Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
Published on November 2, 2005 By Dr Guy In Religion

I am putting this under religion because lately there has been a lot of misconceptions about Catholicism.

Now I will be the first to say that I don't understand all other religions, but I am willing to and have learned from the believers of said religions.  And when I am wrong, call me on it, although as I don't assume about other religions much, I don't guess I will get many calls.

But lately, someone has decided Catholicism is a cult!  And they listed reasons, 6 of 7 wrong! and the 7th?  Something practiced by all Christian, Judiasm and Muslim religions!  I guess that makes 3/4 of the world a sect!  Duh!

Today we are going to discuss Annulment.  For those who know the truth, fine.  This is for the other 75% who don't have a clue, including many Catholics!

In Catholicism, we believe that when a man marries a woman, and it is blessed by the church, the love of Christ has entered into the union.  And I suspect every one hopes that as well.  But we must promise that we will allow that love to guide us in raising our children!  Yep, that may be Cultish, but one of the promises is to raise the children Catholic!

Now all is well for 1, 2 5, 10 20 years.  And then Mommy and Daddy get divorced!  Something went wrong!  Indeed it did, although, yep!  I was totally clueless (My family was not).

So I got a divorce.  I found out, via her shrink, for a non event about her brother raping her (he did not, they were just....well...I did not know it when I married her, and not until the divorce)., that she never loved me.

Excuse me?  I spent 20 years of my life married (plus a couple dating)!  But that was an epiphany.  And no, it was not a spite thing.  This was her shrink! (she still needs one BTW).

So we divorced.  I should have known she was and is a complete psycho!  her mother is and was! But I thought we could be peaceful!  hehehehehe!  yea I am stupid!

So you see the set up.  The Judge nailed her and her quota kid lawyer to the wall! (Never hire a quota kid if you want to win).

So she jumps in bed with some witless wonder, and I am sitting on a bunch of assets, and a lot of income.  Only child support now!

Then I met a goddess!  A woman who loves me, and yea she bitch slaps me (Note for Trudy - it is not always bad) when I deserve it (and sometimes when I don't).  We marry years later.  But her family is Catholic.  She is not a good one, but once a Catholic, always a Catholic!

So I do the Annulment thing.  It was long but not hard, as since my first wife never loved me (she used me to get away from an abusive situation), it was never in doubt.  I did not lie (I did not have to).  And she never contested it (although her stories to the kids leave a lot to be desired).

Why was the annulment so easy?  Did it make my children bastards?

The answer to the first is simple.  You cannot have the love of Christ in your Marriage when one party lied at the vows!  And the second part is just as easy.  No they are not.  We were married, legally and in the eyes of the church.  But Man is not infallible, and they need to acknowledge their errors.

The Church did. period.

So all you who get on your horse about annulment, chill!  It has nothing to do with bastardization!  It has nothing to do with making something disappear!

it has everything to do with realizing that sometimes, marriages are flawed from the get go!

So if you want to hate my religion, please do so for the right reasons!  not for some ignorant ones.


Comments (Page 7)
15 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last
on Nov 09, 2005

Does this make sense?

Yes, but this:

for business contacts....etc?

Made me laugh!  I know of some people who do go just for that!

But I will disagree with you on the timing of the writing, and only because that is what I was taught when I studied the early church.  As I said, not by any Catholics, but by a Methodist Minister (the Text book we used, which I might still have packed away some where, backed up his teachings).

And finally:

The church is people

Is almost there.  But I would add "with a common set of beliefs".

on Nov 09, 2005
Well I don't know what text book you were using but John being written in 150 AD or so makes no sense to me and I've never heard that. Maybe their goal was to shed some confusion on the matter...who knows? I'd have to have more detail to comment further. Can you dig it out?

Josephus most of the time is a great go to guy on the history of the early church. He was a Jewish Historian and lived during the first century. He actually witnessed the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. IHe is used in many commentaries especialy his "Antiquities of the Jews" for much info to give us an outside of scripture view of the happenings in and around this time period.

Christ is the head of the church; the head of the body. The NT pictures the church as a body on earth which is controlled by the head which is in heaven. Just as a human body gets its signals from the head the body which is the Church living here on this earth gets its signals from Christ who is the head.

I think that the coldness and deadness today in the churches could be a result of the body separated from it s head. They lost the focus, the signal of Jesus in their lives. The are in danger of losing all their power. Why? Because they are cutting themselves off from the head. Sort of like a disembodied individual walking around without any strength without any direction and without any signals.

Yes the church is found with a common set of beliefs (essentials) regardless of affiliation. The first being that Jesus is Lord of the Earth, Lord of Creation and Lord of our lives. That's a good start.
on Nov 09, 2005

Well I don't know what text book you were using but John being written in 150 AD or so makes no sense to me and I've never heard that. Maybe their goal was to shed some confusion on the matter...who knows? I'd have to have more detail to comment further. Can you dig it out?

Will try!  I only hope my ex did not decide to keep it (she kept a lot of my stuff, no rhyme or reason).

if not, I will write my college and see if they can dig up an old syllabus.

on Nov 09, 2005
Thanks....I'd enjoy hearing this guy's reasoning......maybe we can do it over the net if you can get the author's name.
on Nov 10, 2005
Josephus most of the time is a great go to guy on the history of the early church. He was a Jewish Historian and lived during the first century. He actually witnessed the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. IHe is used in many commentaries especialy his "Antiquities of the Jews" for much info to give us an outside of scripture view of the happenings in and around this time period.


"Taken prisoner by Vespasian, Josephus presented himself as a prophet. Noting that the war had been propelled by an ancient oracle that foretold a world ruler would arise from Judaea, Josephus asserted that this referred to Vespasian, who was destined to become Emperor of Rome. Intrigued, Vespasian spared his life. When this prophecy came true, and Vespasian became Emperor, he rewarded Josephus handsomely, freeing him from his chains and eventually adopting him into his family, the Flavians. Josephus thus became Flavius Josephus."

Taken from:
Link

And also:
"During the remainder of the war, Josephus assisted the Roman commander Titus, Vespasian's son, with understanding the Jewish nation and in negotiating with the revolutionaries. Called a traitor, he was unable to persuade the defenders of Jerusalem to surrender to the Roman siege, and instead became a witness to the destruction of the city and the Holy Temple."

I have several works and compilations of works of Josephus floating around here some place, (too lazy to get up and search for them) . I don't think I'd call him a "go to guy" though. His mentioning of Jesus resides in a passing comment about "certain sects of Jews". He joined the Jewish revolt, was captured, and sold out. His writings have a leaning toward being politically correct for his time. Considering that "bloody" Vespasian would have called his life forfeit if he had written otherwise, I can't say I blame him. Nonetheless, he was still considered a "traitor" by the Jewish people, and his accuracy, suspect at best.
on Nov 10, 2005
There is no King of England you stupid boy! Good true English Protestants worship God, not a bloody statue.


In one of my wanderings away, and then back again to the RCC, it was explained to me best like this, (appologies to the source, I don't recall if it was written or spoken):

"You carry pictures of your family in your wallet. You don't "worship" them; you carry them as a reminder of their love for you and your love for them. In the same way we have representations of Saints and Martyrs to remind us of God's love for us and what that requires of us."

We've got a hell of a nice statue of Lincoln in DC. I don't worship it, but it sure does remind me of what a great man he was. Don't you have one of Lord Nelson in Trafalgar as well?
on Nov 10, 2005
We have similar stories Doc. I had to resort to the "Pauline Privilege" once in my Protestant marriage. That one is burried in Catholic Catechism. Old Fr. Cox had to go to the Archdiocese for a ruling on that one! (Boy do Priest's get cranky when you read more than they do!)

Intersting topic Doc, and a lot of colorful responses. I guess when all is said and done, the measure of a (wo)man's faith is her/his wholehearted submission to the judgement of God.
on Nov 10, 2005

He joined the Jewish revolt, was captured, and sold out.

Thanks for the update!  I was not at all familiar with Josephus.  I guess my History teacher did not hold him in high regard either.

on Nov 10, 2005

We've got a hell of a nice statue of Lincoln in DC. I don't worship it, but it sure does remind me of what a great man he was. Don't you have one of Lord Nelson in Trafalgar as well?

Great comeback!  One thing I will warn you about is that Sir Peter Maxwell is a caricture.  Never take him seriously. 

on Nov 10, 2005

"Pauline Privilege"

I had to look that one up!  Well done!  My Priest (I guess he did know, but did not call it that) did tell me that my wife would need to go through a "procedure" as well as my annulment.

on Nov 10, 2005
Great comeback! One thing I will warn you about is that Sir Peter Maxwell is a caricture. Never take him seriously.


I surmised as much. But, still, I always have liked the statues! I almost bought a "Station of the Cross" when they renovated our old Church. Life size too! My dad didn't think it would look good in the backyard however!
on Nov 10, 2005

But, still, I always have liked the statues! I almost bought a "Station of the Cross" when they renovated our old Church. Life size too! My dad didn't think it would look good in the backyard however!

They add flavor to the building.  I mean you can sit in a square box and pray.  The statues just add a nice gothic atmosphere to it.  As for the Station, Life size?  Ours are portrait sized!

on Nov 10, 2005
had to look that one up! Well done!


I should warn you that I had always wanted to be a Priest, since the 3rd grade. Life however, took a different course for me. That didn't stop me from devouring everything I could lay my hands on though. Even when I "forayed" into the other Christian denominations there was always something more to learn. My ex was a Calvinistic Protestant; difficult to be a RC with those polemics! But I read Calvin's "Institutes of the Chistian Religion" all the same. Alas I am too old now to be a Diocesan Priest. Perhaps a Brother/Monk? Say it aint so..."my father the Brother"!!!!!! My kids would have a field day with that one! (Too long a story, don't ask!)
on Nov 10, 2005
Life size? Ours are portrait sized


Yes, the new ones are as well. The old ones were gorgeous sepia toned works. Very moving.
on Nov 10, 2005

Perhaps a Brother/Monk? Say it aint so..."my father the Brother"!!!!!!

Half the professors I had at old St. Mary's College (U of Dayton now) were Brothers.  Needless to say, they were not spring Chickens.

15 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9  Last