Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Divorce, American style: What if one mate says no?
Cleveland Plain Dealer ^

Posted on 03/19/2004 4:58:57 PM PST by CatherineSiena

In the year 860, a king named Lothair II sought a divorce from his wife, Theutberga. Her marital transgressions, according to the king, included incest and sorcery. Theutberga denied the charges and demanded a trial by ordeal. A stand-in jumped into a kettle of boiling water and emerged unscathed, proving Theutberga's innocence.

Nothing so dramatic awaits Marie Macfarlane, a 41-year-old mother of four from Westlake. But a trial is what she wants.

Her husband, William "Bud" Macfarlane, has filed for divorce, accusing his wife of "extreme cruelty" and "gross neglect of duty" - a brutal legalese that she says cannot describe her marriage. So Marie, a devout Catholic, is taking a stand not often seen today: She's fighting to stop the divorce altogether.

"I'm innocent. There's no way my husband is going to prove that," she said of the charges raised against her in Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court. "From my perspective, I'm being punished and my children have been punished because my husband is having a lapse in character."

William Macfarlane and his lawyer, Thomas LaFond, would not comment for this story.

Avoiding an unwanted divorce is much harder than it was in Theutberga's day, when the pope would refuse one even for a king.

These days, divorce is commonplace, and of less moral stigma than it used to be.

Where once some states didn't even recognize it, today a Nevada boarding house known as the home of the "quickie" divorce is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Where once some states didn't even recognize divorce, today a Nevada boarding house known as the home of the "quickie" divorce is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Marie Macfarlane is among the growing number of people who don't think this is a healthy trend. Some researchers and sociologists, both conservative and liberal, have come to view marriage as an essential social institution, benefiting children in particular. With politicians, they've coalesced into a so-called "marriage movement" seeking to promote long-lasting marriages, and to employ the government to help.

Couples in Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana now can agree to "covenant marriages," contracts creating self-imposed obstacles to divorce stricter than those in existing law. Citing the high number of single parents and children in poverty, President Bush and Congress have encouraged marriage - and, by implication, discouraged divorce - in their welfare-reform agendas.

"There is a cultural war going on over values in this society," said Macfarlane's lawyer, Kevin Senich. "It's influencing the way some people are looking at divorce court and their rights."

Threads of those traditional attitudes can still be found in many state divorce laws, including Ohio's.

Divorce in Ohio is still viewed as a contest, with one spouse proving the guilt of the other to win a decree from a judge. But in response to the "no-fault" divorce reforms of the 1970s, lawmakers made it easier for couples to divorce if both spouses say they are incompatible, or if they have been separated for a year. (Couples also can receive a marriage dissolution if they come to court with a joint agreement in hand.)

Otherwise, a divorcing husband or wife must prove one of 11 grounds against his or her spouse, such as abandonment, adultery, bigamy, "habitual drunkenness" or fraud. The grounds most commonly invoked are the most subjective ones: extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty.

While the law seems to juggle both traditional and liberal views of marriage and divorce, the courts seem to tilt to the latter, broadly defining what's cruel or neglectful to minimize litigation and avoid leaving people in unhappy marriages.

Trials in domestic court are uncommon, and they tend to be about child custody or property, not whether a divorce should be granted in the first place.

"If somebody wants a divorce, they usually get it," said Lorain County Domestic Relations Court Judge David Basinski, who has denied just four divorce petitions in 15 years.

Because the law presumes there are grounds for a divorce after a one-year separation, some judges see little reason to dismiss divorce cases only to see the couples come back after a year apart. Last year, more than 3,900 divorce petitions and 1,900 dissolution agreements were filed in Cuyahoga County.

"Even if we don't grant the divorce, we can't make people live together," said Timothy Flanagan, administrative judge for the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court.

So in those rare cases like Macfarlane's, where one spouse doesn't want a divorce, the trials can become somewhat farcical, as the lawyers massage one person's unhappiness to fit the law's definition of extreme cruelty or gross neglect. And judges are given great discretion to decide when that threshold is met.

Records of court cases from around the state show that the most everyday annoyances can add up to extreme cruelty. The husband who avoided housework and made noise while his wife studied? Extremely cruel.

The name-calling husband who wouldn't cough up the money to fix the house? Extremely cruel.

So was the obnoxious pot-smoker, the wife who refused to cook or clean, the guy who called his wife "squaw," and the woman who wanted to bury her husband next to her two ex-husbands.

"Courts have become very creative in finding fault," said Senich, who also is challenging the grounds of a divorce in appeals court. "It's eroded people's desire to stick through the bad patches in a marriage."

This doesn't sit well with Macfarlane, for whom divorce still carries a stigma. She says she wants to reconcile with her husband of 13 years, but fears the court procedures are aimed at splitting them up, rather than offering alternatives that could help her and her husband avoid it.

"I believe we do have the ability to be happily married," Macfarlane says. "Isn't it worth giving reconciliation a shot? Maybe not every marriage will get fixed, but some of them will."

Flanagan says the current law is better with the modern reforms. In the '60s and early '70s, when fault had to be shown in all divorces, a spouse could threaten to challenge the grounds as leverage for a more lucrative settlement of property or alimony.

"We were finding that grounds were being used as a bargaining tool and people had to buy their way into getting a divorce," Flanagan said. "It wasn't right."

But Flanagan doesn't believe Ohio should adopt a purely no-fault system, like California and 15 other states.

"To some people, the grounds are very important, and I think we should have that opportunity," he said.


TOPICS: Catholic
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

1 posted on 03/19/2004 4:58:57 PM PST by CatherineSiena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CatherineSiena
When I was young, this would not even have been news. Thanks to the Sexual Revolution, it's a Man-Bites-Dog story. We are not better off.
2 posted on 03/19/2004 5:26:44 PM PST by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatherineSiena
Aren't these the Mary Foundation people?
3 posted on 03/19/2004 5:56:52 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatherineSiena
Theutberga denied the charges and demanded a trial by ordeal. A stand-in jumped into a kettle of boiling water and emerged unscathed, proving Theutberga's innocence.

Is it me, or is this just a tad bit illogical?

4 posted on 03/19/2004 5:58:32 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
"Is it me, or is this just a tad bit illogical?"

I don't know that trial by ordeal has been thought logical for a few hundred years, at least.
5 posted on 03/19/2004 6:18:27 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dsc
yeah, but by proxy? lol!
6 posted on 03/19/2004 6:21:02 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
No, no, no, just the same last name. Bai and Bud Macfarlane are the founders of the Mary Foundation.
8 posted on 03/19/2004 6:35:01 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: nickcarraway
Thank you for the correction. I should not have jumped to conclusions based on the name; I retract the previous post unreservedly.
10 posted on 03/19/2004 6:37:11 PM PST by Loyalist (Tony Clement for Leader: Conservative Party of Canada!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; Loyalist
If those two are not one and the same he'd better start making that very clear or more people will think it's him!
11 posted on 03/19/2004 6:41:25 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
Careful, that is not the same person. His name is not William Macfarlane, it's Bud Macfarlane Jr. and his wife's name is Bai, not Marie. You better apologize, that's gossip, and false.
12 posted on 03/19/2004 6:42:11 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
Oops, I didn't see that post. The mailin address says Fairview Park. I don't know which diocese that's in.
13 posted on 03/19/2004 6:43:27 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
Beat you to it once I did a little more checking. Had the post pulled myself before you reported it.

14 posted on 03/19/2004 6:43:47 PM PST by Loyalist (Tony Clement for Leader: Conservative Party of Canada!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Possibly. They seem in the same age range too.
15 posted on 03/19/2004 6:44:30 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
I didn't report it, but it's good that you pulled it.
16 posted on 03/19/2004 6:45:11 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Women used to have proxies (champions) in trial by combat, too.
17 posted on 03/19/2004 6:47:08 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
and the same number of kids!
18 posted on 03/19/2004 6:48:47 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Hopefully the have another child by now. That would make for some terrible confusion.
19 posted on 03/19/2004 6:51:25 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CatherineSiena
the guy who called his wife "squaw,"

Ok nobody can tell me that he didn't show signs of being a major jerk before the marriage. These kind of things don't just suddenly pop out of nowhere.

So why on earth did she marry him in the first place?

20 posted on 03/19/2004 6:56:10 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proudly out of step with the majority since 1973)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dsc
I don't know that trial by ordeal has been thought logical for a few hundred years, at least.

Well no. But at the time trial by ordeal was weighed very very heavily in favor of the accused.

William Rufus of England once had fifty men brought before him accused of breaking the forest laws. They all demanded trial by ordeal and they all got off.

21 posted on 03/19/2004 7:02:40 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proudly out of step with the majority since 1973)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
the guy who called his wife "squaw,"

But what if he was good with the papoose?

22 posted on 03/19/2004 7:07:08 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
I checked a page in Catholicity and find "Bud"s name is Willliam. Furthermore,Fairview Park is very close to Westlake,I think they are right next to each other. It's probably better to do some more checking. And,whoever they are let's pray for them,it has to be very difficult with four young children.

On the other hand I would think if it was the "Bud" that nasty Cleveland paper would have mentioned his religion. I just don't know how to go any further myself.

23 posted on 03/19/2004 7:07:28 PM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Where do you see that? I see him calling himself ``Bud Macfarlane Jr.'' and his Father ``Bud Macfarlane Sr.'' And his wife's name is Bai.
24 posted on 03/19/2004 7:11:51 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
"Well no. But at the time trial by ordeal was weighed very very heavily in favor of the accused."

That's good. Mad Queen Ranavalona of Madagascar practiced trial by ordeal in the 19th century, but it was nearly always fatal to the accused.
25 posted on 03/19/2004 7:18:24 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: saradippity; Canticle_of_Deborah
His wife's name when he met her was Christine TePas, and she was known as ``Bai.''
26 posted on 03/19/2004 7:30:51 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dsc
The English were much more civilized. Trial by ordeal was only practiced in England from 1166-1215 when the Church outlawed it but 75% of the accused were acquitted which was pretty good odds.

Especially as it was only requested by the accused when they knew there was no other way out.

27 posted on 03/19/2004 7:32:05 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proudly out of step with the majority since 1973)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: saradippity; Canticle_of_Deborah
Her name was Christi "Bai" TePas.
28 posted on 03/19/2004 7:34:24 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway; saradippity; Loyalist
I see him calling himself ``Bud Macfarlane Jr.'' and his Father ``Bud Macfarlane Sr.'' And his wife's name is Bai.

Of course you are correct about the danger of spreading rumors and scandal. But just to clarify a few points of fact while hopefully avoiding that danger, the "Bud" McFarlane who runs "Catholicity" and the "Mary Foundation" IS named William "Bud" McFarlane. Here is his own web page where he identifies himself that way:

Meet William Noble "Bud" Macfarlane

And to clarify another point of fact, I do know that he was living in Westlake. It's true that Westlake and Fairview Park share a common border. And I remember reading on the dust jacket of one of his novels that he lived in Westlake. I think that the Fairview Park address is a more recent one that represents a newer office for the various Catholic projects, not a personal residence.

I don't know anything about his wife's name, which may indicate a discrepancy, and maybe there is another William "Bud" McFarlane who lives in Westlake, Ohio and is in his early forties and who has 4 children, which is what is specified in the divorce proceedings, and is what he list on his web page, and whose wife is such a conservative Catholic that she would start a 1-woman crusade against the divorce laws. It's not impossible that 2 men sharing so many characteristics could live in the same town.

29 posted on 03/19/2004 10:34:35 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
This doesn't sit well with Macfarlane, for whom divorce still carries a stigma. She says she wants to reconcile with her husband of 13 years, but fears the court procedures are aimed at splitting them up, rather than offering alternatives that could help her and her husband avoid it.

I hate to play the rumor-monger. I've even avoided any scandal articles unless there was a theological point involved, but the article regarding the McFarlanes to which you linked in your post says that they were married in December 1990. This Plain Dealer article says they have been married 13 years. That is one more strange coincidence. I hope that it is explained as nothing more than that. But as someone else pointed out, Bud McFarlane of CatholiCity needs to send out one of his emails ASAP to warn people that he is not the Bud McFarlane in this story, if that is the case.

30 posted on 03/19/2004 10:45:11 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CatherineSiena; nickcarraway; Loyalist; saradippity; Canticle_of_Deborah; Diago
I was anxious that I may have possibly helped to spread false rumors, so I went to the court website and found the divorce documents to make certain. Unfortunately, it is definitely and undeniably true that it is the same William "Bud" MacFarlane who runs CatholiCity and the Mary Foundation who is also involved in this divorce case. His middle name in both instances is "Noble," and there can't be 2 "Bud" MacFarlanes living in Westlake Ohio with a middle name of "Noble."

Case Number: DR-03-294327
Case Title: WILLIAM N. MACFARLANE vs. MARIE CHRISTINE MACFARLANE

PLAINTIFF(1) WILLIAM N. MACFARLANE
19524 CENTER RIDGE ROAD SUITE 4
FAIRVIEW PARK, OH 44126-0000

DEFENDANT(1) MARIE CHRISTINE MACFARLANE
29737 SCHWARTZ ROAD
WESTLAKE, OH 44145-0000

BTW, this can serve as a warning that once you file papers in court, all your private business becomes a matter of public record. The supporting documents are not on-line, but anyone could go down to the courthouse and read the complaints, counter-complaints, requests for restraining orders, etc.
31 posted on 03/19/2004 11:12:37 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
That looks right. How sad, especially for the little boys.
32 posted on 03/19/2004 11:18:35 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Yes, this is a very sad situation. The best thing to do is pray.
33 posted on 03/20/2004 12:08:02 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
Do you have a web-site link to this divorce proceeding/case?
34 posted on 03/20/2004 9:26:24 AM PST by Conservative Iowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
 

Far too many spouses are coerced to divorce

03/21/04

Thank you for the interesting story "Divorce, American style" (March 13). That same headline was used for a 1965 story that ran in New York's Town and Country magazine. The purpose then was to pitch the need for reforming divorce law. The result over the next 10 years was a silent revolution that swept through the country when lawmakers replaced our previous divorce system with today's "no-fault" system.

California was the first to wipe out the previous "grounds" for divorce and enact this new form of divorce on demand. But, apparently, Ohio didn't want to go quite as far as California. Ohio lawmakers added two new "no-fault" options to its old divorce laws - probably to placate conservatives. But some think that Ohio lawmakers botched the job.

The Plain Dealer's story was just one version of what happens to someone who tries to resist the inevitable, but the numbers of those resisting are far greater than reported. Research (see "Divided Families," by Andrew J. Cherlin and Frank F. Furstenberg) reveals that up to 80 percent of divorces are "forced" on one of the parties because of the divorce- on-demand nature of the law.

Most unfortunate spouses who get caught up in the system have lawyers who've already told them there's nothing they can do - "just cooperate or you'll make the judge mad" - so anecdotal evidence makes it appear that most are agreeing to their families' demise. But that's far from the truth.

From: Judy Parejko

Menomonie, Wisc.

The recent story "Divorce, American style" stated that the courts broadly define what's cruel or neglectful to minimize litigation and avoid leaving people in unhappy marriages. Courts could do the opposite and possibly avoid making abandoned spouses and children live in unhappy divorces. Ohio law allows courts to help troubled couples by sending them to experts who've had success showing unsatisfied spouses how to be happy again. If my husband were a drug addict, the court could order him to go to rehab; if he's an unhappy spouse, the court has the power to send us to relationship rehab, but judges overlook this law.

The law also requires a one-year separation before my husband's application for divorce satisfies Ohio's grounds for divorce. Though my husband hasn't met this requirement, and even if I'm innocent of the charges of extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty, I'm told the court will order my four young sons to visit Daddy at the apartment he rented. What Ohio law gives the court the authority to do that? The court can't prove that my sons are better off spending time away from home visiting Dad than spending time with Dad at home. What was the intention of the legislature when it required a one-year separation period before application for divorce? If my husband separates from me and wants to create a child visitation schedule with the help of a pastor or relationship expert, that is our business. Until my husband has been gone for a year, where is the legal authority for the court to get involved if I prove I'm innocent of fault?

I invite readers to join me in asking Ohio legislators why they allow the courts to favor the whims of the abandoning spouse over the other spouse and the desires of the children who need an intact home. Visit www.marysadvocates.org.

An intact family is priceless. When I'm on my deathbed, I'm not going to smile about how much money I got from my divorce settlement; I'm going to ask myself if I tried to provide my sons with a healthy home where they'd learn by the example of their parents to love, even when it takes sacrifice, forgiveness and cooperation over the long haul, through good times and bad.

From: Marie Macfarlane

Westlake


© 2004 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission.

Copyright 2004 cleveland.com. All Rights Reserved.

35 posted on 03/21/2004 2:48:33 PM PST by Knock3Times
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian
I noticed the Bud McFarlane web page is not longer on Catholicity or that it has moved. The link you posted is no longer valid.
36 posted on 03/24/2004 9:19:32 AM PST by new2this
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: new2this
I noticed the Bud McFarlane web page is not longer on Catholicity or that it has moved. The link you posted is no longer valid.

Perhaps he took it down after this thread was highlighted on the Seattle Catholic website today. But it's all academic now in any case. That link was providing a little bit of evidence that it was the same "Bud" MacFarlane, but now that we have access to the divorce case on-line, there is no longer any question or debate.

37 posted on 03/24/2004 3:14:36 PM PST by Maximilian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: new2this
Google has it cached still
38 posted on 03/24/2004 3:55:25 PM PST by CatherineSiena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CatherineSiena
Thought it might be interesting to research what Bud himself wrote about divorce less than two years ago. Should serve as a warning to all of us not to put our faith in man (including ourselves) but in God alone.

-Start-

THREE UNIONS
Steve eventually came up with three answers: The Pope, No Divorce, and No Contraception. Steve had an additional insight regarding what all three truths have in common, and it has electrified me ever since. Steve pointed out that all three teachings are fundamentally about UNION. The Pope unifies the Body of Christ in authority and teaching. The indissolubility of marriage ensures the union of man and woman in "one flesh" and is the foundation for all family life and civilization itself. Openness to the transmission of life in the marriage bed ensures that the biological and supernatural union between man and wife will bring new life. The fruit of this last union is literally awesome: the marital act may bring forth a unique child who is eternally ensouled. I beg you: ponder these realities. Write down UNION=LIFE on a post-it note and put it on your mirror. There is no "life" without "union." There is no salvation without union. There is no authority or truth without bishops who teach and govern in union with the Holy Father.

CONCEPTION
Conversely, the evil one will always try to destroy supernatural unions by tempting us to divide from each other; by tempting us to divide from the truth and tempting us to divide from the Church. He will even try to divide us from our wives and our husbands and children. He will try to drive a wedge between Christ's bishops and their flock. Beware of dis-union. Another word for "union" is "conception." Contra-ception is literally a dis-union between love and life. Conception, on the other hand is life-from-love. The Immaculate Conception, Our Lady, is the fruit of the Holy Trinity's love for us which bore Jesus into history, and gave the world both the hope and means for eternal life and eternal union with His Father. The Holy Trinity is a union. Even unto Himself, God is both One and a Union of Persons.

CatholiCity Message from
Bud Macfarlane, MI
Founder of CatholiCity
Volume VI, Number 9
May 14, 2002

http://www.catholicity.com/catholicitymessage/archives/wm2002-05-14.html

--End--

IMHO, this sad state of affairs arises because the clergy have sunk to such depths that lay people are taking up apostolates that they are neither temporally or spiritually inclined to succeed at. Sites like Catholicity should be being run by nuns, brothers and priests which clear lines of authority.

Family men are not really in a position to do this sort of work and resist the efforts of the devil to pull it all down.

Let's first and foremost pray for the MacFarlane family. There but for the grace of God go all of us. But also let's try and learn an object lesson in humility and our own limitations according to our God given vocation in life.

Dr. Michael Duke
39 posted on 03/25/2004 5:04:39 AM PST by Mike Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Maximilian; Canticle_of_Deborah; CatherineSiena; Knock3Times; new2this; Siobhan; Mike Duke; dsc; ...
This is such a sad situation. Let's pray for the Macfarlanes. I posted an article from the Marians of the Immaculate Conception's magazine a while back, and that's how I found out about them. It's also how I found out about the Militia Immaculata, and their Marian consecration, which I did on the Feast of Our Lady of Perpetual Help last summer. I wonder if the Conventual Franciscans will retract their endorsement of Mr. Macfarlane as their "official evangelist for the MI" or some title along those lines. In fact, I owe a lot to the Marians and the Mary Foundation for my "reversion." Here's the link:

Mary Answers Our Prayers: (Bud Macfarlane and Family Prayer)

40 posted on 03/26/2004 11:45:21 AM PST by Pyro7480 (Minister for the Conversion of Hardened Sinners,Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mike Duke
Wise insights.
41 posted on 03/26/2004 12:51:31 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; nickcarraway
It is sad but also puzzling.
42 posted on 03/26/2004 12:52:33 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
It's sad, puzzling, and for lack of a better word, well it's bizarre. How can one write about marriage the way MacFarlane does and then do the very thing he was warning against a short time later?
43 posted on 03/26/2004 1:06:35 PM PST by k omalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: k omalley
http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=17344

Check out the above link for a truly unbelivable irony. Written just one year ago and all about 'fasting' to 'love your wife even more than before'. I think you HAVE to come to the conclusion that this guy had weaknesses like the rest of us and wore a kind of spiritual make-up to cover up his blemishes. Maybe that is why he talked and wrote about marriage as much as he did, BECAUSE he had deep seated problems and the writing was a kind of therapy for him.

The devil can win one or two souls by attacking the likes of you and me, but by attacking someone like Macfarlane who has made himself a very public figure and dragging him into a scandalous situation he can affect the faith of thousands that saw Bud as a standard bearer for the faith. The devil is highly-intelligent and he is clearly going to direct his resources where they do the most damage.

If he doesn't pull himself together (and soon) not only does Bud lose his lovely wife and four lovely kids, he is going to lose his reputation, many of his friends, his extended family and presumeably a large part of his income. You have to wonder whether he might not be mentally ill. Could a sane person knowing all he knows about the TRUTH be willing to throw all that away?
44 posted on 03/26/2004 1:44:36 PM PST by Mike Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Corruptio Optimi Pessima, as they say in Latin
45 posted on 03/26/2004 1:56:51 PM PST by Mike Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Mike Duke
You have to wonder whether he might not be mentally ill. Could a sane person knowing all he knows about the TRUTH be willing to throw all that away?

Or perhaps under attack by a demon? The influences can be subtle, especially in the beginning.

46 posted on 03/26/2004 1:57:29 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mike Duke
Corruptio Optimi Pessima, as they say in Latin

Translate please, lol! I'm just a baby traditionalist :-)

47 posted on 03/26/2004 1:58:52 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Try cutting and pasting the Latin phrase into the Google search engine and it will translate it for you. (Amazing stuff technology).


Here is a very astute article on the MacFarlane's problems for those concerned and confused by them.

http://exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog/BlogDetail.asp?ID=14145
48 posted on 03/26/2004 2:13:28 PM PST by Mike Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mike Duke
*ahem*

"The corruption of the best is the worst of all."

:-)
49 posted on 03/26/2004 2:15:56 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Here is a good quote from the above link.

"Stop confusing piety with a rightly ordered heart. The former flows from the latter, but the former does not necessarily prove the latter."

50 posted on 03/26/2004 2:32:27 PM PST by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson