Catholics and 'no-fault' divorce By Jay McNally Via Matt Abbott

This article came in my email this morning. It is excellent, not because of who it is about, but because he clearly explains no fault forced, unilateral divorce. I am NOT going to get into a discussion of the individuals named, but will entertain discussion of the Canon Law Codes, and Civil 'no fault divorce' and the need to change this.

I have also asked the author, Matt C Abbott for permission to post the entire article here.

God Bless.

Addendum:

Dec 8, 2005

I had not noticed the first paragraph that gave credit to Jay McNally on Matt Abbott's column, as the author of the article, and I have gotten permission from both to place the article here.

I hope that Jay McNally will not mind my quoting him here regarding Mr Safranek. "Steve Safranek's effort is to be able to provide legal assistance to those being victimized, as well as to roll back the no-fault laws." Someone may need to know that fact. God bless to all three, Mr Safranek, Mr Abbott, and Mr McNally.

Here is the article:
Catholics and 'no-fault' divorce
Matt C. Abbott
December 7, 2005


The following article, written by veteran Catholic journalist Jay McNally, is reprinted (with permission) from the Dec. 8, 2005 issue of The Wanderer. For subscription information, please call 651-224-5733.

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — The role of the "Catholic" in a Catholic family will play out in Ohio courts this winter in the controversial divorce case of MacFarlane v. MacFarlane, which seeks to challenge the state's right to interfere in a Catholic marriage.

The Catholic marriage bond between Maria Christine "Bai" MacFarlane, and her husband, William "Bud" MacFarlane, in a civil divorce court is on appeal. Two religious freedom and marriage issues are at stake in this appeal. First, should the civil court stay its hand (stay neutral in the case) pending the canonical decision of the Catholic Church?

This case is concurrently being considered by the tribunal in the Diocese of Cleveland.

Second, if the civil court will not stay its hand, should the faithful spouse at least be able to introduce religious beliefs to determine custody issues and other matters? The appeal is being handled pro bono by Stephen J. Safranek, a professor at Ave Maria School of Law and founder and director of the TrueMarriage Project, a 501(c)(3) entity.

This case and cases like it across the country will determine whether Catholics and other religious people will be swallowed by the no-fault system.

The case of MacFarlane v. MacFarlane has special significance to Catholics throughout America. Bud MacFarlane is the executive director of the Mary Foundation, and the author of three apocalyptic novels. He is well known in certain Catholic circles.

In July 2003 he left his wife and four boys and shortly thereafter filed for a civil divorce. Despite breaking up the family by requiring his children to spend half their time in his house and half with his wife, and even though he is seeking to declare that he has no obligations to the woman who bore, raised, and educated these children, Bud has taken the position that he is in full communion with the Catholic Church and is living the life of a Catholic.

Having rejected repeated attempts by his wife for reconciliation, Bud left the home and allegedly drained $23,000 from the family's savings account — thereby forcing his wife to beg him and/or her family to support herself and the four children. Moreover, since he was the working spouse, Bai was left completely dependent on Bud for continued support. As is to be expected, the money was doled out in humiliating dribs and drabs until a support order was put in place by a court.

This case is all the more tragic because Bud sued to force his wife to stop home-schooling their four children. When he succeeded, Bai MacFarlane refused to comply with the court order. All the children were then given, by the court, over to Bud's custody, three were put into the local Catholic schools, the fourth — a child who was a mere two years old — was placed in day care.

The devastating results in this case were predictable. The no-fault divorce culture has no affection for home-schooling. The default position of no-fault is that the family structure is broken after divorce proceedings begin, and each party is left to fend for himself or herself as an autonomous entity — the children being split before these modern-day Solomons.

Since home-schooling is dependent upon a father who works, the default is to end home-schooling. Since home-schooling allows the home-schooling parent a great degree of time with the children, it must be rejected for institutional schools. And, since home-schooling usually involves a religious perspective contrary to no-fault divorce, the children must be taken to a place where no judgments are made about divorce.

Indeed, the home-schooling culture is so alien to the no-fault divorce culture that in any modern divorce, only one can survive.

In the MacFarlane case, the attorney for the father noted in opening remarks that this case was about "rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." His words accurately describe the fact that the no-fault divorce system is Caesar allowing judges to determine what is best for children — since no-fault divorce exists — children must be made to accommodate that legal fact. Children are just one of the things rendered to Caesar by no-fault divorce.

No-fault divorce reaches beyond home-schooling and attempts to control the religious free speech of the non-breaching party. In this case, the psychologist assigned to the case commented negatively on the wife who had allegedly told one of the children about divorce, leading to the child saying, "Daddy broke the family."

Of course, such a statement is an absolute no-no in no-fault divorce, which maintains the strife is nobody's fault. Since one of the key aspects of no-fault divorce is to ensure that nobody is blamed, any shadow of casting blame labels one party as the "judgmental" one. Consequently, that party is likely to lose parenting time and parenting control. Bai was punished severely.

Because there are so many divorce cases, if one single party has the audacity to fight the divorce, the system is put under a tremendous strain. In MacFarlane v. MacFarlane, judges who make the findings of fact in such cases are not enamored of a party who takes two weeks of time in court. "Render unto Caesar" means render your marriage to the state.

Among the critical situations in the MacFarlane case was one wherein the parties were to "consent" to sending the boys to school. The wife in this case was told by her attorney at that time, "consent or you may lose custody of your children." The attorney did not advise his client that such a decision had to be made after a full hearing, that she had the right to appeal that decision, and a whole host of remedies were available.

Indeed, the client did not even have the opportunity to speak to the judge — all was carried out in shuttle diplomacy from judge to lawyers to clients. Having consented to this situation, and having then breached her consent, the wife was stripped of being the primary residential parent.

Crafting An Alternative

Most Catholics see this situation for the tragedy that it is. But most of us think that such a tragic scenario cannot happen to us. Bai MacFarlane could not believe it either.

These events and ones similar to them are happening around America today — thousands and thousands of times. TrueMarriage seeks to craft an alternative for faithful Americans and those who simply want out of this mess.

Today, Bai MacFarlane is fighting for her right to ensure that her boys will grow up to be faithful Catholics. Although she is on trial, so to are the courts of Ohio.

For more information about this case and about TrueMarriage, visit the web site www.truemarriage.net.

© Copyright 2005 by Matt C. Abbott
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/051207