Annulment implications for children?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I am not Catholic, however, the person whom I’m dating is. It is very important to him to be married in the Catholic church. I understand and appreciate his beliefs. When we discussed marriage, he mentioned annulment of my previous marriage.

Let me briefly go into the ugly details of my previous marriage. It was my first (and only) marriage. It was my ex-husband’s third marriage (this should have tipped me off, BTW). Our wedding was a civil ceremony. We were married for two and a half years. Six months after our son was born, my ex-husband had an affair, impregnated his mistress, and left me and our baby boy. He sued me for divorce, as I did not wish to be divorced. It would be my best guess that the church would grant an annulment, as my ex-husband (who is now married to wife #4) obviously has no concept of the permanence of marriage or that whole idea of monogamy.

My question is what would annulling my previous marriage imply for my son? Would this mean that he was, in essence, born out of wedlock? I don’t think I can do that to my son.

I read the following from http://www.religioustolerance.org/div_rc1.htm “Couples that obtain a civil divorce and remarry without first obtaining an annulment are denied access to the Sacraments of Penance (a.k.a. Confession) and Holy Eucharist. (Catechism 1650). They are caught between a rock and a hard place: If they continue in the new marriage, then they cannot repent of and confess their sins through the Sacraments of Penance, and return to Communion. Meanwhile, their sins are accumulating. Because the church does not recognize their new marriage, it considers every sexual act within the marriage to be a new act of adultery -- a mortal sin. According to the church's teachings, this means that they will not attain Heaven when they die. They will end up being eternally tormented in Hell.“

Is this true? I obviously don’t like that idea for my boyfriend, either.

Information/opinions/advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks!

-- Amy (amy@reebcenter.com), November 03, 2002

Answers

Dear Amy:
You described the ''ugly details'' of a previous marriage. But you seem to say there's more than dating now, with this new love who thinks marriage in the Catholic Church is necessary. Are you and he living together without marrying?

He is living in adultery, if this is the case. You both commit adultery, and an annulment won't change that.

If you aren't living in adultery, yes; it may be allowed for you to remarry, with a decree of nullity. None of these circumstances, whether licitly married, or in mortal sin, affects your son by that other, previous marriage. He won't be judged illegitimate because that marriage was declared non-existent. That would be a narrow view of his circumstances. For all intents and purposes, his birth was legitimate.

But don't just assume you have grounds for annulment. Investigate and find out. Meanwhile, please resist the temptation to sin with the new boyfriend. Both he and you will be risking the damnation of your souls, if you do that.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 04, 2002.


I did not mean to imply in my original post that there is "more than dating". I'm only asking because the topic of marriage was discussed.

The man I'm dating and I are not living together. In fact, he is currently in the military and stationed over 4000 miles away. Even without being Catholic, I think that living with someone else in the presence of my young son is disgraceful. Thank you for checking, though.

-- Amy (amy@reebcenter.com), November 04, 2002.


Excellent, Amy--
Try to get straight info about anulling the first marriage. Not on discussion boards. Speak to a real priest, he'll offer you advice. You and the young man may soon be lawfully married. It is altogether irrelevant for the son of your previous marriage, if it was a marriage in the sight of the Church or not. He is legitimate, being born in a legal union.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 04, 2002.

Jmj

Eugene -- note, not "Gene" this time -- both your messages on this thread made me very perturbed at you.

In the first place you have at least twice bad-mouthed these kinds of threads as "banal," boring, etc.. Please, then, don't even read them -- much less reply on them, because they are definitely not your "bailiwick." You don't like this subject and you don't know much about it -- yet you have the nerve to insult other regulars (who do know enough to help visitors) by telling those visitors not to seek "straight info" on "discussion boards." This I have seen you do twice now. Ridiculous and offensive, sir! Yeah, seek info from "real priests," you say, not from the "pretend priests" you'll find at this forum. Nauseating hogwash, sir!

Next, Eugene, on those rare occasions when you have ventured to reply on these "banal" threads, you usually get irritated at the person who is struggling to cope and understand what (s)he can/should do. You just seem to think the worst of these people. This thread marked (at least) the second time that you inexcusably misinterpreted a person's message and began unjustly to accuse or suspect the person of wrongdoing. There is NOTHING in Amy's opening message to even hint that she is involved in "shacking up." Her very first sentence -- with its reference to "dating" -- should have told you that. How many cohabitating couples are "dating"? Hmmm? Right -- nary a one.

Please don't pull this stuff again. Thanks.
God bless you.
John
PS: I should compliment you, though, on knowing that Amy's child will always be legitimate. Offspring of a "putative" marriage [one thought to be valid, even if it was not really] are legitimate. They remain legitimate even if the "union" is later declared by the Church to have been null.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 06, 2002.


Dear John,
I owe no explanation to you, because you aren't my master. But let me tell you I replied to this lady on account of her apparent concern for the status of her son. Not to expound on the problems associated with marriage annulment, which--yes, to tell the truth is a banal subject for discussion. One for which you seem just the right authority.

I proposed in passing Amy was better advised to consult a real priest because I believe a real priest can help her. If you don't think so, suggest some other help for Amy.

I'll let her be the judge of what's hogwash, John. If I went out of the way to inquire whether her present status had a moral problem, it was also on account of the ramifications for her son. I thank God Amy answered that question quickly and to her good credit.

If perhaps she had been cohabiting, her quest for an annulment would have been a case of hypocrisy; simply to save face. I'm glad and thankful she is an honorable woman.

I've written on about these details not to please you, John. It hardly matters if you approve or not. The tenor of your message tells me you've made an entrance this time for spite, not to serve anyone. May Our Lord give you good counsel and help you recover your senses.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 06, 2002.



Jmj

Eugene, I was amazed to read your reply.
Not only did you fail to apologize to Amy and me for the offenses that I so clearly pointed out to you, but you have compounded your stupidity. You apparently need to eat more fish ("brain food"). Maybe a second castigation from me can jog you back to your senses. I will put your words in quotation marks.

"I owe no explanation to you, because you aren't my master." Why did you open with these stupid words? I did not demand an "explanation" (nor even an apology). And I did not tell you that I am your "master." I merely gave you some very appropriate "fraternal correction," in the hope that you would never offend in the same way again.

"But let me tell you I replied to this lady on account of her apparent concern for the status of her son."
Yes, I realized that without your telling me. If you had stayed only on that specific subject, you would have been her benefactor. But you strayed into areas in which you are habitually obnoxious. Please don't do that again.

[I did not reply] "to expound on the problems associated with marriage annulment, which -- yes, to tell the truth is a banal subject for discussion. One for which you seem just the right authority."
Your words are a falsehood and further insult. If you had replied to Amy "not to expound on the problems associated with marriage annulment," then you would have kept your comments 100% off that topic. But you did not. (Reread your words, and you will see how you strayed.) Oh, and thanks so much for your gracious personal slam -- that I am the "right authority" for "a banal subject." First, this is not a "banal" subject, except perhaps to ill-informed and conceited folks like you. Second, you can't have it both ways. Some time ago, you criticized me for speaking "over your head" (using a theological term with which you were not familiar), but now you think I am "right" for things "banal." The problem is not with me, Eugene, but with your self-righteous hotheadedness and your neurotic need to be in control of all things at all times.

"I proposed in passing [that] Amy was better advised to consult a real priest because I believe a real priest can help her. If you don't think so, suggest some other help for Amy."
Of course I "think so," and I always advise visitors like Amy to consult with the appropriate official person(s) -- e.g., their own pastor, their friend's pastor, their bishop, the local tribunal. But your nasty comment to Amy implied two things: (1) that she cannot get any reliable advice here and (2) that people who try to give advice here are "phony priests" (as opposed to your "real priests"). If you cannot see how offensive your words were (to me, Glenn, Hollis, and other who give helpful advice on marriage/nullity cases), then there is no hope for you.

"I'll let her be the judge of what's hogwash, John."
What I called "hogwash" was your wrongful, wholesale rejection of the laymen's advice given here. Amy is in no position to "judge ... what's hogwash" on that subject, but I am in such a position. Therefore, I repeat: What you wrote against us Catholic laymen was hogwash.
Just imagine if I were to choose a topic on which you have some knowledge and on which you love to give advice -- and then further imagine that I repeatedly told people to "ignore what Eugene says and speak to a priest instead." You would go utterly berserk!
Therefore, since I would never do that to you, you must, out of a sense of reciprocal justice, stop putting down us Catholic laymen (on threads of this topic) by telling folks to "get straight info" from "a real priest," not from "discussion boards."

"If I went out of the way to inquire whether her present status had a moral problem, it was also on account of the ramifications for her son. I thank God Amy answered that question quickly and to her good credit."
How can you write such a goofy thing, as though your offensive comments to Amy -- your "inquir[ing about] her present status" -- were justifiable? I already explained how your comments to her were mindless, given the fact that she referred to her "dating" (not cohabiting). I could tell from Amy's reply that you, by assuming the worst about her, had offended her (and this was confirmed by e-mail). I repeat what I said last time: "Please don't pull this stuff again."

"If perhaps she had been cohabiting, her quest for an annulment would have been a case of hypocrisy; simply to save face."
Let's suppose she had admitted cohabiting from the opening message. Even so, your statement would be wrong! In that hypothetical scenario, her seeking information about nullity (to help her make decisions about the future as a non-Catholic) would not have been "hypocrisy" or "sav[ing] face." I just don't know where you get these loony ideas. You seem to have a compulsion to think the worst of people who are not in your own squeaky-clean marital status.

"I've written on about these details not to please you, John."
Why did make this condescending comment, Mr. Haughty? I didn't ask you to try to "please" me, but only to do justice to all concerned.

"It hardly matters if you approve or not."
Like heck, it "hardly matters"! Your own dis-"approve"-al of my reply "mattered" to you so much that you went wild and replied to me illogically, compounding your original offense. Likewise, my disapproval of your reply "matters" too, but I, in contrast to you, have replied logically.

"The tenor of your message tells me you've made an entrance this time for spite, not to serve anyone."
You say I "made an entrance"? Where do you get this stuff? Can't you just use straight English, without trying to play games? What I said before and this time was not done "for spite." That is an easy excuse for you to whine, whenever someone makes bold enough to challenge you, isn't it? I most certainly did speak up "to serve" someone -- in fact to serve in three ways: (1) to serve Amy [whom I also helped privately], (2) to serve laymen here who have offered good advice in the past [but have been wronged by you], and (3) to serve you through fraternal correction. I only regret having failed to "serve" you in this way a year or more ago, the first time you abused a questioner and insulted those of us who try to help people with this topic.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 08, 2002.


John,
When someone who has no material interest beforehand interferes, it gives at least an impression of ''the grand entrance.'' If the shoe fits, don't complain.

''I already explained how your comments to her were mindless, given the fact that she referred to her "dating" (not cohabiting). I could tell from Amy's reply that you had offended her (and this was confirmed by e-mail). I repeat what I said last time: "Please don't pull this stuff again."

So; you're talking about me on email now-- behind my back? That's called gossip, John. I ought to be offended, but I'm not. I'm not paranoid; and if Amy isn't happy, she'll surely have the class to tell it to me here on forum. But you?--

You have some gall, to think I owe YOU an apology, John. Even Amy, who might have had a right to beef, didn't. Her reply was calm enough to say ''Thanks for asking.'' I guess because she could understand how this might matter.

Your style: ''--Mr. Haughty? I didn't ask you to try to "please" me, but only to do justice to all concerned.'' --Justice to all? You've gone out of the way to pick a fight. What is motivating you?

Not justice, John. My guess is, it's long-standing resentment. Here's your justice, Mr. Humble: "Sue me.'' Your rights have been trampled on, so talk to your lawyer.

If you continue to write preening posts today in support of your personal pride, I won't counter-attack. I wish you luck in your crusade; I can forgive and forget. God be with you and, I repeat, may He bring you back to your senses.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 08, 2002.


For Amy's benefit & peace of mind:

My first post:
''Are you and he living together without marrying?'' --Not an insinuation, a direct question. --To which you replied with what I thought was:
''Excellent, Amy-- *You and the young man may soon be lawfully married. It is altogether irrelevant for the son of your previous marriage, if it was a marriage in the sight of the Church or not. He is legitimate, being born in a legal union.*

A direct and unequivocal vote of confidence and encouragement. Was it ''mindless'', or was it kindly? Your reply also said, ''Thank you for checking, though.'' I didn't perceive any annoyance.You need the decree of annulment as a means to marry a Catholic. I believe this is best attempted by consultation with the Church, not strangers in the Web. But, you came to a Catholic forum, understandably. We get dozens of these annulment threads a year. They are repetitious and sometimes inane. However, your question was about the Church's attitude toward offspring of annulled previous unions. You had nothing to hide; yet,

If you had been living in some immoral union, in the eyes of the Church, it could have possibly prejudiced some priests against your formal request. The reason why is easy to see: Expecting to enter a holy state of matrimony presupposes the applicant for annulment has a moral life. Otherwise, that marriage is no more likely to endure than the previous, nullified marriage did. Priests aren't that impartial, Amy.

Thanks to God, I see where you had nothing like that to hide. But, that's the upshot, not my purpose for asking you. I had the good name of your son in mind. He's blessed with a fine Mom, thank God.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 08, 2002.


John & Eugene - Thank you very much for your assistance in helping me understand the implications of annulment on my young son. I will pursue an annulment of my former marriage with the Catholic archdiocese of Chicago (for which John has given me the contact information). I appreciate your responses and your time.

Though I find your conversations quite interesting, I think it might be best to continue your discussion "off-line" as not to influence those of us who are not Catholic (who might get the wrong impression about the religion and its followers). Thanks again!

-- Amy (amy@reebcenter.com), November 08, 2002.


You're welcome, Amy. I wish you good luck in the future. Yes, it's a shame we look bad in the eyes of many. I'm also gratified that despite all this, John has also seen fit to direct you to the Church, same as I had (without giving you a phone number, Lol!) Discussion is no use, I'm afraid. On or offline.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 08, 2002.


Hi, Amy.
Well, Eugene is right about one thing. "Discussion" -- online or offline -- is of no use, when he is involved (and gets on the wrong side of the facts). Discussion requires two reasoning partners, not just one (yours truly).

Every Christian body has its trouble-makers, Amy -- e.g., Catholicism having its "Eugenes." (Don't judge Catholicism by our little spat.) Eugene posted three messages after my first one, without ever acknowledging that you referred to your "dating" (making his question about cohabitation absurd and offensive). Don't read too much into this, Amy. Eugene and I have had tiffs, on and off for almost three years here. (I'm still trying to teach him to behave better, but -- alas ...!)


Eugene, you have been more and more insufferable lately, as time goes by. How hilarious it was to read your reference to me "preening," when you are the epitome of triumphalism! I will pray for you to undergo another of your periodic reformations. (It's been a while since the last one.) Oh, and there's no "long-standing resentment" here. I evaluate each post separately, one at a time. You are assuming wrongly (i.e., the "resentment" stuff), just because I have had to take you to task occasionally! You too easily forget the many times I have praised you greatly.

God bless you both.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 09, 2002.


Dear John,
As I was washing dishes this evening (I'm a house- husband in my elderly life) my thoughts went to you. I felt sorry for the way I'd let you down. In my inimitable way, I went on with a (seemingly ordinary) post to this woman named Amy earlier in the week.

It was no federal case; I tossed it off and felt fine. But-- I failed to anticipate how it was going to make you throw UPPPP!

Stupid Gene. Letting himself offend John with this low-key conversation with a woman who asked for information. I know as I write this I took too much liberty, John. My proper place was to wait until you'd weighed in. You see how my pride made a mess of this?

I do wonder how anybody can stand me in this forum? I was totally lacking in charity as well, when I replied to your justifiably bummed-out post. Instead of begging your forgiveness, I had the audacity to respond unkindly. I really went too far; I should have known better.

There it is. You have me dead to rights, John. I can't say how sorry I am. If you have pity on sinners, pray for me, John. --Thanks; I will now go my way and hopefully sin no more.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 09, 2002.


I have an idea...why don't both of the sanctimonious hypocrites who "answered" this woman shut up, with their gnat-straining, camel-swallowing theological stances on the non-effects of annulment of a "putative" marraige on children, their showy, venemouse displays of "forgiveness", and their pathetic spiritual oneupsmanship?

Amy, I'm not a theologan, but I am the offspring of an annuled marriage. If your husband was cheating on you, then you don't need some Catholic priest's permission to scrape your shoes and move on. It's apparent from your post that you take sin seriously and that you value marriage vows highly, and if that's true, then your son's fortunate to have you.

Have you ever flown on a commercial jetliner? If so, you've sat through the drill where the flight attendants explain the various emergency procedures. One of the most bracing (to me, at least) is when they demonstrate the use of the drop-down oxygen masks. They always say that the adults are to tend to themselves _first_ (despite, I imagine, an overwhelming maternal instinct to the contrary), and then, when they've insured that they themselves are clearheaded, to look properly after the children.

So, after that example, I'm going to suggest that you think first about what this situation means about Amy.

A group of men somewhere are going to require you to make a concession. They're going to require, as a condition for ratifying your peace of mind, that you sign off on what is surely one of the more presumptious and soul- withering semantic land-grabs ever undertaken at the expense of the hapless and the inarticulate. They're going to tell you that your little boy is the product of some kind of "union" that wasn't really a "marriage". It's just a nicety, please...a little formalism to fine-tune the spiritual realm which will have absolutely no impact on your day-to-day world view. Why, we want you to be happy, so don't bother your pretty little head with all that fine print; just sign _here_...and never mind that little piece of your OWN ABILITY TO TELL TRUTH FROM FALSEHOOD that you left on the table; that's just a small processing fee.

Then, if they can't convince you to rest easy with what they've done, they can at least get you to smile politely about it. And if they can't "save" you, they can at least work on your son. They can turn him into yet another of the clear- headed, fine characters who have been parading their spiritual prowess in their responses to you. Who knows; if he really gives his trust to them, maybe they can make him an altar boy.

I was the product of this process, Amy. In my case, there was a little twist. It was the adulterer who wanted to re-marry, and it was the adulterer who got the annulment. When I called the local diocese to inquire about the affair, I was brightly and blithely reassured of my own spiritual legitimacy, and that this was merely an acknowledgement of what a tribunal of "men" somewhere had divined to be spiritual truth. Meanwhile, my mother, having died broken- hearted and penniless after three decades of paying bills, working seven days a week to put the adulterer through college, nursing a cancer-stricken child to his grave (one of the other products of the "not-quite-marriage"), wearing sunglasses in public to cover the black eyes, crying into her pillow until three a.m. for over a decade, facing her own cancer without a mate, and going to her grave destitute of anything but hope in the grace of God, has lain in that grave for OVER A DECADE WITHOUT A HEADSTONE. Because I've been waiting for the husband to put one there, and the husband hasn't done it. The husband, you see, got some real good news. He found out, just in the nick of time, that what she had done for him for a quarter of a century wasn't really a marriage. So he's not really a hustband after all. He was right, and we were wrong. Some guys in robes said so.

Subsequently, his second wife and former bed-partner, operating from her procured position of righteousness, has been thorough in her demonstration of the pragmatic benefits of this otherworldly adjustment to her status.

Once, my other full brother was sitting at the dinner table, and the Proper Son of the Actual Marriage was quick to let him know, publicly, how miserable his existence had made everybody. Ah, the inconviences that the saints have to suffer. Another time, when I had offended the proper wife, she patiently explained to me how hard it was for her to remember that I didn't know what it felt like to be a member of a real family. That was the fruit of this particular spiritual tree, Amy. Just another annulment ceremony. It probably even has a case number.

Did you give your heart to that first husband, Amy? Did you mean your vows, and work to keep him and to love your son, while he was out bedding a Sweet Young Thing? Obviously, you don't owe me answers to those questions. NOR DO YOU OWE THEM TO ANYONE BUT GOD. If you joined yourself to that man in marriage and in good faith, then YOU WERE MARRIED, and no coven of epicene, semantic-tweaking, chant-mumbling, silk-wearing, epicene he-witches gets to wipe that piece of your personal struggle off the record by holding your happiness (and your intellectual integrity) hostage.

My suggestion to you is that the purchase price of the goodwill of people such as these (and the two towering giants who have been busy displaying properly-tuned Catholic manhood in their responses to you) is a bit overinflated. If you're willing to pay it, then pay it with your eyes wide open. Let them call it what they will; you need to call it what it is: a compromise.

Good luck.

-- Daniel Hunter (Tapp) (daniel_tapp@hotmail.com), December 01, 2002.


I apologize to the readers for my misspellings and my grammatical errors. Ordinarily, I proofread more carefully, but I was in a bit of a heat.

And please strike one of my uses of the word "epicene".

No, on second thought, don't.

-- Daniel Hunter (Tapp) (daniel_tapp@hotmail.com), December 01, 2002.


Oh my!

Is this what's called getting tapped? He 's at the top of one of his mood swings. Poor, dysfunctional kind-hearted child.

My mother is 88 years old in January 2,003. Her husband (never annulled, for some reason) wasn't an adulterer, thank God. He was a raving drunk. He made Mom unhappy throughout her adult life, and she raised six of us to the best of her ability, practically seven of us, counting my Old Man.

I love her--and I loved him. Don't know if she had grounds for annulment, but not very likely. Her own sisters-in-law advised her to just divorce Dad. But, Catholics never divorced; unless they wanted to divorce their faith as well. So, they coped.

Funny thing, Tapp-- apparently your dad really HAD grounds for an annulment. Just because you know what a bad egg he is, doesn't mean his first marriage was valid in the Church. That's the breaks. In the famous words of Jimmy Carter, ''Life is unfair.'' Well, my Mom knows that all right. I don't blame you if you get angry; you loved your mother. She married Bluebeard; and now he's a better Catholic than you, warts and all. I hope your Mom's in heaven and might pray for you.

Unrelated to all this, I'm really sorry you feel such contempt for me and for John. I would rather have been your friend. But--that's the breaks. CIAO /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 01, 2002.



eugene c. chavez wrote:

> Is this what's called getting tapped?

And to think I thought he was puerile.

> Funny thing, Tapp

"Funny"? I'm not laughing. But then, I'm not blessed with the saintly perspective and charity born of years of catechism.

> apparently your dad really HAD grounds for an annulment.

I'm going to assume you mean because he got one. If you mean more than that, let me know what you've divined. If not...if your argument is merely that he apparently deserved one because he really got one, and that he really got it because he apparently deserved it...I'll refer you to a dramatic example of this type of reasoning, illustrated by some really spiritual folks. It's called "begging the question", and it works like this:

Handwashing Ruler: Why have you brought him before me? The local righteous follks: Were he not a malefactor, we would not have brought him.

If the episode doesn't ring a bell, look around. You'll find somebody who can point you to the story.

>She married Bluebeard; and now he's a better Catholic than you, > warts and all.

He is neither Bluebeard nor a bad egg. He is a sinner, gripped by Adamic conceit, like the rest of us. As for being a better Catholic, why, yes, I suppose he is. He attended the annulment and the wedding, and may have attended my youngest brother's confirmation a decade or so ago. Whereas I attended Midnight Mass with some Catholic friends in high school, and haven't been back inside a Catholic building since, at latest, 1978. So, yes, I'll concede publicly that he's a better Catholic than I am. I'll concede publicly that you're demonstrably a better Catholic than I ever hope to be. So, with that high standard in place, I'll leave you to continue with your stout defense of it.

>But, Catholics never divorced; unless they > wanted to divorce their faith as well. So, they coped.

For which I gather you admire your mother, and rightly so. But my mother coped as well...more than many human beings are ever called upon to cope. Now your mother is a sainted memory (or continuing influence), whereas my mother is a "funny thing" and an apparent "tough break". And the same organization that mandated your faithful mother's years of diligance, dismissed my faithful mother's with the stroke of a pen.

By the way, you manly hunk of Catholicism, you: I quivered at the stern tone of that whole paragraph. I love it when men of your caliber shake your fingers and clue me in to the Hard Facts of Life. Why, I didn't even know they were there, until you added your triumphant tinhorn observations.

>Unrelated to all this, "Unrelated"? Do you really reason this way face-to-face and expect people to do anything but fall over laughing? Or is this kind of thinking reserved for your emails? I can't remember when I've howled out loud over such bland- faced hypocrisy. I'm still laughing!

>I'm really sorry you feel such contempt >for me and for John. I would rather have been your friend. > But--that's the breaks.

Yeah, it ranks right up there with that other "tough break" in my book. But do get over it, because I'm sure it's weighing you down at least as much as it is me. Tell you what: seeing that you obviously want to tender me some service or other in this same tone of humility which has so suddenly inserted itself into the closing statements of your various other pissant diatribes on this page, try to be content with the fact that you've really cheered me up. Even if I quit laughing in the next few minutes, I can go away remembering just how much I _ought_ to be concerned about the value of my mother's life in the eyes of men like you. Not to mention the eyes of the men who brought you this far spiritually, How old did you say you were?

That last was a rhetorical question. Really.



-- Daniel Hunter (Tapp) (daniel_tapp@hotmail.com), December 03, 2002.


"diligance" is NOT spelled that way. And there's another one somewhere.

-- Daniel Hunter (Tapp) (daniel_tapp@hotmail.com), December 03, 2002.

Dear Tapp,
I'm humbled by your exquisitely tooled wit; you grumble like a born lawyer. I like Hamburgers, and there you are, Hamilton. --Too awesome to just defy me, you pulverize me and the horse I rode in on.

Let me take my lumps. But your words to Amy are BS, anyway: ''give your heart to that first husband, Amy? Did you mean your vows, and work to keep him and to love your son, while he was out bedding a Sweet Young Thing? Obviously, you don't owe me answers to those questions. NOR DO YOU OWE THEM TO ANYONE BUT GOD. If you joined yourself to that man in marriage and in good faith, then YOU WERE MARRIED, and no coven of epicene, semantic- tweaking, blah, blah--.''

No ands ifs or buts. Tapp is letting the world know: that was a marriage! If the Church is out to lunch, don't care! 'B-wa-a-a h!'

'' . . Now your mother is a sainted memory (or continuing influence), whereas my mother is a "funny thing" and an apparent "tough break". And the same organization that mandated your faithful mother's years of diligence dismissed my faithful mother's with the stroke of a pen.

''Mandated'' all my mother's suffering and pain? --HOW? She just got married! But, my mother outlived her cross, Tappy. You'll hopefully outlive your own. The ''same organisation'' you're venting your bile on is outlived only by God. And Catholics don't believe in semantic-tweaking, chant-mumbling, silk- wearing, porcupine he-witches. I know that'll disappoint you; yet there it is, Mutt.

I have little concern for you. I'm only thinking of Amy, the lady you're trying to overwhelm with your tale of woe. You are sending her all the wrong vibrations; your personal problems and hatred.

I have wished out loud your own blessed mother is praying for you. I'm not your judge, but somehow I think you need her prayers. And Amy's and mine. Despite those hot coals you've dashed in my old face, I will pray for you. It's all I can do, and YES, I act as a believing Catholic.
Hope you don't object.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 04, 2002.


Hunter can't be taken seriously, Gene. He is borderline insane with anger and guilt. It's quite understandable. He wrote: "Whereas I attended Midnight Mass with some Catholic friends in high school, and haven't been back inside a Catholic building since, at latest, 1978." He hasn't been to Confession for about 24 years, and has probably been living a life of great sinfulness. This stuff is eating him up inside. Let's pray for his miraculous reversion.
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 08, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ