Saturday, April 12, 2008

Stanek 4-10 column: "Expelled from 'Expelled'"

I would like to see this, having been reading about it for quite awhile now, as well as seeing Ben Stein on TV talking about it!

God bless!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jill Stanek
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 7:42 AM

On April 18, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, will boast the largest U.S. opening of any documentary film ever.

Scheduled for release in 1,000 theatres, Expelled will be hotter than Farenheit 9/11, which debuted on 868 screens, and much more convenient to see than An Inconvenient Truth, which I was surprised to find opened on only four screens nationwide despite all the hype, peaking at 587 before its appeal melted....

Liberals have been going ape about Expelled for months as it has been screened around the country....

"This is not a scientific battle; this is a worldview battle," Expelled producer Mark Mathis told me.

Mathis has encountered unbridled hostility from the scientific establishment, i.e., avowed Darwinists, at previews.....

Expelled connects atheism and Darwinism with no missing link, one of the film's two major flashpoints....

"What's driving it is Darwinism is a foundational principle - scientific validation of secularism, atheism, liberalism - and that it strikes at the core of who they are," said Mathis....

Not only is Darwinism foundational to atheism, it is foundational to eugenics, the other reason for the left's apoplexy against Expelled, according to Mathis. They cannot tolerate the connection Expelled draws between Darwinism and Adolf Hitler.

Or Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.

"Planned Parenthood is a direct outgrowth of Darwinism," said Mathis....
Continue reading my column today, "Expelled from 'Expelled,'" on WorldNetDaily. com.

Nancy Valko, RN on Schiavo Foundation's program America's Lifeline

I was not able to read this and forward it this AM, but there is a possibility of listening to archived for today (have not checked) and next week's is still in the future.

Wish I had gotten it out sooner.

God bless!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  nancyvalko
Date: Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 9:18 AM

This Saturday on America's Lifeline!

April 11, 2008 (News Alert)

Not yet availablePlease remember to tune into America's Lifeline on Talk Radio 860 WGUL this Saturday, April 12, at 3pm, ET. America's Lifeline is also streamed worldwide via the internet at Talk Radio 860 WGUL. For those outside the Tampa area, simply log onto and click on the "listen live" button.

Join us this Saturday for part-one of a two part program with special guest Nancy Valko, RN. Nancy is a Registered Nurse since 1969, and is the president of Missouri Nurses for Life. She is also a contributing editor for Voices and long-time advocate of patients with disabilities and writes the regular "Bioethics Watch" column for Voices.
Please remember to tune into America's Lifeline on Talk Radio 860 WGUL this Saturday, April 12, at 3pm, ET. America's Lifeline is also streamed worldwide via the internet at Talk Radio 860 WGUL. For those outside the Tampa area, simply log onto and click on the "listen live" button.

Join us this Saturday for part-one of a two part program with special guest Nancy Valko, RN. Nancy is a Registered Nurse since 1969, and is the president of Missouri Nurses for Life. She is also a contributing editor for Voices and long-time advocate of patients with disabilities and writes the regular "Bioethics Watch" column for Voices.

On Saturday's program we will discuss the issue of organ donation and its possible dangers, including the larger conversation of the definition of death, both "brain death" and NHBD (non heart-beating donor).

Part-two, which will air next Saturday, April 19, we will discuss with Nancy the "awakenings" of people supposedly in irreversible conditions and that the "miracle" recoveries are often by simply allowing time to heal.

So join us this Saturday at 3pm, ET on Talk Radio 860 WGUL for America's Lifeline!

America's Lifeline is hosted by Sheila Liaugminas, former Time magazine reporter and a previous host on the popular radio show The Right Questions and Issues and Answers on Relevant Radio. The program will be co-hosted by Bobby Schindler and Suzanne Vitadamo, directors of Terri's Foundation and brother and sister of Terri Schiavo.

Remember, we will be taking your phone calls live on the air!  So call 877-969-8600.

From Dr. Frank: Media Deception: "Miraculous" Pregnant "Man" is Really a Woman

My sentiments exactly....including Peter Kreeft's statement at the end...

Thanks, Nancy Valko, RN for the HT.

God bless!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  nancyvalko
Date: Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:28 PM

Regarding the following:

Why Oprah  put this person on her show is mind boggling.  I'm sure that many children watch this show, maybe even with their mothers.

What's so miraculous about it -- the man is really a WOMAN.  She never had her uterus or ovaries removed.  Probably for just this sort of sensationalism and exposure.

But then Oprah has no problem with spreading the homosexual agenda.  She's not a Christian and she's trying to push her new age religion on to everyone. 

Hers is one show that a true Christian should avoid like the plague.

Frank Joseph MD


Media Deception: "Miraculous" Pregnant "Man" is Really a Woman

Paving the way for the next wave in the battle against the family - an attack on gender itself

Commentary by John Connolly

BEND, Oregon, April 4, 2008 ( - The mainstream media pushed the story of Thomas Beatie this past week, billing the story as the 'miraculous' male pregnancy. Our readers may have been among the thousands of people across the country to notice the startling news headline that took the media by storm on April 1 (was this date a coincidence?), following Beatie's appearance on the Oprah Winfrey show and an interview in People magazine.

If this story really were an instance of an unexplained pregnancy in a male, it might really be newsworthy. But the whole story is a giant deception by the media in order to forward the homosexual and transsexual agenda.

The fact of the matter is that "Thomas Beatie" is really Tracy Lagondino, a lesbian woman who underwent transsexual surgery that cut off her breasts, and who decided not to alter her reproductive organs.

The mainstream news media has decided to cover the story, universally referring to Beatie as a man, and proclaiming "her" pregnancy a miracle. Even the normally politically incorrect and reliable DrudgeReport has been consistently referring to Beatie as a "pregnant man". Beatie has been able to grow a beard due to a testosterone regimen, adding to the deception of a male pregnancy.

What we need to understand is how this story fits into the sweeping agenda of the forces gathered to destroy the family.

Homosexual lobbyists have somehow succeeded in many nations in persuading or bullying governments into recognizing same-sex couples legally, one focus being securing the "right" to raise children for themselves.

At the same time schools are introducing mandatory programs to indoctrinate children with a homosexual understanding of families. Hence, it has become clear that the homosexual movement does not so much wish to do away with the concept of family, but rather to twist and warp it until it means something totally subjective.

"Thomas," the ex-beauty queen, proudly said that being pregnant didn't make her feel less of a man, and that the moral of her story is that "wanting to have a biological child is neither a male nor female desire, but a human desire." Trouble is, men just do not and physically cannot bear children, no matter how much a few might desire to do so. Desire is not reality.

As the attacks on traditional marriage begin to succeed, the next stage in the homosexual offensive is the attack on gender itself. The total mutability of gender and identity has begun, and stories like this one are forced down the throats of readers everywhere with the expectation that they will be gullible to believe that families are whatever two people want them to be. LifeSiteNews has reported a number of times in the past about attempts to deconstruct gender via the United Nations and in other forums (see

And the proof is in the pudding. Hundreds of versions of the Beatie story have spawned across the internet and the world, even in such far-away places as New Zealand, Australia, Singapore, India and Thailand.

The UK press is all over the story, which even a week later is still in the top five most popular stories for the BBC. Beatie has become a miniature celebrity and poster-child-bearer for lesbian magazines. Dozens of YouTube videos have been uploaded, paying homage to the woman who is trying to convince the world that childbearing and family are things that transcend gender.

Even breastfeeding advocates, who should be showing outrage that a woman would give birth to a child denied breastfeeding because the child's mother has cut off her own breasts, are strangely silent on the issue.

It's not hard to tell that this whole movement is geared, as we have said, to deconstruct gender. The goal of the transsexual movement is "liberty," a freedom to call oneself a woman or a man depending on his or her feelings or whims.

The homosexual movement has promoted the belief that persons with homosexual inclinations are all born that way and a growing proportion of the public is accepting the theory without bothering to investigate the evidence or lack of for the claim. The transsexual threat is more ambitious: it aims for acceptance of the fantasy that someone can be born a woman in the body of a man, or a man in the body of a woman, or a man can be a mother, or a woman can be a father.

Can the public be led to accept this as well? Again, without any compelling evidence to support such an extremely radical notion? Could it be, as we yesterday reported Peter Kreeft stating, "Antichrist is now winning, because he has convinced most people to bypass that simple word: reason. Most people today "feel;" they no longer "think."'

This preposterous story shows that now the transsexual movement is gaining prominence in the anti-family crusade. All readers need to be aware that the next phase in the transsexual advance involves wholesale deception and manipulation with the full cooperation of the mainstream media.

"Probably the most important interview I will have ever conducted..."

I will be putting this book into my sidebar as soon as I have time.

God bless!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Baskerville
Date: Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 8:42 AM

"Probably the most important interview I will have ever conducted in the last two years of being on this program, the host of the Paul Edwards Program, is the one that I will conduct with Dr. Stephen Baskerville on the issue of divorce. ...  He has written an excellent exhaustive book that desperately needs all of our attention."

This is the assessment of Paul Edwards, a highly influential and respected evangelical talk radio host on whose show I appeared Thursday.  What is taking place in the name of divorce, Edwards said, is "absolutely amazing. It is something that you and I have to take very, very seriously." 

You can listen to and download this interview (though perhaps only for a few days) at  (I would be grateful if those more technologically adept than I could download and save this recording on their websites.)  You can also send a comment to the station, and Taken Into Custody is now featured on the front page of the program's site.

These quotations reflect the widespread and solid support we now have from mainstream America.  Those of you who have heard my recent interviews on the Albert Mohler Show, the Frank Pastore Show (twice), and many other radio programs will know that we now have the solid backing of some of the most eminent public figures in America.  In vitually all my interviews I receive not only courtesy but support from hosts who express outrage at what the government is doing to families. 

While I hope to have further reflections later, the immediate lesson I draw from this is that we are much too timid in putting out our message.  We have only to tell the truth forthrightly and without fear, and we will be heard.  "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
PS:  A stable link to the Albert Mohler Blog story and interview is:
Stephen Baskerville, PhD
Associate Professor of Government
Patrick Henry College
1 Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, Virginia  20132

Now Available from Cumberland House Publishing:
Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family

Pet Peeves and a little bit of Road Rage....

I will be the first to admit that I am not yet a Saint.

And I will also be the first to admit that I talk back to the TV, and to other drivers on the roadways. Road rage? Sometimes, I guess.

Oh, all right, yes, more than just 'I guess'. Today.

I laid on my horn at the car ahead of me that SUDDENLY slowed with no brake lights, and then, SUDDENLY at the last minute with NO turn signals...took the off ramp. I do not follow closely. But I almost ended up in the back end of that vehicle, and yes, I sounded the horn, and glared at the back of the car. And I swore at the driver. And I was VERY glad that the other lane was clear because the only other car was in that lane, just ahead of my car.

I have some pet peeves, and drivers on highways that slow down without warning, take off-ramps after slowing down instead of maintaining speed, and slowing down in the off-ramp are one of them. Add the not using a turn signal, and it is not pretty~

My Dad taught me to drive. My Dad said that there is a right way and a wrong way to enter and exit highways. That driver this AM was definitely in his category of "WRONG".

I can hear him ... calmly, firmly, repeatedly...

"When you enter a highway from the ramp, you get your speed up BEFORE you get to the highway!!... MOVE IT!"

"When you exit a highway, you put your signal on well before that ramp, and you do not slow down until you get ON the ramp.... If you slow down before that ramp, some day, someone will be in your backseat before you know what happened"....

Now he isn't speaking of the ramps with a separate exit-only lane that turns into a 15 MPH, sudden curve kind of exit. He is speaking of the longer and straighter, or LARGE and gentle curve that one can take at 40 or more...

As long as I am griping about pet peeves on the highway, I may as well be totally honest.

Curves. Dad said... and so did my driver's ed instructor... take your foot off the gas a little as you go INTO the curve, and as you are coming out of it, accelerate again slowly... he is NOT talking about drastic speed changes, just very slight. AND he impressed on me that on a curve to the right, oncoming traffic will be near the center line, so you move OVER to the right...and you watch it on the curves that go to your left, so you don't go near the center line. That was for two lane roads... so translate that to a four lane... and you STILL stay away from that center line!!

On a four lane (two in each direction)... WHY DO SO MANY in the slow lane CROWD THAT CENTER LINE, and nearly enter the left lane when they are on a curve to the left??? Hey, if I can watch out for where I am, why can't THEY, too?

Another pet peeve is those semi's... who think they own the road in snowstorms, and breeze past, leaving a wall of swirling snow behind them, and have NO idea that they have just caused ME to be in a total WHITE-OUT.... or heavy rain, and leave you in a tidal wave!

And last, but not least are the ones who insist on driving in the fast lane side by side with the car in the slow lane for ten miles or more, in spite of more and more cars behind them both, all wanting to get around the offending cars.... when they finally pull over, a stream of cars glide past, and probably give very angry signals... or looks. Or both...

Can you tell that at least ONE of these happened to me today?

Now I probably need to go to Confession....sigh....

God bless~

Friday, April 11, 2008

PRESS RELEASE: No-Fault Divorce Violates Constitutional Protections

For more information, please see

No-fault divorce violates Constitutional protections according to research conducted by Dr. Kathy Garcia-Lawson, a clinical psychologist who lives in Palm Beach County, Florida.

"Every divorce filed in the county is granted, none are judicially denied. In 1971, when state legislators changed the laws, they scrapped the existing defenses which means the accused party in this type of lawsuit has no defenses," she said.  "The evidence shows that the plaintiff wins every time and that's not how it's supposed to work in our courts."

Dr. Lawson undertook her study after hearing about a similar project in Texas where Constitutional Law attorney, Shelby Sharpe sent surveys to over one hundred counties. The surveys yielded the same results.

In light of the growing body of research documenting the myriad harmful effects of divorce on children, adults, and the nation's infrastructure, an interdisciplinary team has begun calling for state and federal investigations.

Dr. Lawson, who is a member of this team, has taken her concerns to top state officials, providing them with an authoritative report, "The Effects of Divorce on America," co-authored by Patrick Fagan, who is also a member of the team.  The report shows statistical evidence of the harm caused to five core American institutions: family, Church, school, economic market place and government.

Further evidence supporting the need for an investigation will be released on Tax Day, April 15th at 9 a.m., at the National Press Club in Washington, where David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values ( will release a report, "The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and all 50 States."

Top Florida officials contacted by Dr. Lawson expressed mostly denial and showed resistance to looking at this problem.  But officials in other states have been more receptive.

Michigan legislator, Fulton Sheen, working with members of the interdisciplinary team in that state, recently introduced a bill that would limit no-fault divorce to couples without minor children.

Members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee have been notified of this problem, because of the national scope of no-fault divorce laws.

Not by coincidence, the interdisciplinary team will be in Washington during the same week as Pope Benedict XVI who has not missed a chance to advocate for restoring the legal and institutional integrity of marriage and family.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Marriage Law Digest

Also for your information:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maggie Gallagher
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:38 AM

This month iMAPP, in conjunction with the Marriage Law Foundation, is announcing a new monthly e-publication, the "Marriage Law Digest."
Edited by Bill Duncan, the Marriage Law Digest aims to provide readable summaries of key legal opinions affecting marriage and family life in the U.S., with links to the opinions themselves where possible.
Each month, the Marriage Law Digest will be available (free) online at You can download this month's edition here.
But I think and hope you'll find it as useful as I do each month.


Stephen Baskerville to be on Major Radio Today; Mohler Show Transcript

For your information...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stephen Baskerville
Date: Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:16 AM

My interview on the Albert Mohler Show is now transcribed online at
Also, today (Thursday) at 4:25 PM Eastern time, I will be interviewed on The Paul Edwards Program on WLQV Radio in Detroit. This is a major, 50,000-watt station and apparently can be heard from Ohio to Ontario.  It is part of the very influential Salem Communications system.  It appears you can hear the show live from their website:  I don't know if there is an archive.  To express your views to the station, go to:
If you have media contacts, I would be grateful for any opportunities to get on the air.  Thanks to all who have helped so far.
Stephen Baskerville, PhD
Assistant Professor of Government
Patrick Henry College
1 Patrick Henry Circle
Purcellville, Virginia  20132

Now Available from Cumberland House Publishing:
Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family
"This book is a tremendous and much-needed report on how family courts and government policies are harming children."     -- Phyllis Schlafly, President, Eagle Forum

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Response to Comment re Marriage/Divorce/Remarriage

A few days ago, a comment was left here, and I promised to respond, but had not been able to do so until today.

I have to begin this with reminding everyone that I have been in divorce courts myself. I do not know if my visitor knew that or not when he left his comment.

So here is my response:

I have been praying about how to respond. There are several ways to go, as you have actually brought up many different topics unintentionally, I believe.

One, and most important, is your statement that you prefer the 'God of the New Testament" to the 'God of the Old Testament". There is a problem with your theology, as there is only One God, not two. The God of the NT IS the God of the OT, 'reformed conservative'. He does not change. He always was, always will be, and is today one and the same Triune God.

There is a section of Scripture that fits here very well. 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

2Tim.4:1-4 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

So how to respond to the various topics that are contained in one comment...

The Eucharist

I'll take it one at a time.


Your wife committed adultery. This resulted in her saying things that nearly every human being says to justify their sin, and divorce. There isn't a one of us who has been to the no fault, forced, unilateral divorce courts that has not heard exactly what she said to you at some point along the line. "I never loved you, I had doubts before I married you, I made a mistake', and on and on. The enemy has only so many lies.

However, Jesus was speaking to the religious leaders of His day when they asked Him to clarify a question on divorce, and tried to trick Him. There were conflicting groups teaching different things about divorce even then. Jesus turned the tables on them.

Some groups today teach that 'porneia' means adultery, and give that as a justification for divorce and marrying someone else. But that isn't the meaning of the Greek word, and our Church has never taught that adultery sets you free of marital indissolubility.

Jesus is the One who has told us that man cannot separate One Flesh. No divorce court in the world has the power to do so. Your vows, as your wife's, were til death parted you. (NOT eternal... ).

Does God know what it is like to have His partner, His Bride turn to another? Yes, He does. Hosea is His teaching on that. Malachi gives His clear thinking on what HE thinks of divorce.

He hates it.

He does not change. He does not give into the whims of society and suddenly tell us that He was only kidding, or only speaking to people of a certain time, and now that we are so enlightened, He will give us different rules to follow.

Jesus makes it very clear about divorce and a subsequent second marriage. He speaks to each individual involved in four different places in the NEW Testament. This isn't 'the Church' speaking. It is Jesus Himself speaking, and no matter where you go, in your own protest, He also does not change.

Mal.2 [13]And this again you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor at your hand.

[14] You ask, "Why does he not?" Because the LORD was witness to the covenant between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. [15] Has not the one God made and sustained for us the spirit of life? And what does he desire? Godly offspring. So take heed to yourselves, and let none be faithless to the wife of his youth. [16] "For I hate divorce, says the LORD the God of Israel, and covering one's garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless."

Matt.19 [3] And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?"

[4] He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, [5] and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? [6] So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." [7] They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?" [8] He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. [9] And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

Mark.10 [2]And Pharisees came up and in order to test him asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

[3] He answered them, "What did Moses command you?" [4] They said, "Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to put her away." [5] But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. [6] But from the beginning of creation, `God made them male and female.' [7] `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, [8] and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. [9] What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." [10]

And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter.

[11] And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; [12] and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

Matt.5 [31] "It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.'
[32] But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress ( 'causes her to commit adulteryis the wording in some versions--if she also marries someone else...); and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Luke.16 [18] "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

[10] To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband
[11] (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) -- and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
[12] To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

[13] If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. [14] For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. [15] But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. [16] Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?

Verse 15 is often given as a statement that means you are free to remarry, but it does not say that. And Paul was also speaking of non-believers (unBaptized) not just anyone. The command from the Lord in verse 10-11 still stands.

So, Jesus Himself spoke of the one wanting a divorce, the one that he/she divorces, the one that he/she marries after the divorce, AND the one who marries the person who was divorced. He did not make any exception.

There is an excellent diagram to show this visually, but it does not go far enough.
This diagram takes the original married couple, and shows that they cannot be divided and be the same 'persons' that they were before marriage. They each take something of that other with them when they rip apart that One Being created on their wedding day (or try to).

This diagram shows one of those people ("Jill") marrying someone who was not married before (the whole body on "Dave"... but it could JUST as easily be to another divorced person who is NOT able to be illustrated with that whole body... say 'Tom"... OR, "Jack" could attempt to marry "Torie", never married before, or "Samantha", who had been.

Jesus touched on every single person in those different settings! Jesus said it was adultery. The Church only passes on what He taught.

It makes no difference if every other denomination/non-denomination says differently, or if every other person on the face of this earth says differently.

Jesus said it.
Jesus meant it.
Jesus does not change to suit today's easy divorce, and rampant sin.

So, where does that leave us?

If we separate, we are to aim for reconciliation.


There have always been some marriages that are not marriages for various reasons.
We cannot marry a sibling.
We cannot marry a liar who tries to say that there was no previous marriage, only to find out later that there was.
We cannot be kidnapped and forced into marriage against our will.
Those are just a few examples.

Because of that, there has been a way for us to be free to marry in the Church by having a Tribunal examine the marriage and give a judgment about its validity. IF found to be NULL, then there was no marriage, and the person is free to marry in the Church (for the first time).

HOWEVER, all marriages are to be assumed to be VALID until proven not to be. A married person, going through a divorce is NOT free to date. They are not free to marry again, nor to be looking for a new spouse. They are not 'single again'. Man's divorce cannot change that fact.

Divorce by itself does NOT mean that we cannot receive the Eucharist.

I can, if I am not in the state of sin.

But once we take that further step and marry again without knowing if we are really free to do so, we fit into one of the categories that JESUS says is adultery. And that sin does make us unable to receive the Eucharist just as much as any other Grave (Mortal) Sin does. The problem comes in when one tries to 'confess' simply to be able to go to Communion the next day without being willing to change the situation that is the cause of that sin...

The US Tribunals have come up with 'a myriad of ways' to say that a first marriage was never a marriage. I personally would go to the Rota for the Second Instance, and any further appeals that could come. But many here in the US simply accept the word of the US Tribunals. That is the route that is in place for you and any other person in the Catholic Church to be in good standing, be able to marry and free to go to Communion IF NOT IN THE STATE OF SIN.

When one speaks to those who promote this route ('annulment' or 'Nullity'), one is told it is 'healing'. You say you are avoiding it because it would bring back the pain.

I have another thought. Fear.

For there is ALWAYS the possibility that even here in the US, a Tribunal will rule that a first marriage of one of the partners is VALID...and what to do if that is yours?

You also say that the Church should simply accept your word for it, and let you alone... not in so many words, but that is essentially what you are saying... however there are two problems with that.
, Jesus gave the keys to His Kingdom to Peter, and with those keys, He gave the authority to bind and to loose... he did not give them to us.
Second, your wedding was a public pronouncement of Vows til the death of one of you. Private thoughts/convictions cannot undo this fact. It is therefore, not something that can be taken care of 'privately' and the Church 'be damned'.

That is why Internal Forum cannot be used other than for VERY rare exceptions. And they should be VERY RARE.

As for spending money on a petition for isn't very much at all, especially when one considers how much was probably spent on getting the Civil Divorce.

And since it is truly a matter of one's Eternity, it is a 'drop in the bucket' to know where one really stands. There is also the matter of some people honestly not being able to afford it, and that is readily taken care of by showing that one CAN'T afford it. Each Diocese has ways around that.


We are commanded by Him to forgive. Hard as it may be, even adultery must be forgiven. Even the hurtful words delivered in the course of a civil divorce and its aftermath.

And take it one step further... we are also to go to the other person and ask to BE forgiven for whatever WE are guilty of having done (and don't tell me that you never sinned against your wife, for there is only ONE who has not sinned on His own, and His mother was preserved from sin by Him and her consent to do His Will.... ).

Without that forgiveness, and asking for forgiveness, we are not able to approach His altar. This is what Reconciliation is all about.. the Sacrament of Penance. We examine OUR conscience (not our spouse's), confess OUR sin (not our spouse's), make OUR OWN Act of Contrition, do our own penance, and then go and make restitution/reparation for what we had done...NOT for what our spouse did.

We also can be guilty of the same sin that Lucifer was guilty of... Pride, Disobedience... "I will be like Him'... I will be my own authority, I will do it my way...


It is not the Church who is at fault. It is not the Church who must make reparation for our sin against our spouse, nor the continued unforgiveness we may harbor in our hearts. It is not the Church who must conform to society. It is us. WE are to be conformed to Him. And this is His Church.

It won't make one iota of difference where we go, or what we do if we do not take responsibility for our own actions, our own choices, our own sin. Oh, we can find a 'church' that will tell us what we want to hear, but that church may not be speaking TRUTH. God still knows our heart, and He knows that He has written His word on our hearts.

When I tried to pray that God would change my spouse, it was firmly brought home that He was going to begin working on ME. My own walk with Him needed correction, and by concentrating on praying for the other to be changed, I could conveniently NOT look at myself. I could examine HIS conscience, not mine.

I am not responsible for what he chooses to do. I am responsible for my choices.

The Eucharist

This is not just a matter of walking up and taking a host, putting it into our mouth and walking away 'remembering' Him, nor is it a 'commemoration', a symbolic gesture.

This is Jesus.
Body, Blood, Soul, Divinity.
Second Person of the Trinity.

He cannot dwell in an unholy space. When we choose to receive Him in a state of Sin, we bring our own judgment on ourselves. That is why we are to refrain from going to Communion when we are in the state of Grave (Mortal) Sin of ANY kind, not just adultery.

God bless, and I really mean that.

"Right is right, even if no one is right.
Wrong is wrong, even if everyone is wrong."
~~Bishop Fulton J. Sheen

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,