For those interested:

Divorce, American Style: An Interview with Bai Macfarlane

-small excerpts from large article:

Her high-profile Catholic marriage—and divorce case—has sparked a debate about the injustice of no-fault divorce and the tragedy of marital abandonment. We spoke to Bai Macfarlane about her struggle to reform civil and ecclesial marriage laws in the U.S.

-snip-

Let's get back to Church law. What about cases in a Catholic marriage where one of the spouses believes the marriage is invalid?

According to the Church's code of canon law, all marriages are assumed valid until proven otherwise. That's canon #1060. You can't assume that it is invalid and get a civil divorce. And the recent Vatican document, Dignitatis Connubii, cautions against people presuming their marriages are invalid.

Unfortunately, right now in the United States, it's the exact opposite. The unwritten policy is that most tribunals will not accept a petition for annulment—they won't investigate the validity of a marriage—until a civil divorce is finished. That's an unwritten policy that is nowhere in canon law. Basically, they've made it up. There is no approved law for this policy which has been approved by Rome.

Civil divorce is setting oneself up for permanent separation, which is never acceptable according to canon law, except in cases of adultery, or if you have special permission from the bishop, and then only when there is serious, grave fault. For anything but an emergency (in which case you can temporarily separate on your own), if you think you have valid grounds for a separation, or if you believe that your marriage is invalid, according to canon law, you go to the Church, not the civil courts.

So you're saying that diocesan marriage tribunals in this country are implicitly encouraging people to divorce?

Oh yes. I know because I've actually tried it. I asked my diocese to do an investigation of nullity so that they would conclude that we have a valid marriage, so that my husband would know he doesn't have to divorce, if his reason for doing it is because we have an invalid marriage. That's how I know.

Another example—a friend of mine attended a six or eight week local seminar in our Cleveland diocese. He was the only defendant; everyone else attending were plaintiffs who wanted to divorce, and none of them had reasons of abuse or addiction against their spouse. These were people in the process of divorcing, and they were supporting each other, talking about how their marriages were dead, and how they were dumping their husbands. And in this guy's parish he also attended a one evening seminar; the guest speaker was a woman who was a professed Catholic, who is a divorce judge, who was teaching the attendees how to get a divorce. So...

-snip-

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 23, 2005

Answers

Yet another effort by the "Hawk" to cause Catholics to disrepect their Church, which he himself has abandoned. Misery loves company. A thread worthy of deletion.

-- (ho@hum.org), February 26, 2005.

Examine your irritation while considering my love and obedience for the Church that will prevail against much more than you dim witted postings...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 27, 2005.

Kindly re-word your comment in understandable English, this time leaving out the ludicrous claim that you show "obedience" to the Catholic Church, o fallen-away Hawk.

-- (ho@hum.org), February 27, 2005.

my statement stands tall as your stature grows small... deal...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 27, 2005.

"...this time leaving out the ludicrous claim that you show "obedience" to the Catholic Church, o fallen-away Hawk."

Ludicrous? Let's see...

Defending the perennial and immutable teaching of the Church
Defending the very essence of faithfulness
Defending a Sacrament of the Church
Defending the very words of Our Savior Himself "let no man put assunder"
Defending the very analogy Our Lord Himself states is the type for His archetype relationship to His Church
Defending defenseless babies
Striving for unity in the typical

Please wait. Processing...

Obedient to the Church.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), February 27, 2005.

Your comment, "Emma," is of no value, because it reflects a very limited knowledge of "Hawk." Magnanimously, I will forgive your extreme ignorance.

My previous comment reflected that fact that "Hawk" has very publicly stated his disdain for various high leaders in the Holy See, has very publicly admitted that he has stopped practicing the Catholic faith, etc..

And THAT is why his comment about being "obedient to the Church" was accurately labeled by me as "ludicrous." Unless he is the most dishonest person on Earth, even he knows that what he said was ludicrous.

-- (ho@hum.org), February 28, 2005.

I shouldn't have simply referred to "various high leaders in the Holy See." In fact, "Hawk" has repeatedly put down the pope himself, as well as members of his curia.

"Emma," your list of things that "Hawk" properly believes and defends is irrelevant in responding to my first post. In that post, I was talking about the fact that he is not "obedient" to the pope (but instead bashes him) and the fact that he commits a mortal sin every week by not going to Mass (which is why I called him "fallen-away").

-- (ho@hum.org), February 28, 2005.

I believe that Daniel does go to Mass. It is I who do not and I believe that some still think we(Daniel and Karl) are the same. I hope you will believe me when I say we are not. Thanks.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), February 28, 2005.

John,

LOL -may I suggest you step away from your keyboard and recommit yourself to areas you are competent.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 28, 2005.

John is breaking his rules here. My caution to any of the other posters on this thread is this: Be careful!

John has succumbed to his own weaknesses and is being used by the deciever to try and bring you down. His posting here is done in bad faith and for no good purpose.

Consider how Christ ignored the Pharisees and do the same.

-- Pat Delaney (patrickrdelaney@yahoo.com), March 01, 2005.

I offer my most abject apologies to you, Daniel. I did confuse you with Karl. It was not a case of assuming that you were the same person. It was mere forgetfulness. Consider everything I said about you above to be expunged.

-- (ho@hum.org), March 01, 2005.

Thank you. I would suggest you offer prayers to all that suffer such injustice and if possible assist both those that appear to carry this cross easily and those that stumble under the weight of it -both suffer greatly.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), March 02, 2005.