In the last "tribunal" one of the little tyrants came over to my place and tried to convince me to live with my ex-wife who I had not seen at the time in over 3 years. I told him to leave and he refused. At that point I attacked him as an intruder. I injured him so critically he was in ICU for about a week. He will have scares for the rest of his life. I am sure when the "tribunal" finds that out they will extort more money from me and deny me yet again.

I am trying to come to peace terms with the Church. My wife and I are committed to each other. I have so much respect and love for her that I am willing to ask what the Church wants of me in this insane process.

Obviously I am not married to my ex-wife. Since the Church cannot see that I can only assume that the Church is full of inept, uneducated, insane individuals. I am praying that I am wrong. But, I doubt that God will answer that prayer.

Thank you for your time.

-- Sean O'Brien (sean883992@aol.com), December 11, 2001

Answers

Sean,
I am having a hard time detecting which of two things your message is: (1) an anti-Catholic fiction, planted to raise blood pressures here ... or
(2) the rantings of an immature, self-centered, disobedient little Catholic boy, who seems to be setting up himself (and his concubine) for a well-heated eternity.

I'll leave it up in the air and not bother to respond to your specific statements.
May God forgive you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.


We WILL NOT live under the stupid concept of "brother and sister" as your Dear Sean O'Brien:
What are you doing in this forum? If you need no other man's advice, and have no faith, then go your way. For your stupid information, John Paul II is not a eunuch. What's more you're wrong; it IS a sin. I refer to your hare-brained comment: ''Eunuch Pope commands. It is not a sin. I never saw you there on the wedding day or honey-moon.'' And, he hardly cares about your ''honey moon''.

''one of the little tyrants came over to my place and tried to convince me to live with my ex-wife who I had not seen at the time in over 3 years. I told him to leave and he refused. At that point I attacked him as an intruder. I injured him so critically he was in ICU for about a week.''

OK, so you beat up another man. It just shows you are exactly what you called the Church full of-- [an] inept, uneducated, insane individual. And a bully, to boot. It will be no surprise to God one day soon, if YOU end up in ''ICU'' on your deathbed, and call for a Catholic priest to hear your last confession. Bullies have a change of heart when the fat's in the fire. You'll be no exception. But then, you aren't very bright, are you?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 11, 2001.


Off.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 11, 2001.

Thank you both for your answers. To be honest I was not expecting one. I do appreciate it (that is not sarcasm, I do appreciate it).

I am just curious are either of you priests or officals of the Church? Not that your answers are less legitimate if you are not. Just curious.

Thank you for disagreeing with me. It is a breath of fresh air. It is your right and priviledge to do so; keep doing it. it is a right and priviledge I am willing to die for. Look to the former Taliban. Under their tyranny any disagreement was met with death. Hardly a society God would approve of I think.

Thank you both and God Bless.

P.S. I do not even mind any "insulting" comments made. It is they way you feel and you should feel free to express it. I ask that no one be critical of any percieved inflamatory statements. It is their right and let them use their right to the fullest.

-- Sean O'Brien (sean883992@aol.com), December 11, 2001.


Just a brief comment to Mr. Chavez.

I have been in many violent situation where I was on what can easily be called "the loosing end". I have been hospitalized. My attackers usually claim to be Catholic. I do not hold it against the Church, anyone can claim to be Catholic. And yes I have been close to death, bullets tend to do that to a Human. I don't recomend that for anyone.

As for my thouhgts...well. They are for God, me, and the individuals I shared them with. I pray you never suffer from such things.

Thank you again for your response. May the peace of God be with you this Advent Season.

-- Sean O'Brien (sean883992@aol.com), December 11, 2001.



No, Sean. I'm not a priest, nor an official of the Catholic Church. I am a life-long Catholic, 64 years of age. I was in my teens as Vatican II took place. Before the reforms of the Council, some priests did indeed seem tyrannical in their strictness, in those days.

In those days a divorce was not so casually committed by practicing Catholics. I say committed because, divorce and then re-marriage to a second spouse was, and still is, a sin.

Vatican II didn't change that. It can't be changed, because Jesus Christ is the One who condemned divorce. He called it adultery for a man to leave his legitimate wife and marry another. Adultery, as you might know is forbidden by God in the 7th commandment. So, Jesus knew what He was talking about. You will be living in adultery with the 2nd woman. If it makes you feel better about this you can call Jesus a eunuch. You can call everybody except Sean eunuchs. But it will be a sin, nevertheless. You can bank on it. It will be the cause of your damnation, and also the woman's whom you claim you love and respect so dearly.

Unless both of you repent before you die. It's a long chance, but we'll pray somehow you escape punishment. Just don't blame the priest, or the Pope. That is only showing your spite and lack of faith. May God always be merciful to you, Sean. We hope and pray!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 11, 2001.


Gene, did your memory play a trick on you?
Weren't you more-or-less 26 to 28 years old during Vatican II, which ended in 1965?
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 11, 2001.

I hope your "wife" isn't going to Holy Communion on a regular basis, because living as she is in the state of mortal sin, she is committing a grave sin of sacrilege. Until she confesses this sin and, yes, decides that you two live as brother and sister, she should not be receiving the sacraments of the living (i.e. Holy Communion). Neither should you.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), December 11, 2001.

If I am not mistaken didn't Paul say that a man may not divorce his wife unless she had committed adultery (can't remember the passage). We do not know whether Sean's former wife had committed this sin, but if she had, then isn't Sean free to marry again?

Just trying to look at this from a different angle; no offense intended.

-- Lucy Cassidy (loc47@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.


John, If it's a fault of my memory or not, I can't say. I recall the beginnings of the Council at about 1960 or close to that. Don't hold me to an exact date. I know that I grew up in the Church many years before the Council. I was there when priests did not face the congregation in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The Mass was in Latin. I had no great difficulty following the words of the priest and the faithful. A simple Sunday Missal gave us a clear translation.

We fasted from midnight on the night prior to holy communion. Now only an hour is required of us. It has become less burdensome in many ways; and more abuses are accepted now than there were then. One thing I know with certainty. I haven't changed.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 12, 2001.



Lucy, I believe that passage of scripture is translated in different ways in different versions of the Bible. Due to shades of meaning in the original text, it is wrong to interpret this way. I believe the original meant more like "even for adultery."

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), December 12, 2001.

Gene,
Pope John XXIII was elected in 1958, when you were (roughly) 21, and shortly afterward he announced his intentional to call an ecumenical council. The preparatory work was time-consuming, so the first session began in 1962, when you were (roughly) 25.
[Though you said that you "haven't changed," I'll bet you have changed since then. Ask Carmen if I am right, please!]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.


Yeah; I'm older, and your dates are close. I turn a year older every November, so I was 20. I'm curious, who's Carmen? I mean my faith hasn't changed, of course.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 12, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ