Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Marriage under attack
Sadly yesterday a Judge granted my wife a divorce despite that he said he had trouble finding any grounds by which to grant it. This was one of the worst times of my life. My mother-in-law even testified against me on my wife's behalf. Family has turned into people testifying against each other. Worst of all there are two beautiful children that we are all supposed to love while we are turning on each other and tossing accusations. Before the hearing I prayed the St. Michael prayer and a Hail Mary. There were only a few grounds to choose from. Adultery, drug and alcohol abuse, convicted/in jail, abandoning the family home for at least a year, or physical/sexual/emotional abuse. Basically she had no grounds however she claimed emotional and sexual abuse. Though she and her mother both testified against me I was able through my testimony and my questioning of them to prove both completely false. The Judge said that he took marriage whether covenant or not very seriously. He also told us that regardless of whether he granted a divorce we were stuck with each other forever because family doesn't stop at divorce. He said he didn't believe for a second that I physically or sexually abused my wife. He then went on to say that this was a difficult case and was hard pressed to find any grounds to grant the divorce. Then he shockingly said that it was a very close call and that I "may" have emotionally abused her on one or two occasions and that was grounds enough to dissolve our marriage. He wasn't convinced that I actually had, but since it may have happened that was enough for him to end a marriage. It is hard to express the emotions that I felt. Hurt, betrayel, sadness, shock, disbelief. The ones that are going to suffer the most by all of this of course are our two beautiful children. She is of course still my wife as we were married in the Catholic Church and I will continue to live my vows. I hope that through the annulment process I can defend the validity of our marriage. It is important to me to show my sons that marriage is a lifelong commitment, a Sacrament, and indeed a Covenant no matter how difficult the circumstances. I love my family.
Monday, July 6, 2009
My brother-in-law Justin and Sister-in-law Sarah are expecting their first child! I am very excited for them! They are due next March! I find it very interesting watching them go through all the exciting and joyful times just like my wife and I did, not so long ago. In just January they entered into the Sacrament of Marriage! Now they are on their way to becoming parents and experiencing the joys of having children! I pray for them that they will be able to navigate through all of lifes difficulties that may come their way.
Right from the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I don't think it can be any clearer what the church teaches about marriage and divorce:
347. What sins are gravely opposed to the sacrament of Matrimony?
1645-1648
Adultery and polygamy are opposed to the sacrament of matrimony because they contradict the equal dignity of man and woman and the unity and exclusivity of married love. Other sins include the deliberate refusal of one’s procreative potential which deprives conjugal love of the gift of children and divorce which goes against the indissolubility of marriage.
Here is a link to the compendium:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Choose Life license plates available in Arizona!!!!
This is pretty exciting. We may just be on our way to winning the fight for life in America despite our current adiministrations efforts otherwise such as trying to take away the freedom of conscience, spending tax dollars on abortions in other countries, and trying to pass the F.O.C.A(so called freedom of choice act) to name a few. More states however are now having these prolife license plates and a recent gallup poll showed that a majority of Americans 51% are indeed prolife, and only 42% prochoice. Check out the poll here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx . Another telling sign is that they are having a much harder time finding doctors that will perform abortions. That's undoubtedly one of the reasons they want to take away the freedom of conscience. To get a Choose Life license plate in AZ go to http://www.arizonalifecoalition.org/ and download the application. You will also find information on what the money from the license plates will be used for. If you are in a different state check for availability as many states have them available, and other states are working on it still! Lets keep up the good fight!
Thursday, May 21, 2009
I came across an interesting article talking about how No Fault divorce is a plague on our society, and that it originated in the Soviet Union. More interesting is the fact that in 1970 when working on the first no fault divorce law in the U.S., the same group was also working on a law to legalize abortion which later led to roe v. wade. The two laws were the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA) and the other was the Uniform Abortion Act. They were both structured very similar in that they used the term viability. If the child isn't "viable" go ahead and abort him/her. If the marriage isn't "viable" anymore terminate it. Well I am not suprised by this, as the Catholic Church most often says that abortion and divorce are both part of the culture of death in our society, and that they are both grave evils. In the comment section at the end of this article one reader put it this way: Abortion destroys the product of the one-flesh union while divorce destroys the one-flesh union itself. I would say that is satan's master plan in a nut shell. With such an attack on marriage and families in our society we desperately need to pray fervently.
Here is a link to the entire article: http://catholicexchange.com/2009/05/18/118701/
Here is a link to the entire article: http://catholicexchange.com/2009/05/18/118701/
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Prayer to the Shoulder Wound of Jesus
Recently while I was at praying at Adoration I noticed a stack of prayer cards. Most of the time the prayer cards have traditional Catholic Prayers on them. You know the ones everyone knows like the Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be, St. Michael Prayer, Prayer to the Immaculate Heart, Prayer to the Sacred Heart, and many others all of which are great prayers. This one however was much different and it really moved me when I read it. It was about St. Bernard of Clairvoux, and how Jesus revealed to him what his most greatest suffering was. Jesus told him it was the wound on his shoulder from bearing the Cross, and that it tore his flesh all the way to the bone. I was awstruck because it made so much sense, and yet it had never even occured to me. He bore the heavy Cross on his shoulder for a considerable amount of time, and he fell under the weight of it at least three times. So it makes perfect sense and I encourage everyone to read the story below and pray the "Prayer to the Shoulder Wound of Jesus"!
Prayer to the Shoulder Wound of Jesus
It is related in the annals of Clairvaux that St. Bernard asked Our Lord which was His greatest unrecorded suffering and Our Lord answered: "I had on My Shoulder, while I bore My Cross on the Way of Sorrows, a grievous Wound, which was more painful than the others and which is not recorded by men. Honor this Wound with thy devotion and I will grant thee whatsoever thou dost ask through Its virtue and merit. And in regard to all those who shall venerate this Wound, I will remit to them all their venial sins and will no longer remember their mortal sins."
This revelation and promise of Our Dear Savior is another proof of His unlimited mercy. You are urged to say these prayers daily and to promulgate this prayer on a continuous basis, so that others may share in this blessing.
THE PRAYER
O Loving Jesus, meek Lamb of God, I a miserable sinner, salute and worship the most Sacred Wound of Thy Shoulder on which Thou didst bear Thy heavy Cross, which so tore Thy Flesh and laid bare Thy Bones as to inflict on Thee an anguish greater than any other Wound of Thy Most Blessed Body. I adore Thee, O Jesus most sorrowful; I praise and glorify Thee and give Thee thanks for this most sacred and painful Wound, beseeching Thee by that exceeding pain and by the crushing burden of Thy heavy Cross to be merciful to me, a sinner, to forgive me all my mortal and venial sins, and to lead me on towards Heaven along the Way of Thy Cross. Amen.
Imprimatur: Thomas D. Beven, Bishop of Springfield, Ma.
Pope Eugenius III, at the earnest request of St. Bernard, granted three thousand years Indulgence to all who with a contrite heart, recite the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary 3 times, in honor of the Wound on the Shoulder of Our Blessed Redeemer.
It is related in the annals of Clairvaux that St. Bernard asked Our Lord which was His greatest unrecorded suffering and Our Lord answered: "I had on My Shoulder, while I bore My Cross on the Way of Sorrows, a grievous Wound, which was more painful than the others and which is not recorded by men. Honor this Wound with thy devotion and I will grant thee whatsoever thou dost ask through Its virtue and merit. And in regard to all those who shall venerate this Wound, I will remit to them all their venial sins and will no longer remember their mortal sins."
This revelation and promise of Our Dear Savior is another proof of His unlimited mercy. You are urged to say these prayers daily and to promulgate this prayer on a continuous basis, so that others may share in this blessing.
THE PRAYER
O Loving Jesus, meek Lamb of God, I a miserable sinner, salute and worship the most Sacred Wound of Thy Shoulder on which Thou didst bear Thy heavy Cross, which so tore Thy Flesh and laid bare Thy Bones as to inflict on Thee an anguish greater than any other Wound of Thy Most Blessed Body. I adore Thee, O Jesus most sorrowful; I praise and glorify Thee and give Thee thanks for this most sacred and painful Wound, beseeching Thee by that exceeding pain and by the crushing burden of Thy heavy Cross to be merciful to me, a sinner, to forgive me all my mortal and venial sins, and to lead me on towards Heaven along the Way of Thy Cross. Amen.
Imprimatur: Thomas D. Beven, Bishop of Springfield, Ma.
Pope Eugenius III, at the earnest request of St. Bernard, granted three thousand years Indulgence to all who with a contrite heart, recite the Lord's Prayer and the Hail Mary 3 times, in honor of the Wound on the Shoulder of Our Blessed Redeemer.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Should married people be NFL-like 'free agents'?
Now that the U.S. has seen same-sex marriages, it has now seen same-sex divorces. Therefore, marriage has not been strengthened by the widened definition.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
By James Thunder
It was not long after our country saw the first same-sex marriages that we saw our first same-sex divorces. Whatever the truth of the argument that same-sex marriage threatens traditional (heterosexual) marriage, the legalization of same-sex marriages, including the recent legalization by the Iowa Supreme Court and the Vermont legislature, certainly do nothing to strengthen marriage.
Because I am a lawyer, when I hear people argue that “we” need to “strengthen marriage,” I consider first how the law might provide such a tool. One type of law that could strengthen marriage has been the subject of state legislation, state court decisions, and law review articles over the past 70 years. Nonetheless, there has never been much public debate. To the extent that there was been public debate over this type of law, the law has been derided and I maintain wrongly so.
Under what is called “the common law,” spouses had two different causes of action available to them to protect their marriages. One was called “criminal conversation” which required an act of adultery but did not require knowledge by the defendant of the marital status of the married party or breakdown of the marriage. The other was called “alienation of affections” which did not require adultery but did require knowledge by the defendant of the marital status and breakdown of the marriage. These causes of action have been derided as “heart balm” torts, that is, they are brought by jilted parties to soothe their broken hearts.
During the past year, opponents of Proposition 8 in California claimed that rights once granted could not be abolished. That is plainly not so since state supreme courts and state legislatures in 40 of our states have abolished the right of spouses to call upon the law to protect their marriages. One example is the Supreme Court of Missouri’s action in the 2003 case of Helsel v. Noellsch, 107 S.W.3d 231.
The courts and the legislatures that have abolished these marital rights have done so on various grounds. As I repeat them, I will refute them, using arguments made by judges and law review authors. At the same time, I will describe some ways in which our legislatures, rather than scuttling these rights, could modernize them by establishing a cause of action labeled “interference with marital relations.”
1) These causes of action originated in previous centuries when a wife was regarded as a property interest of the husband and the husband utilized these causes of action to protect his property. This is true, but there has been no question that, in modern times, a woman has had as much right as a man to utilize these causes of action. Certainly, the legislature can modernize these rights to ensure that both husbands and wives could bring suit.
2) These causes of action are able to be used only against the rich because lawyers will not represent a plaintiff unless the prospective defendant has a deep pocket. This has also been true, but this argument could be used against a host of causes of action. Again, our legislatures could ensure that suits against defendants of modest means would be financially viable. For example, they could ensure that the loser pays the winner’s attorneys’ fees.
3) These causes of action are vindictive because they are brought only after the marriage has been destroyed and cannot be restored. Several responses. First, given the description above of the two types of causes of action, this argument would only be true for “alienation of affections” not “criminal conversation.”
Second, modern legislation providing for “interference with marital relations” could allow for suits prior to the breakdown of the marriage by providing for injunctive relief in the form of protective orders against interlopers -- just as our legislatures have provided for the issuance of protective orders against abusive spouses and stalkers.
Third, it is not generally thought that the vindication of one’s rights in a court of law is being vindictive. Fourth, this argument could be used against a host of causes of action in which money damages are sought. Lawsuits alleging breach of contract are brought after the contract has been breached and most likely cannot be restored. Fifth, this argument fails to consider the deterrent value of the right to sue. For example, the ability to sue for breach of contract is not successful in deterring all breaches of contract. Law is not a cure-all, but an aid.
4) The amount of money damages cannot be ascertained by a jury. What is a marriage worth? The courts and legislatures in the 40 states which have deprived spouses of a right to sue interlopers have set a value on marriage -- at zero. In fact, it would be an easy thing for legislatures to specify damages in various ways. For example, since the interloper is a home-wrecker, damages could be the price of a median existing home in the area. If we can determine a monetary value in the case of the wrongful death of a spouse, we should be able to determine the monetary value of the wrongful death of a marriage.
5) Only weak marriages are susceptible to interlopers and the weak marriages would have failed for some reason anyway. Should the law not be used to help weak marriages? In so many fields of law, our laws come to the aid of the vulnerable. Our society should encourage the strengthening of weak marriages – not deprive the weak marriages of the aid of the law and let predators exploit the situation. Besides, even strong marriages have their weak times and their lifelong weaknesses.
Since the arguments to abolish these rights have been and can be so easily be refuted, there must be a deeper, unstated, reason why 40 of our courts and legislatures have abolished them.
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
By James Thunder
It was not long after our country saw the first same-sex marriages that we saw our first same-sex divorces. Whatever the truth of the argument that same-sex marriage threatens traditional (heterosexual) marriage, the legalization of same-sex marriages, including the recent legalization by the Iowa Supreme Court and the Vermont legislature, certainly do nothing to strengthen marriage.
Because I am a lawyer, when I hear people argue that “we” need to “strengthen marriage,” I consider first how the law might provide such a tool. One type of law that could strengthen marriage has been the subject of state legislation, state court decisions, and law review articles over the past 70 years. Nonetheless, there has never been much public debate. To the extent that there was been public debate over this type of law, the law has been derided and I maintain wrongly so.
Under what is called “the common law,” spouses had two different causes of action available to them to protect their marriages. One was called “criminal conversation” which required an act of adultery but did not require knowledge by the defendant of the marital status of the married party or breakdown of the marriage. The other was called “alienation of affections” which did not require adultery but did require knowledge by the defendant of the marital status and breakdown of the marriage. These causes of action have been derided as “heart balm” torts, that is, they are brought by jilted parties to soothe their broken hearts.
During the past year, opponents of Proposition 8 in California claimed that rights once granted could not be abolished. That is plainly not so since state supreme courts and state legislatures in 40 of our states have abolished the right of spouses to call upon the law to protect their marriages. One example is the Supreme Court of Missouri’s action in the 2003 case of Helsel v. Noellsch, 107 S.W.3d 231.
The courts and the legislatures that have abolished these marital rights have done so on various grounds. As I repeat them, I will refute them, using arguments made by judges and law review authors. At the same time, I will describe some ways in which our legislatures, rather than scuttling these rights, could modernize them by establishing a cause of action labeled “interference with marital relations.”
1) These causes of action originated in previous centuries when a wife was regarded as a property interest of the husband and the husband utilized these causes of action to protect his property. This is true, but there has been no question that, in modern times, a woman has had as much right as a man to utilize these causes of action. Certainly, the legislature can modernize these rights to ensure that both husbands and wives could bring suit.
2) These causes of action are able to be used only against the rich because lawyers will not represent a plaintiff unless the prospective defendant has a deep pocket. This has also been true, but this argument could be used against a host of causes of action. Again, our legislatures could ensure that suits against defendants of modest means would be financially viable. For example, they could ensure that the loser pays the winner’s attorneys’ fees.
3) These causes of action are vindictive because they are brought only after the marriage has been destroyed and cannot be restored. Several responses. First, given the description above of the two types of causes of action, this argument would only be true for “alienation of affections” not “criminal conversation.”
Second, modern legislation providing for “interference with marital relations” could allow for suits prior to the breakdown of the marriage by providing for injunctive relief in the form of protective orders against interlopers -- just as our legislatures have provided for the issuance of protective orders against abusive spouses and stalkers.
Third, it is not generally thought that the vindication of one’s rights in a court of law is being vindictive. Fourth, this argument could be used against a host of causes of action in which money damages are sought. Lawsuits alleging breach of contract are brought after the contract has been breached and most likely cannot be restored. Fifth, this argument fails to consider the deterrent value of the right to sue. For example, the ability to sue for breach of contract is not successful in deterring all breaches of contract. Law is not a cure-all, but an aid.
4) The amount of money damages cannot be ascertained by a jury. What is a marriage worth? The courts and legislatures in the 40 states which have deprived spouses of a right to sue interlopers have set a value on marriage -- at zero. In fact, it would be an easy thing for legislatures to specify damages in various ways. For example, since the interloper is a home-wrecker, damages could be the price of a median existing home in the area. If we can determine a monetary value in the case of the wrongful death of a spouse, we should be able to determine the monetary value of the wrongful death of a marriage.
5) Only weak marriages are susceptible to interlopers and the weak marriages would have failed for some reason anyway. Should the law not be used to help weak marriages? In so many fields of law, our laws come to the aid of the vulnerable. Our society should encourage the strengthening of weak marriages – not deprive the weak marriages of the aid of the law and let predators exploit the situation. Besides, even strong marriages have their weak times and their lifelong weaknesses.
Since the arguments to abolish these rights have been and can be so easily be refuted, there must be a deeper, unstated, reason why 40 of our courts and legislatures have abolished them.
You can read the rest of this article at the following link:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
