When I returned from my business trip this weekend, the decision from the Arlington tribunal was in the mail waiting for me. I had hoped this first instance tribunal would get it right, and secretly, I had also hoped a decision for validity might suggest to my wife, Mary Cris, that God wants her to give our marriage a chance.

I'm sure God hears our plans for ourselves. Then He has a little chuckle and sets up to ask us if we truly love Him. He points to another way. It’s the less comfortable path with a cross waiting along the side for us to pick up and carry before we proceed. And then, to top it all off, He wants us to be happy taking up that cross and walking down that difficult road.

The letter announcing the decision itself is very short, giving no supporting reasoning. There are some other things about the letter that are a little disturbing in that it mentions that only a Catholic marriage is barred until a final decision by a second tribunal. It gives no explanation at all about the option to appeal to the Sacred Roman Rota. Instead, it simply encourages that the provincial tribunal will automatically review it (i.e., approve and rubber stamp it) within sixty days. Of course, I will be going down to the Arlington tribunal to review the full written sentence. This should be something more like a legal brief. It will be fascinating to see what they are actually basing their decision upon. I'm thinking it is most probably Dr. DiVietri's report.

This report alone, if taken without consideration of the other material submitted could possibly be enough to support a nullity decision. I kind of doubt it as it had a lot of procedural flaws. But most importantly, it was totally off-base in its characterization of Mary Cris, and her intellectual maturity and potential for controlling her will with respect to marital obligations. But the Arlington tribunal decision might involve something else too. For the moral and spiritual sake of the judges, I hope this is not the case as it means their decision would be extremely contrived.

Either way, I'm absolutely sure that the evidence when considered as a whole, and the true factual situation, is not in any way commensurate with what is needed to properly reach a finding for nullity. I’m able to say this as I’ve taken that shroud of secrecy that American tribunals cloak themselves with and pulled it aside. That shroud is really an imposed ignorance, both for the parties, and unfortunately some judges.

I don't like what I have seen, and will be devoting a good part of my future life to addressing this injustice which so greatly offends God. I was thinking He would expect this of me. And so He has handed me a first instance decision for nullity for the very reason that He expects me to be a personal witness, and not simply a somewhat detached observer. There is a terrible problem with American tribunals and it is gravely harming Catholic marriages in the United States. My marriage is Exhibit A.

Both Mary Cris and I have our own individual weaknesses. But we had nothing lacking, or creating a disturbance, in either our intellect or will that would support a determination of nullity. Therefore, I'm absolutely sure that there is no adequate basis for this decision. So I'm compelled to proceed with an appeal to the Sacred Roman Rota. It’s the only way to see that God's will is done in this matter.

In a way, I'm sad that my family will not have the happy home we could have had. And my wife, sons, and I, will all lose out on many opportunities we could have had together. The greatest regret I have is that Mary Cris and I, had our conjugal relations not been suspended by this marital separation, could easily have had a couple more children. I myself would especially have wanted at least one daughter. This is probably wishful thinking on my part, but Mary Cris may feel the same. Our daughter, like her mother, would have been so very wonderful. But God's plan for us does not appear to include any of these beautiful things.

Apparently, He has something else in mind. Praise God, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I am joyful in abandoning my personal wants and desires for the sake of what my heavenly Father expects from me. And our Blessed Mother will surely help guide us along every single step of the way.

Please pray for my wife and family. God bless you.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 27, 2003

Answers

I hope you're not using real names here, because if you are that is very disrespectful of all of your family, and I include extended family here. These are public forums, and people should remember that. Do you want someone you know typing up "tribunals" in a search engine and happening upon this? Maybe you don't care, but I'm sure your wife does, as would the rest of the family. Not to mention using this doctor's name, and just mentioning it in the context of some report is violating someone's confidential medical or (???) information.

I hope things work out for you and your family.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 27, 2003.

Pat,

Regarding GT's comment about the Dr.. At this point it is a good idea to have the moderator delete your post so it will remain confidential. But regarding your spouse, since the divorce is already a matter of public record the annulment info really is not a startling revelation.

Sorry, Pat. Now the real battle begins if you chose the long haul.

I would suggest that you think long and hard about it over the next couple of days. Most likely you will incur the wrath of your spouse as it will, in the Church anyway, delay any plans she may have with another guy. If there is anyone you trust deeply I would ask them, if I were you, to review the facts to give you another opinion.

Good luck. Be forwarned that after the Roman decision(s), even if it (they) are in your favor it will be years down the road (at least 5- 10) and your wife will not return to you even if the Church holds that you are indeed married. Sorry buddy, truly. I hope my direct approach is not too hurtful to you right now.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 27, 2003.

For the record Pat but only if you desire.

Was it Canon 1095? If so was it 1095 B or 1095 C?

Consent or inability regarding obligations?

Just curious.

Was it based upon both of you or just your spouse.

The odds say Canon 1095 B and based upon your wife. Most often but not always. Just a guess.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 27, 2003.

Karl, regarding the divorce as being "public info", it is and it isn't. In most places in the US, yes, these things are published, but often, they are not published in big daily papers, but just in small papers that just barely meet requirements for "general circulation". Lots of even relatively close people don't find out about divorces until 'way after the fact, because most people consider these things to be their own business, no one else's--and same goes for an annulment, imho.

And even if it is public in the local area, that doesn't mean everyone on the internet needs to know about it. If Pat wishes to put such info out there, all I'm saying is to have some consideration for other people involved. If I were Pat, I would not want my children reading this thread on the internet, because among other reasons, they're children, and should be as much as possible left out of the name-calling (and there is some in here, when you read it carefully as well as other posts on this subject) and other negative aftereffects.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 27, 2003.

"There are some other things about the letter that are a little disturbing in that it mentions that only a Catholic marriage is barred until a final decision by a second tribunal."

Patrick,

I would call that more than disturbing -I call it disgusting and very revealing of how corrupt the Tribunal apparatus is in its 'pastoral' zeal...

I am sorry -I feel for you and pray for you and your family and for your strength to continue carrying what has been given you...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 27, 2003.

For the record, the decision is supposed to be under 1095, No.2, but I think they are mingling it with 1095, No.3. I won't know for sure until I see the written sentence.

I don't want the moderator to delete anything. I'm actually going to be publishing a book, in narrative form, that recounts the whole process among other things. It should be readable, only slightly titillating, and educational at the same time. It would be great if I can make some money off this, but that's not the goal.

I have no expectation whatsoever for a reconciliation. But I do know I am doing the right thing, and in the right spirit. I'm fortunate to have a significant number of people in my life having deep integrity who all agree I am doing the right thing, for the right reason. There are some others whom I respect, that disagree. But the reasons they give me for not proceeding do not address what they think God wants, only what they think I want, or should want.

Despite all this. I will continue to love my wife even if she cannot do the same towards me. I have recourse to God to sustain me in this. Its actually quite a joyful experience. Especially given how much I wanted to be good husband and father all my life, like my own father.

I'm meeting the Holy Father in three weeks, in his general audience. This is what he wrote last year. It inspired me to take the path I am about to take:

"Today's strongly secularized mentality tends to affirm the human values of the institution of the family while detaching them from religious values and proclaiming them as fully independent of God. Influenced as it is by models of life that are too often presented by the mass-media, today's mentality asks, "Why must one spouse always be faithful to the other?" and this question is transformed into an existential doubt in situations of crisis. Marital difficulties can take various forms, but in the end they all amount to a problem of love. For this reason, the preceding question can be reformulated in this way: why it is always necessary to love the other spouse even when so many apparently justifying reasons, would lead one to leave?

Many replies can be given; among them the very powerful ones are the good of the children and the good of the entire society, but the most fundamental reply comes through the recognition of the objectivity of being spouses, seen as a reciprocal gift, made possible and guaranteed by God himself. The ultimate reason, therefore, for the duty of faithful love is none other than what is the basis of the divine covenant with the human person: God is faithful. To make possible the fidelity of heart to one's spouse, even in the hardest cases, one must have recourse to God in the certainty of receiving assistance. The way of mutual fidelity passes, moreover, through an openness to Christ's charity, which "bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things" (I Cor 13,7). In every marriage the mystery of redemption becomes present, brought about by a real participation in the Cross of the Saviour, accepting the Christian paradox that joins happiness with the bearing of suffering in the spirit of faith."

Quite beautiful, don't you think? Real love hurts. But it is in that pain that we are purifed. I'm planning on coming through this life squeaky clean at the end.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 27, 2003.

I know where you are going and from the bottom of my heart I wish you the best, Pat. I hope thing turn out for you much differently then they have for me.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 27, 2003.

* things * oops!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 27, 2003.

Daniel, You state, "I would call that more than disturbing -I call it disgusting and very revealing of how corrupt the Tribunal apparatus is in its 'pastoral' zeal... "

I totally disagree with you.

Granted, every diocese is indepenant and I can't speak for yours, but my experience is that the tribunals are doing a very good job.

The problem is that people are not being mature and using good Catholic values and canon law when they first enter marriage.

What you are viewing is the correction of wrongs -- not the wrongs themselves.

It is much, much better for someone to seek a declaration of nullity than abandon the Church, which happens all too often.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 27, 2003.

john,

My disgust was in that the letter by specific inclusion of said statement suggests 'pastorally' that there are other means to marry while 'waiting' for the assured nullity... The fact that the spouse(s) are Catholic in this case is a given --Irregardless, the statement is disgusting to me because IT does not convey Catholic/Church teaching -it diminishes the Marriage Sacrament -You call this righting a wrong? I call it disgusting disobedience...

The Tribunals are in place to administer justice NOT to prepare the way for second marriages -otherwise there is conflict of interest... IF the tribunals take it upon themselves to 'educate' by form letter -the education should at least be faithful to Church teaching... Simply put: No marriage is possible UNLESS a declaration of nullity is made upon completion of the full tribunal process.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 27, 2003.

I too, thought that was an odd statement, in that, well, annulments really only matter to Catholics, and only to those Catholics who choose to seek one, or are reluctantly dragged into one....

If it needs a second tribunal to be final, and that the first decision can be reversed, then why send the first letter at all, raising false hopes one side?

As to whether they are preparing the way for (second) marriages, I don't know. Like I said in another thread, perhaps the annulment process should be gone through BEFORE the divorce process.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 27, 2003.

"I'm absolutely sure that there is no adequate basis for this decision. So I'm compelled to proceed with an appeal to the Sacred Roman Rota. It’s the only way to see that God's will is done in this matter."

Patrick,

I am curious, did you at any time during first instance convey to the Tribunal that you would appeal to the Sacred Roman Rota if necessary?

I have heard that Tribunals tend to be more 'deliberate' if the scrutiny of the Sacred Roman Rota is suggested possible. I have not done this BUT have considered it... I am still in first instance in the evidence/witness phase -what is your opinion on conveying a potential appeal to the Sacred Roman Rota? I will ask my Canon Lawyer about this as well...

P.S. Keep us informed of the various details invloved -I am sure I will most likely have to take the path you are on and any additional information will help...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 27, 2003.

I was really pretty explicit with the Arlington Tribunal, especially beginning last February. I even drafted an opinion letter that cited eight Roman Rota decisions and explained why they cumulatively showed that the marriage had to be valid.

In my case, unfortunately, there is a report by a psychologist that was actually my marriage counselor when I was trying to get my wife to reconcile. Apparently a good part of his business is in giving testimony to Tribunals. He wrote a report that pretty much disqualified my wife for marriage. The tragedy of the matter is that when I read the report it was totally offbase.

My wife is and was at the time we married quite mature and normal. I tried to explain that to the Tribunal. And I sent them a ton of evidence including an article she wrote the season we married in Crisis Magazine about the sacramental nature of marriage. I also included a report by a psychologist that actually evaluated her personally that said she was quite mature and normal. They went ahead and declared null anyway.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.ney), October 27, 2003.

Hey, it does work. I just did a Google search on "Pat Delaney Arlington Tribunal" and the first two hits were postings from this board. I have had a couple of direct email requests as well about previous postings.

This is a very good thing indeed.

Praise God for Google. Praise God I am an attorney completely aware of all the ins and outs involved in defamation law.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 28, 2003.

Pat, Please help clear up some confusion. Were you seeking the declaration of nullity in hope that the tribunal would declare it valid in order to use this as a tool toward reconciliation? (You may have covered this in another thread, but I can't remember the details and don't have the time to research it right now.)

Or, was your former spouse seeking the declaration?

I know two priests who are assigned to our diocesan tribunal. I know the effort each puts into their decisions. They have my respect.

One can not fault the parish priests, tribunals or diocese for TRYING to pastorally care for their people.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 28, 2003.

It's the issue of privacy, I'm concerned with here, and you seem not to care. That shows me that you don't love her, and worse, you don't seem to care much about your children's feelings either, whatever you might say on this board.

I initially thought that you were the injured party in your divorce--with what you've written of late, I'm beginning to think otherwise. No MATURE person would air his/her personal issues with another on a public forum and name names, whether your grievances are valid or not. Maybe the tribunal is right after all, but it's not your wife, it is you (shaking my head here, sadly).

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 28, 2003.

Things discussed here are too high for me to understand, but one thing I would like to tell that if any couple desires sincerly to save their marriage. They will have to do somethings before going to any psychological or marriage counselling or the even the church law.

They need a really good spiritual counseling with a orthodox priest, who will cover these dimensions prayerfully: 1. A through and good confession (not hiding anything of their lives) 2. A sincere bringing up personal hurts or wounds (if possible write to one another) and asking forgivness (Forgive to others too). 3. A sincere repentance for dabbling in anything occult and occult- related people, evil pursuits, etc. Then confess, then renounce, and then get prayed over for deliverance by a spiritual priest/exorcist.

After than spend some time alone. Pray and wait for God to speak. He will speak. Marriages will be saved. Resolve to live a holy life with regular confessions, Holy Eucharist, ---Family prayer--, personal prayer and Bible. Those have these regularly cannot have a broken marriage.

If this doesn't work then only go for other types of psychological/marriage counseling (unfortunately, the only thing our priests nowadays take delight in!).

Remember, psychological counseling tackles and may solve genuine psychological problems like misunderstandings, relationship ignorance, wrong ideas, misinterpretations, misplaced fears/guilt, poor coping skills, etc., but spiritual problems cannot be dealt psychologically.

One feature of a spiritual problem is that the more you try to tackle it psychologically, the more the counselor will be convinced that divorce (or called annulments) is the only way out for your marriage.

Greatest problem today is satanic attacks on all families directly or indirectly (even using so called good people, psychologists, and even perhaps an unspiritual priest).

-- leslie john (lesliemon@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

Leslie,

Amen! But orthodox priests are few and far between who have any adequate understanding of marriage. It was such spiritual counseling that pushed my wife to destroy a sacrament and such spiritual counseling that helps encourage her continued adultery! So much for orthodoxy in the Catholic Church hierarchy.

John P,

You have swallowed the falsehood hook, line and sinker. Pat's WIFE is not his "FORMER SPOUSE", she IS his wife. If there was any interest in "Pastoral Counseling" it should be directed towards a reconciliation. You and countless others are blind, by choice, to the manifest errors in current "Pastoral" Catholicism. The Church ISin the business of of destroying marriages, its presumption of validity is a sham. There is clear evidence of it in countless tribunals' literature and Catholics such as yourself ARE RESPONSIBLE as well as the hierarchy for its damages. You ARE your brother's keeper, so are the hierarchy who are so fast to act against a marriage and so unwilling and obstinate to act decisively to for marriages.

Such is the Pastoral care you speak of.

GT,

You are presumptuous to a high degree. If you do not know of specific examples of both spouses behavior to discuss, then shut your mouth or better stop your fingers from spreading the pollution of your mind.

Divorce is a gravely serious sin. When it is not canonically and mor sally justified it is a mortal sin. Get a grip.

I lived through a first instance decision which was a fantasy wherein many clerics engaged in gravely mortal sin and a will pay for their garbage eternally. You are exponentially off-base.

If Pat's ultimate decision from Rome comes back in favor of the Sacrament, will you give up everything you have to serve the cause of reconciling marriages for the rest of your life? If not, shut up, for you show yourself to be an inconsiderate fool.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

Karl, I'll pray for the Charity towards others that we all need.

The Catholic Church's position on marriage has never changed.

Procedures in tribunals have changed over the years but not the mission. Marriage is a Sacrament.

The burden of proof has not changed. A marriage is a VALID MARRIAGE until proven otherwise.

We are all influenced by our own unique situations, but, one should not preach as if one is the Rota.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 28, 2003.

Let me add... A tribunal examines a marriage.

It does not take sides.

IT LOOKS AT ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE TOTALITY.

Sometimes people tranfer their hostilities from the marriage to others. This is not healthy.

God bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 28, 2003.

For the record, I filed the Petition as DiVietri counseled me that I should and that it would be probably granted. I myself filed as I wanted an answer. After waiting two years, I could not wait any longer. I did the research, and discovered the marriage was valid. I then renounced the petition, but the Arlington Tribunal replied that they were going to proceed notwithstanding that I ask for the petition to be withdrawn.

GT, sorry that you don't share my perspective. Nevertheless, I will not judge you. But I have no qualms whatever about sharing my story as long as it is done truthfully. Its a staory that deserves to told as it will help to right an injustice being perpetrated in American diocese tribinals. I plan on educating my sons about every aspect of this. If you feel like criticizing that, that is your right. Although personally, I think you are being judgmental and timid, apparently, we have very different personality types.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 28, 2003.

You beliefs are not healthy, John P.

To sift for the truth is the aim, indeed, the American Canonists need alot of target practice.

Tell me why, John P., the Catholic Church supports and includes my wife and her lover intimately in its daily life, when it has factual substantiated proof of ongoing canonical, civil and criminal trangressions against the party, the Church itself has adjudicated as the "abandoned" spouse?

For the Church to do nothing in the face of a Roman final decision regarding a sacramental marriage, when that marriage is being publically violated in front of a congregation of catholics, with all their support of course as well as thier priest, local ordinary and his metropolitan, and in front of all of our five children and their two children begs to differ with your conclusions.

Grow up John P. and see the corruption in your Church.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

One wonders how objective a law enforcement person you can be with your obvious disregard for the facts, the truth or justice for the innocent.

If I were you I would think about it and not simply react.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

Pat, you don't understand. What I take offense to, on behalf of your wife, is the public airing of your "dirty laundry". It is no one's business except yours, your wife's, your children's, and those few people who are privy to this whether they want to be in it or not. Putting this entire business on a public forum is not going to encourage her on the path to reconciliation, either--you don't catch flies with vinegar.

I think Tribunals are a waste of time because they take a relatively simple thing that can and should be handled by the local parish priest and turn it into a circus.

Now, I have no problem if you want to write a book about Tribunals and their problems--it would no doubt be fascinating reading--I just think you should change all names and readily identifiable issues so that privacy is protected. Although I would also think that it would provide fodder for those who think the Church is inconsistent in its teachings....

"Timid" is not a word to describe me, but thanks for the laugh.

Karl, being rude to me will not change things. Pat has alluded to different things in regards to himself and his wife, that she is not here to confirm or deny. That is not fair. I wouldn't object to this so much if he didn't mention names, but he does. And Karl, bad as divorce is, it still isn't murder.

I hope things work out for you, Pat, I really do, especially for the sake of your children, but I do NOT think you're going about it the right way, from what you've posted.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 28, 2003.

Right GT, divorce is not murder, it is worse.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

So Karl, your children (if you have any) would prefer that their mother be murdered than divorced?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 28, 2003.

Do you really want to go down this road? Why? Is there a good result from this? Or have you not considered what you would be asking here? I would guess that you have not given serious thought to the question you posed, if you did then I am sorry for you.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

Karl, I understand your anger. But it diminishes you to display it. GT, Only God could bring my wife back, but if she is closed off to Him and His will, there is nothing He or I can do. My book will be something of a Shiela Kennedy affair, but with sound Catholic doctrine. So names will be a part of it. I appreciate your concern that I may air too much. But that is really my call, not yours. Thanks just the same.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 28, 2003.

I will indulge you to an extent.

With my own question.

Why would a mother, who knows she is a criminal in every meaning of the word, want to bring about the death of two of her children who have attempted suicide as the direct result of the mother's actions.

If either suicide attempt had succeeded you would have had the answer to your insolent, self-serving, likely sexist question!

More importantly why would the Catholic Church encourage her in the actions which have already resulted in two suicide attempts?

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

My anger diminishes, justly and rightly, the Catholic Church for its blatent sinfulness and disregard for truth or justice and or the common good, as is its mission in part!

When the Church acts justly my anger will disappear!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

Karl, I feel your pain. I know what it is like to go through an unwanted divorce. But, taking it out on me is not good either.

If the Church has declared your marriage null, see it as a gift from the Holy Spirit and move on. You're a good man.

I love MY Church. The more I study and learn, the more I see the Holy Spirit at work in Her, even through the hardest, most troubling of times.

Karl and Pat and Daniel, I will be praying for your situations. Please pray for me.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 28, 2003.

Karl, suicide can never be blamed on someone else's actions--that's a cop-out. The final decision is always the individual's. Bad things happen all the time in life, yet people do not routinely try to commit suicide over them.

Suicide attempts are a cry for help, but it is not always as simple as "he/she drove him to it", even if that's what the person says.

I'm sure your wife feels bad enough about it without your laying undeserved blame at her feet.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 28, 2003.

John P,

The Church DID NOT grant the annulment, it upheld the sacrament.

Read the posts with that understanding.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

You are pathetic, GT.

Feels bad about two attempted suicides? How callous or stupid or really biased are you?

The women knows exactly why and how her actions are the cause, this is not some schoolyard debate as you would have it. All she cares about is her control, greed and personal contentment regardless of the destruction she levels to get what she wants.

Were the shoe on the other foot and I were the adulterer I would do a 180 in my behavior when any of my children even hinted at a serious opposition to my lover and my actions in that regard. To remain unchanged after two suicides is incredibly sinful and typical of those who do not care of the consequences of their injustices. And on top of this to claim to be a faithful practicing catholic?

B.S. to infinity.....

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 28, 2003.

Karl, your wife may have hurt the children and you with her actions, but you cannot blame her for their choices--because you may as well then blame yourself too for not teaching them how to deal with life better, and that wouldn't help either.

When I posted my question, I meant it in the sense of "Would you rather your mother was dead, or living, but divorced with a new husband?" Divorce is not the worst thing that can happen, and I still say it is not as bad as committing murder.

And as to the Church "sanctioning" her new relationship, how is each parish to know who's in good standing? Not everybody registers, even if they attend regularly and donate to the collection. Do you know everyone personally at your parish? Most people don't. Just because people are in a state of sin doesn't mean they shouldn't go to Mass.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 28, 2003.

Karl, After rereading the posts, I understand better.

As I said, Karl you are a good man. Don't let your wife's sinfulness drag you down.

Your children need you as an example of the love of Christ.

I am very, very, sorry if my posts seem hurtful in any way. That was not my intent.

Let's all pray for each other, in our own unique situations.

I'm off to see my daughter. I'm going to talk to her about her car payment that is late. She's seems to think the "bank of dad" has extended and uped her line of credit. Pray for me.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), October 28, 2003.

John,

Don't be to tight with your daughter. Every kid hits a rough time with there coin. Take it easy on her.

Besides you law enforcement guys are way over-paid. :)

-- Ty (Ty@msft.com), October 28, 2003.

I was not aware of the extent of such painful situations in this board, especially regarding Karl's. I can understand his situation and the terrible wound inflicted on his life. I believe what he says is true.

As spiritual people, it is better to see one's wife faithful and dead at our feet, rather than see them alive and living a life of such willful adultery, causing direct and indirect damage to family and even other souls involved with her. The same holds for us men, if we are seriously aware of the evil of adultery is equivalent to idolatry, and subsequent eternal doom. Let us not be deceived. It is better to die than to sin.

I empathize with Karl, and GT's writings seems to be deliberately aimed at angering and inflame him further. Let us keep in mind his pain. Yet, we should keep in mind the larger spiritual dimension of demonic intervention in such cases, especially suicides and motivation for suicides, is almost always because of demonic attacks. Perhaps, someone in the family acted as host for evil.

-- leslie john (lesliemon@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.

Leslie,

If you have read more posts by Karl, you would not answer as you have. It is not that I do not have sympathy for his situation--I do. But we make our own decisions in life, and to lay all the blame for one's actions at the feet of others is wrong. Everyone has low points in their lives, but not everyone attempts suicide over them. Suicide is a serious matter, but you cannot blame someone else for an individual's free-will choice.

At least in "Can this marriage be saved?" a very long-running article series in Ladies' Home Journal Magazine you get to hear BOTH sides of the marriage, plus a counselor's take on it. Here, it is always the other (usually wife's because there are a lot of men here) spouse's fault. The one who posts here has contributed "nothing" to the problems they are facing, in fact, to read some of the posts from these gentlemen, they are candidates for sainthood.

Not all kids are worse off in divorce, depending on the situation they left. And, if the situation is bad enough with parent and new stepparent when they are old enough, they can choose to live with the other parent in most states. If things are really bad, the other parent can go to court and sue for custody, with proper proof. Just because a stepparent tries to teach a child responsibility with a couple of chores is not proof of a bad situation.

Marriage takes two. Divorce takes two. There is always some fault on both sides when a marriage breaks down, but you would never know it from reading this forum.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 29, 2003.

No problem John P., to offense taken.

Thank you Leslie, as a matter of fact I once inquired with a priest, who was somewhat of a mystic, who told me he sensed when he was praying for my wife that there was something interfering. To make it more interesting he himself was a long-time consultant with the marriage tribunal in his diocese and his own Church politics ran to the liberal side regarding annulments/divorce but he nevertheless believed their was significant evil involved in our divorce/annulment case.

GT,

I think our back and forth is a waste of time for both of us although it is not my place to be hard on you for what you do not know regarding my marriage.

Suffice it to say that the American Tribunal held opinions very reminiscent of yours after speaking to both of us and reading the evidence. However, when both Roman Tribunals read the evidence their conclusions were diametrically opposed to the American canonists views and in fact, as best I can understand the legal latin, strongly rebuffed numerous of their conclusions and uses of evidence. In fact, the first Roman Tribunal nearly quoted my evidence when it cited my wife's abandonement of her marriage for furthering her career/study and simultaneously becoming involved in her adulterous affair, which continues after the Church has ruled in favor of her sacramental marriage.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.

"Can this marriage be saved?"

GT,

Saved from what exactly? Answer this question please...

Your answer whatever it is will be something that can be overcome with God's grace IF one chooses to have faith...

This is something I do not think is considered by the counsleors or secular magazines BUT something that Catholics do believe...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 29, 2003.

Divorce feels like entering into hell. I know how Karl feels. Sometimes suicide may feel like the answer. But, the pain will one day change to something we can live with. I think the Church is wrong. They don't know what divorce is really like.

rod..

..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.

GT,

I'm sorry but your previous post is rife with situational ethics, considering some limited situations as applicable to all. Sure, sometimes kids are better off in divorce. But this is extremely rare. By far, children are much better off if the parents stick it out as long as domestic violence or some other evil is not present.

It is true that marriage takes two, but not with divorce. If one party rejects the marriage, divorce will be the result and the other party can do nothing.

I do not see the point in rationalizing observations as to the sex and sanctity of the people posting here. This no statistical sampling. You seem to be unhappy with the perspective of those here that are devoted to doing the right thing in sticking to the marriage vow. Its what God wants and expects. Rationalizing reasons for dishonoring the marriage vow is for the immature and spiritually weak. Its just not for me.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 29, 2003.

Daniel, you are of course correct, when the couple has faith. However, I don't think that a Catholic counselor is necessarily going to be better than a secular one, if they are both saying the same thing. And I belong to the old school of thought that holds that talking about private/personal issues with a total stranger (and worse, PAYING for it) is just wrong, anyway. I believe in dealing with your own problems yourself (with God's help, of course) whenever possible.

Actually, many of the marriages profiled (which have every sort of problem you can imagine) wind up with the couples staying together. I guess some people get benefits from airing out their grievances in front of a neutral party.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 29, 2003.

I wish I had said that , Pat.

Daniel, perhaps I missed something but I do not follow what you meant with your comment exactly.

Rod, the Church knows about divorce it just refuses to see how its annulment practices are an incentive to get a divorce and it refuses to address these issues, to its public discredit in the eyes of the fair and objective person interested in truth. The Church also evidently believes that there is some type of equity in divorce/family court and they are gravely/sinfully, by deliberate choice, mistaken. When the hierarchy grow up and learns that divorce often leads to de facto slavery/indentured servanthood/torture often of an innocent party they will begin to be the men they are supposed to be. Till then the Church is lead by immaturity/denial/ or outright falsehood.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 29, 2003.

Pat and Karl,

I am not saying that it should be easy to get out of one's vows. Far from it.

But, what I see with both of you (and also with Mary, from a previous thread), is that instead of keeping your grief over your loss to yourself, it gets constantly paraded in front of your children, which is not healthy for them and not fair to them. They need to be able to grieve in their own way and move on, even if you don't want to. Yes, they should know that marriage is forever so that they can marry wisely in future (or choose not to, given your experiences). But to even give them the impression (intentionally or unintentionally) that Mom or Dad (as the case might be) is going to come back and you will live together someday is cruel. They will always be their Mom or Dad, divorce and annulments can't take that away.

Once you have children the focus of everything should be on them. If you want to pray every night and day for the return of your spouse, by all means do so. But help your children to deal with what God has given them in the most positive way possible. They should not be bearing the burden of your grief as well as their own.

And for Karl,

Sorry I didn't address this sooner. Yes, if I were in that situation and my children did not like my choice of new spouse, I would listen to their wisdom that God gave them. Children have much better intuition about these things.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 29, 2003.

"Daniel, perhaps I missed something but I do not follow what you meant with your comment exactly."

Karl,

My meaning was multifaceted -maybe vague...

Anyway, to elaborate on A facet --IF Catholic Charities counselors/therapists, laity and 'pastoral' helpers etc would act in all activities by action rather than lip service as the Church teaches regarding the Sacramental & spiritual nature of Marriage, foster and promote Faith among spouse(s) in times of doubt/turmoil etc RATHER than at best being passive and at worst enabling or in some cases suggesting divorce and coaching annulment...

IF this was done THEN there would be an improved chance that a wayward spouse would stop, reconsider and possibly regain Faith rather than take the 'easy' way out...

From what I have seen (my experience regarding separation/divorce) - the faithful left behind spouse has no support, no ministry, no program, NOTHING -there are many parish/diocesan activities that allude to this support BUT they ALL are parroting the same message that culture and in some cases feminism espouses -support for 'moving on', support for finding new relationships, support for forgetting, annulment coaching, step parent support, adjustment counseling etc. etc. These pastoral activies are in direct opposition to activity that would promote/support reconciliation and return to conjugal relationship between spouses...

-- The 'pastoral' apparatus is ONLY geared towards reconciling wayward spouses with the Church -- NOT reconciling wayward spouses with faithful spouses... Sometimes this 'pastoral' reconciliation effort flies in the face of Church teaching (e.g. 'internal forum solution')...

So, did that clarify a little?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 29, 2003.

Daniel you're right, now that I think about it, in many of the smaller parishes, if there is any group at all it is for "divorced, separated, and widowed" all together, never mind the special needs of each group. In larger parishes there might be a divorce group, but certainly not geared toward the wronged spouse, at least not in the sense that you and Karl and Pat describe it. As to moving on, I don't necessarily mean remarriage, but I don't mean sitting around while life goes on around you, either.

Although, to be fair, maybe their aim is to keep people in the Church in some form or fashion, even if things are not perfect, and there are after all, children and their religious upbringing to consider. I mean, yes, one can have remarried, but would you have them never darken the door of a church again? People commit sins, but they also do good. Except for a very few, people are not all good or all bad.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 29, 2003.

"I think the Church is wrong. They don't know what divorce feels like."

Rod, I disagree with you. You are just learning about Catholicism, and it isn't in you're best interest to say that the Church is wrong, and she doesn't know what divorce feels like. This attitude is why there are over 30,000 protestant denominations.

The Catholic Church knows more than you think she does. You should start by getting your precious children baptised. And then start praying in front of the Blessed Sacrament about your personal issues you might not agree with.

You can't jump in 10 ft of water if you can't swim Rod! Start with the basics and pray for stonger faith.

-- Ty (Ty@Msft.com), October 29, 2003.

Hi Ty.

How many divorced people sit on the tribunals? How many priest have experienced a divorce first hand?

I agree with you; I am just learning about Catholicism. My first 18 years probably didn't teach me what I know today about Catholicism. I am sure that you are very well content with your faith and your Catholic status. Many things are not in my interest from this side of the fence, especially Protestantism. What is it like to feel secure in your faith?

I guess it is time for another one of my short term departures from this forum. I feel that wave of insecurity and disappointment towards the Church. I can't help it that I failed; it happened. Later....

rod..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.

Rod,

Don't be a little crybaby! I didn't say you failed or ask you to leave the forum.

I gave you another Cathoic opinion that I would give to anyone. I spoke from my heart.

If you want someone to agree with you, than ask faith. [H]e always seems to give a op that you might want to read?

-- Ty (Ty@Msft.com), October 29, 2003.

Ty, you are not that powerful. This is stuff I've struggled with for what seems like an eternity. You aren't saying something I don't already know.

If you have experienced a divorce in your life, you just might understand the things divorce does to a person.

Uh, Faith is happy in her faith.

And, thanks for the "cry-baby" remark, Ty. Your Catholic upbringing is showing. Hey, God loves you, baby!

...

...

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), October 29, 2003.

Rod,

"..You are not that powerful.."

I know that I am not, and didn't intend for you to think otherwise.

"..you arn't saying something I don't already know."

Yes I am Rod! I am saying that the Catholic Church is not wrong. You said, "I think the Church is wrong..." You would not have said that if you didn't already know it?

"If you have experienced a divorce in your life, you just might understand the things a divorce does to a person,,."

Trust me, I have experienced some things in my life which you probably haven't(in understanding what a divorce does to a person). But, we must keep our soul fixed on the crucifix and keep praying that our faith grows stonger from this.[If you think you are beaten YOU ARE]

"Uh, Faith is happy in her faith.."

Is she Rod? But is Rod happy in his? Please pray that God gives you the Grace to become a Catholic so that you can worship our Lord the way He wants.

Pray for stronger faith, and(most importantly) please talk to a priest about having your precious children baptised.

Think of the babies now.

-- Ty (Ty@Msft.com), October 29, 2003.

GT,

Again you labor under the impression of facts as you think they should be. It appears you are brainwashed.

I regret that Karl's family life is unhappy. But my situation is different. My three boys are extremely happy. They THRIVE knowing that I love their mother, despite a complete lack of reciprocity. They obtain great security knowing that I love her, more than any other person except God. In fact in their mind, I love God 100%, my wife 99% and them 98%.

This gives them incredible comfort and support. In addition, and they ask this often, they wonder if another woman or step-children will eventually arrive to divide my care and attention. I tell them absolutley NOT. In truth, I remind them that I am married to their Mommy and that even if she were to die, I would not remarry as my soul is marked with hers. This is very counter-cultural, but it is what our Holy Father teaches is preferred. You can find it in "Love and Responsibility."

Anyhow, GT, I don't know what you personal circumstances are, but yours perspective and mine clearly differ, both in theory and practice.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 30, 2003.

I agree with you, Anon.

Whatever comes out of an annulment Tribunal, one party is disappointed. And, even if the result is what the person desired, or expected, what is the point of a Tribunal? To drag someone's name and character through the muck? The "internal forum solution" seems to be a much better way of handling these things. It keeps things as private as possible. If priests can perform marriages, they should be able to issue annulments.

And as for appealing decisions you don't like, well, men (are there any women on these tribunals?) are fallible. So they reverse a lower tribunal's decision, does that make their decision better? No, they were just higher in the chain of command, just like the Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade (I am against abortion).

While I am sure that there is probably some corruption in the annulment system, the fault lies with those who seek one under false pretences, in other words, the petioners. It does not take a lawyer to understand the "common grounds", read them for yourself. You do have to be honest as to whether they apply to your situation--if you are not, that is where the fault lies, not with the tribunal, which is only working with what you give them. If the petitioner/respondent are not honest up front, then whatever decision is reached is in all likelihood wrong.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 30, 2003.

GT,

What you are espousing is way out of bounds. Totally out of line with Catholic teaching. And showing a complete disregard for the Tradition and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church.

I'm sorry, but you need better formation. You should not be representing yourself here as a Catholic. I will pray for you.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 30, 2003.

well, pat, anti catholic karl, and daniel,

i've heard alot of bashing of the church. alot of onesided facts. and alot of big talk. if you ask me youre behaving like a bunch of dogs wounded in the last fight they lost. if it wasnt such a sick behavior it would be almost amusing.

have you given any thought to the fact that perhaps the tribunal was right? or in your invincible pride do you continue to spout filth about the church, which by the bible we know to be false?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 30, 2003.

Pat, having an opinion that is different does not make one a good or a bad Catholic. Things change over time. The internal forum may well become an option in the future, who knows?

You are the one who doesn't like the decision you received, therefore "questioning" the Church's teaching by sending it on for review. What if the subsequent reviews uphold the initial decision? Are you still going to complain about it, or will you accept it?

If you (that is, you personally) hold that the marriage was (is) valid, why did you go through an annulment procedure at all? It is not legal or binding in any way. What could possibly be in it that would convince your wife to come back?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 30, 2003.

Paul,

Truth is all I espouse -openly... Please contradict factually - otherwise your contribution is meaningless as is your opinion...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 30, 2003.

The internal forum solution is illicit. Those engaged in it are committing adultery or fornication.

Of course, if the Sacred Roman Rota uphold the Arlington Tribunal I would accept it. I requested that the tribunal drop the Petition. They refused my request.

I'm sorry you see me as proud. Perhaps you are doing a little projecting here.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 30, 2003.

GT,

On your last question. I did not file the Appeal to the Rota to get my wife back. She will continue to dislike me even more than before. I did it because it is the right thing to do. For my children, to set a good example to those around me, and most importantly, because it is what God wanted. It took over three years for me to discern that He wanted this from me.

If it had been immediately presented at the time of the marital separation (a shocking experience for the whole family), I could not have handled it. But I was gradually introduced to the idea over time. I'm quite sure of it at this point.

Celibate chastity has a way of clearing the mind's eye.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 30, 2003.

Pat, the very first paragraph in your original post indicates that you were hoping that a finding for validity would convince her to come back. (That's as to filing in the first place.) When you later wrote of sending it up to the Rota for review, that was where I was wondering about it. Was it your thought that going through the process would make her remember good times, and how you got through the bad times, as a couple and a family? In other words, like a counseling session of sorts?

I don't really know what goes on in an annullment as far as how deeply they delve into things, so your book should be very interesting reading. Leon posted on the recent "Divorce" thread (probably by now a third of the way down on the "Recent Answers" threads) something of his experience, and it was very interesting. You might want to look at it if you haven't already.

It is hard to be a single Dad, and I'm sure you will do the best by your boys. I hope that it is not too late for your wife to come back, since you are willing to give it another chance.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 30, 2003.

GT,

In this forum I would advised you to heed the advice of Pat, Daniel and myself regarding tribunals, divorce and annulments in general.

You can get a good theoretical background from we three as well as Fr. Mike and John Gecik.

Fr. Mike I am sure has a wealth of experience but I would make the claim that unless he has worked under or very closely with a canonists like Msgr. Hettinger, Msgr. Cormac Burke, Bishop Doran or Cardinal Egan his judgements will likely be polluted by the American culture of false "tolerance" for divorce and its consequences.

Gecik's knowledge appears to be theoretical only and judgemental in matters he will not investigate or legitimarely consider.

None of Pat, Daniel or myself would deceive you with falsehood.

Do not view the Catholic Church's theoretical understanding for the basis of annulments as flawed. It is not. If you are in any disagreement regarding the "legitimacy" of the "basis" of annulment in theory, then I would advise you to submit your "doubts" to the obedience of what is taught "in theory" by the Catholioc Church.

The practical application of its understanding of marriage/divorce/remarriage/annulment is an entirely, validly assailed, subject.

The Catholic Church is destroying marriages and souls and regardless of what you or any "psychological" expert my attest, another person is entirely capable of wrecking such havoc on the life of another person, with civil and clerical cooperation, that their victim legitimately no longer has hope and may even choose suicide.

This is a reality which the Catholic Church has the utmost responsibility/obligation to address throughout all these related issues. I have not met or communicated with a single Bishop who is inclined to seriously address these issues, not among the Cardinals, all of whom I have written to, or even among those like Doran or Egan both of whom are respected Canonists. I have openly challenged all of them to hear from annulment respondents naming the names of the corrupted officials, mostly already known to them and to the Vatican.

No takers. Their training tells them to let you vent and to do nothing in response. This response is the ultimate in human degredation, worse then murder, where in many cases you at least have the opportunity to fight back against your assailent even in vain. To do nothing in the face of proven injustice is the worst type of cowardice. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is guilty as charged, prima facie!

When you accept proven adulterers in your parishes, who have violated their vows publicly and remain unrepentant in the face of Roman Rotal decisions clearly stating their transgressions, then you are gulity of the very same sins they are. This is the Catholic Church.

Lets see if Paul, the liberal Deacon, moderates this post.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 30, 2003.

GT,

The annulment process does not promote reconciliation. Sure, it would be nice, and I am open to it. But I filed originally because I thought ot would be good to have the freedom to remarry if that option was legitimately available.

Apparently, for me at least, God has something else in mind.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), October 31, 2003.

Karl,

You're a real wizzard. But, you misspelled Catholic.

Don't pat yourself on the back to much until you learn how to spell correctly.

-- Ty (Ty@Msft.com), October 31, 2003.

Ty, you are too funny!

I wouldn't have looked at this thread (after seeing the title), but someone told me that my name was taken "in vain" in it, so I thought I'd better see whether or not I was defamed. I was defamed, but it was only a person with the smarts of a pre-schooler talking -- Karl -- so I knew that couldn't cause any lasting harm.

This is a very long thread! Having been almost totally away from forum for four or five days, I just had to suffer through this whole thing from top to bottom -- though I was able to skim over the posts from a couple of obsessives (Karl/Daniel) who were intruding with their boring cases for the 106th time in forum history. Stay tuned for a few hours -- or maybe even minutes -- and you'll see the 107th summer rerun. (If only moderators would listen to me and ban people when I recommend it, we wouldn't have to go through this nonsense. I suggested, at least five times, that Karl, Daniel, and Patrick be banned -- and that was six months ago or more.)

Paul H, you had just one post (ignored by all), but it was the best post of the thread. GT, you said a lot of good things (especially telling Dullaney to keep things private), but you slipped up by approving of an "internal forum solution" (which is rejected by the Church).

I think I told Dullaney once (possibly when he tried to bug me via e-mail) that I was not interested in commenting any further on his case. I'm still not "interested," but I feel forced to say something after having witnessed the incredibly sickening way in which he has expressed himself on this thread. The man's eyeballs must be turned around, so that he is looking not outward, but inward. His every thought is of himself. Totally egotistical, self-absorbed, self-interested, self-intoxicated, self-important, and overflowing with more pride that a flock of strutting peacocks!

If I were the moderator, I would delete this thread just to get the Dullaney filth off the visible face of the universe. On the other hand, his crud may serve one valid purpose. The Dullaney posts on this thread are so nauseating that, in case someone were accidentally poisoned, reading his words could serve in place of taking Syrup of Ipecac to induce vomiting.

Maybe Dullaney is right to say that his betrothed was mature and capable of giving marital consent, but, in that case, the tribunal must have realized that Delaney himself was and is utterly incompetent and incapable of giving consent! I will be praying that the Roman Rota confirms the tribunal's decision, because Dullaney's former betrothed definitely deserves to be free of this creep. I will also be praying that God causes something to interfere with Dullaney's plan to write a book about this.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 01, 2003.

John,

As usual -you have nothing to contribute to this topic BUT continue trying...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 01, 2003.

Dear John,

The sarcasm and vitriol in your comments is not commensurate with your closing blessing. This is my own objective statement based on the text itself, and I acknowledge that I have no right to judge your internal motives. Thank you for your comments just the same. I find them quite purifying if endured with the proper spirit. You bring me closer to God that way.

I agree with you and GT regarding keeping anonymity. I will need to protect my wife and our three sons. Therefore, if there is a moderator, I am the originator of this thread and request that it be deleted as soon as possible.

Having had a chance to consult with a few Catholic spiritual leaders this past week, leaders who are loyal to all aspects of the Gospel and the Magisterium, I find myself in the unwanted role of educating the faithful in this country, both lay and clerical, on Christ's true and complete teaching on the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

Next week I will obtain a complete copy of the Sentence from the judges in my marriage case. This coupled with the actual psychological evidence they relied on will form the basis for at least an article, and later a book, about how diocesan tribunals in this country are misusing psychological evidence in illicitly declaring valid Christian marriages null. I am obtaining this psychological evidence through a civil advocate as I am entitled to a copy of this record under the laws of the United States.

My timing to publish my article is for later this summer. It should coincide with publication from the Holy See of the new set of guidelines being developed through three parts of the Vatican, including the Sacred Roman Rota, for the proper and licit methodology for considering psychological evidence in marriage cases.

I especially want to do this as I myself found that although having a theoretical understanding of the relevant canons is useful, it has no depth. In evaluating my own marriage case, it was all a mystery until I read the published decisions in Monitor Ecclesiasticus and saw actual factual circumstances applied to the law. My article should be a glaring example how psychological evidence is misapplied.

John, if you do in fact bear me some I'll will, I forgive you personally. If you approach Our Saviour with humulity, He will forgive you too.

God bless you.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), November 02, 2003.

MODERATOR:

PLEASE DELETE THIS THREAD.

PATRICK R. DELANEY

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), November 02, 2003.

Mr. Dullaney writes: "I find myself in the unwanted role of educating the faithful in this country, both lay and clerical, on Christ's true and complete teaching on the sacrament of Holy Matrimony."

As I said earlier, though in other words, this is the clearest case of narcissism and egomania "run amok" that any of us is likely to ever see.

Lord, forgive and heal this terribly sick man and give peace to the woman to whom he thought he was married. Please set the forum free from his obsession and that of Karl and Daniel too. You know only too well how vastly better this forum will be when they are at long last absent.

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), November 02, 2003.

John,

You are blind to the evil that inhabits you -may God have mercy on your soul...

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 02, 2003.

to all,

John, if you do in fact bear me some I'll will, I forgive you personally. If you approach Our Saviour with humulity, He will forgive you too.

has anyone noticed that there is a recent trend developing... whenever john points out to someone how wrong they are they try to forgive him?!?!?! a simple "thank you john" would probably suffice alot better.

to john,

youre right, ive only posted once on this thread, because ive been through this time and again with these three marraige massochists, all i wanted to point out was the animalistic nature in which they were acting. having done that i left them to their own lord of the flies refuge. that is why ive only posted once (and now twice to point out the stupidity of forgiving you for pointing them in the right direction, a trick whihc i think they learned from the schismos)

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 02, 2003.

paul,

-your 'to all' posting style says but one thing YOU seek approval...

Truth does not need approval...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), November 02, 2003.

actually, daniel,

my "to all" style of posting had nothing to do with seeking the approval of three people who cant come to terms with reality... it was an evil plot to get everyone who read the post to realize that that part of the message was somewhat directed towards them. pretty serious stuff huh?

if i wanted your approval, i would have said, "daniel, would you please tell me you approve of me."

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 02, 2003.

"I am obtaining this psychological evidence through a civil advocate as I am entitled to a copy of this record under the laws of the United States."

Is pychology no longer considered medicine? I should think that the person to whom this report applies would have to give consent before you could see it, and even if they did, I doubt that it is your property, and not incidentally, it belongs by copyright to the doctor who wrote it, so I doubt you could publish it without permission....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 02, 2003.

It was my doctor. I was the only one who ever met him. So I have rights to a copy of his work.

He wrote a report about my wife based on what I told him myself in the first three months after the separation. He never met her in person, but was upset at how she ended the marriage. If I am right, it is on the basis of this report that the marriage was declared null. I'll know the answer on Tuesday when I get a copy of the sentence.

-- (pat@patdelaney.net), November 02, 2003.

While you may have a right to a copy, I don't think that it falls under "work for hire", so I doubt that you can publish it. And, the other part that concerns me, is that he wrote it completely based on what you and you only, said to him. Is your wife going to get to approve your article/book before it goes to press? She might be able to at least claim a share of the royalties....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 02, 2003.

C,mon GT,

I myself am not worried about these formalities. The people I am working with publish books and articles quite often. I'll defer to them on the best way to present the content and in handling the manuscript. Thanks for your your concern.

God bless you.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), November 03, 2003.