Tuesday, 26 September 2017

CATHOLIC ANNULMENTS



A REGULAR BLOG READER HAS ASKED ME FOR MY OPINION ON CATHOLIC MARRIAGE ANNULMENTS.

Can I start off by saying that I think that both the human and Christian IDEAL is that every marriage should last for life.

That's the ideal.

However as in many other things in life we humans often fail to reach or to live the ideal.

So what do you do when a marriage gets into trouble and breakdown. Do you take the hard line and tell someone - especially an innocent party, that they have made their bed and must lie on it - and condemn them to a lifetime of loneliness or a lifetime of being a church leper?

The whole point of Christianity is that JESUS came to be the BRIDGE between God and man and woman - and the bridge between the ideal and the real.

So on this question - as on all other questions - we need to ask ourselves WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?

Many people do not understand the difference between DIVORCE and an ANNULMENT.

A divorce is when a civil court makes a ruling that a marriage that was legally valid is now being ended.

An annulment is when a church court says that there never was a valid marriage in the first place due to something lacking in a couple or their attempted marriage. In the church's eyes that can be something like a couple deciding before marriage that they will never have children; one party marrying out of fear or not giving full consent, or one party being secretly a homosexual and not declaring it to the other party.


I do not have much respect for the Roman Catholic Church's marriage annulment carry on for the following reasons:

1. It can take many years to get an annulment. I've met people who have waited 10 plus years.

2. The investigators are mainly priests and they often ask both parties very intimate questions about their life and sexual history.

3. If you are famous, wealthy or well in with especially some senior clergy you can get an annulment easier than and sexual lives.  or Mary Bloggs can.

4. If you are living in the USA it is easier to get an annulment than if you are living in Ireland.


And generally speaking, annulments are ways of controlling people at the level of their emotional and sexual lives. Why should any man or woman have to give a supposedly celibate priest a blow by blow account of what happens in the bedroom?


The RC Church did not really get involved in marriage until the 12th century. Before that time it was a civil, legal matter.

Of course, people like to think that they have God's blessing on their life and marriage. Traditionally they have done this by asking a priest to bless them or give them the Sacrament of Marriage. 

But any couple can sit on a sofa together and ask God to bless them, their marriage and their children and God WILL do just that.

And there is nothing at all wrong with a couple having a church marriage presided over by a priest. In many ways such marriages are more meaningful than a quick visit to a lady at the state registry office.

But I would like the Church to STOP controlling people through marriage, sexuality, schools etc.

The church and the priest should be there to SERVE - not to DOMINATE.


I have been looking after Catholics and others who have had broken marriages for 31 years now. In fact I have celebrated over 4,000 marriagesd and blessing at people's requests. Many of the people I look after have been turned away by judgemental priests - or priests insisting on an annulment. Believe me I have heard horror stories about how people were treated by parish priests, curates and priests in church tribunals.

I always tell people to ignore the whole annulment procedure. I tell them to sort out their affairs through civil divorces, wills and good arrangements for children.

And then I remarry them. 

Sometimes - but far less often these days - people ask me if my marriages are recognized by Catholic Canon Law.

I tell them: NO.

And I go on to tell them that when I marry them they will be married in the eyes of the law of the land and in the eyes of God.

And I ask them: "If you are married in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of God do you really care what some priest, bishop or pope thinks"?

Most people these days do not care about these men and their man-made rules which were manEVEN THE RCufactured as control mechanisms.

And I always say to them:

"IF ALL YOU ARE GUILTY OF IN LIFE IS REMARRYING AND FINDING LOVE AGAIN YOU WILL HAVE NO REASON TO FEAR MEETING JESUS AT THE END OF YOUR LIFE. YOU WILL HAVE FAR LESS TO ACCOUNT FOR THAN MANY OF THE PRIESTS, BISHOPS ETC WHO ARE QUICK TO JUDGE YOU".

If your marriage gets into trouble - do all you can - including getting counseling to save it.

If your marriage is truly over try and part friends with your ex and look after all your responsibilities to them and especially to your children.

And when you are ready - and if you want to - be open to God sending someone new your way and when they arrive see them as a gift of God - and not a sin.

Life is short.

Life is tough.

Make the most of every good thing that comes your way - while of course, always being responsible, just and moral about it.


EVEN THE RC CHURCH TEACHES THAT IT IS THE COUPLE WHO ARE THE MINISTERS OF THE SACRAMENT - AND NOT THE PRIEST.

Is God going to refuse his grace because a priest is not present?



90 comments:

  1. The development of marrage as a sacrament in the western church is interesting. It was not until Trent that is place amoungst the list of sacraments became fixed. In Ireland up until the 60's a caatholic wedding more that not include mass, much less take place in the main body of the church. An example of this is at St Andrew's church Westlandrow Dublin. To the right of the high altar is a separate marriage chapel with its own doors and altar inside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I meant to say was up to the 1960's most Catholic marriages in Ireland did not take place during a mass. Some even took place in the sacraisty of a church.

      Delete
    2. My sister's wedding was in the sacristy because the PP said it could not take place in the church because she'd had a baby out of wedlock.

      The PP also decreed that she couldn't wear a white wedding dress as she obviously wasn't a virgin. He told her to get an ivory coloured one instead.

      This was in 1983.

      Delete
  2. Pat, I have met many couples in my ministry whose marriages fell apart. Some went for counselling through ACCORD and foud ways to reconcile their differences. Most couples desire that they find a way forward together. I and many priests do our utmost to be fair, good listeners, compassionate and understanding. Aware of our inability to properly understand the full dynamics, we refer couples for expert counselling. In the event of couples not finding reconciliation I believe the Church should be even more compassionate. Where annulments are inevitable, the process should be less arduous and intrusive but remember we cannot arbitrarily tear apart a sacred bond of marriage overnight. The process of enquiry is essential. I don't believe any couple has to remain in a bad, irreconcilable relationship. Neither do I believe that we should easily dismantle the sacred marriage relationship through the Sacrament in so cavalier a manner as you suggest. Myself and many priests give the utmost care, support and assistance to couples who seek professional help. When we cannot attain a meeting of minds and hearts, then we refer couples to professionals. You have given much confusion in your interpretation of Christian Sacramental Marriage. Many priests are kind and caring - not just you Pat - but we don't confuse people about Civil or Church teachings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no confusion.

      Everybody knows and is told the difference.

      People can and are married "in the eyes of God without the RC sacrament.

      Delete
    2. 'We should (not) easily dismantle the sacred marriage relationship through the Sacrament'? Come down of your portentous, clericalist pedestal, priest! If no marriage exists, then nothing is being dismantled, but much is being exposed: the couple's stupidity (along with that of the ministerial Church) for allowing and blessing such a moral sham in the first place.

      By the way, this other self-serving clericalist nonsense you spouted (that it is the 'Sacrament' that makes marriage sacred...hence putting the priest-parasite to the fore) couldn't be more wrong: it is the love between a couple that sanctifies their relationship. What were marriages for the first thousand years of Christianity? Were they not sacred because of the absence of a man-made sacrament of marriage?

      Delete
    3. Who cares what you think Mags. You behave on this blog like a boorish, drunk fool, sneering at others, being foul mouthed, self conceited, crass, condescending. Thank God you are not sharing in the presbyterate. You'd be intolerable. I and most Priests bring much support, compassion, kindness, understanding and insight to our meetings with couples. We clearly know that we are the celebrants who are glad to officiate at and witness the love between two people receiving God's blessing through the Sacrament of Marriage. I certainly don't require any lecture from a hypocrite like you. Perhaps, as said before, you should stay under your rock. You're somewhat irrelevant. Your continuous reference if the term "priest parasite" reveals you as simply a very ignorant, out of touch, pathetic creature.

      Delete
    4. 10:37, who cares what I think? Well, you for one, since you took the time to craft a protracted, hate-filled, rambling reply.😆

      Delete
    5. As my dad used to say...a marriage does not necessarily start at the same time as a wedding.

      Delete
    6. 11:25, your dad was a wise man, much wiser than the priest-parasites posting here.

      Delete
    7. Magna, you have feelings!! Imagine. A viper with feelings. You feel hurt... Ah, pity. You spew out so much vile and hatred yourself that you are morally and spiritually blind to your own crazy, dangerous and sinful attitudes.

      Delete
  3. Annulment is a process of law which can be a pain in the rear end which can cause great and often unnecessary suffering. There is also a cost element. In Jesus days the reality of divorce though not ideal was tolerated and society has evolved. We need to acknowledge this. In CoE there is something called C 4 which a divorced prospective vicar has to go through before ordination. A divorced partner would be subject to the same process. There are times when the law is necessary and times when it is an ass

    ReplyDelete
  4. Catholic annulment? More clericalist bureaucratic nonsense.

    For heaven's sake stop pandering to bloody Roman Catholic priests. Haven't these financial and social parasites done enough damage to the Body of Christ.

    If, for whatever reason, your marriage doesn't work out (and provided you yourself have not selfishly broken your freely taken vows), then feel free to wed another. Stop looking to these bloody parasites for moral advice. THEY ARE INCAPABLE OF IT...like their pharasaical forebears.

    Seriously, who listens now to these liars and hypocrite anymore? We know what they REALLY are.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Magna at 9.39. Your hatred of priests is palpable, your comment to be ecpected.But also frightening that someone like you could be so full of faux outrage re: priests, Sacrament of Marriage: Annulments...etc: You are PHONEY. Who'd ever want your cracked presence. Don't over do the rage and hyperbole....Thank God for our Priests who are warm, supportive, caring, kind and available when we need rthem. Magna, life is passing you by - be happy - and - incidentally, it's advisable to lessen your drunken mood swings...they are bad for your health....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Priests who are warm, supportive, caring, kind and available...? And you charge me with 'hyperbole'?😅

      Delete
    2. Stay in your pit Magna. Kindness might eventually grow into your soul.

      Delete
    3. 12:54, more ad hominem.

      Why not engage your intellect? Answer my query.

      Delete
    4. Sleep well tonight Mags. Hope others vipers don't swallow you up! Slan agus beanbact....

      Delete
  6. It seems that Magna's only contact with the outside world is through this blog. Rather sad. May I suggest that if he were to interact on a one to one with others, as most "normal" people do, he might be a better, less strung out person. He goes way over the top and we can visualise him breaking glass and jumping on tables in his lonely outbursts of anger. Ah well, that's his vocation! He can keep it....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have a vivid imagination, Sod Leim; I'll give you that.

      If YOU'RE 'normal', I think I'll give 'one to one' contact with such people as you a very happy miss.

      Incidentally, not one priest-parasite has yet answered the query in my first comment: if the sacrament of marriage is what confers sacredness on a couple's union, then were the marriages for the first thousand years of Christianity (validated morally by civil contract and not by sacramental rite) not sacred. (Incidentally, this would include the union of Mary and Joseph, plus those of Peter the Apostle, etc.)

      C'mon priest-parasites. Step up to the mark, you thorns in the Body of Christ.

      Delete
    2. Ah magna, you really are quite mental :)

      Delete
    3. Yes, 12:26, avoid answering my query through ad hominem.😆

      Delete
    4. Funny ad hominem is Smegma's own favourite tactic.

      Delete
  7. 10.45
    Why don't you save your own health by ignoring Magna.
    Your outburst is more offensive .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 11:11
      I would have thought it impossible to be more offensive than Magna.

      Delete
  8. So it was the 12 century b4 marriage became a sacrament.
    Pat when were other sacraments invented?
    Maybe you could give us a short synopsis on the history of Catholicism
    So if I'm reading this right, sin was invented by the Catholic Church

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, 11:15, up to a point sin WAS invented by the Roman Catholic Church, as a means of personal and social control.

      In the 11th century, a pope decided, on the basis that sex was vile and sinful, to 'sacramentalise' marraige by ritual (it was already sacramentalised by love). This allowed him not only to indulge his neurosis about marital sex, but to declare null and void the marriages of priests (thus preventing their children from inheriting and ensuring the retention, by the institutional Church, of wealth that morally should have gone to these children).

      Moreover, it prevented children born to the nobility outside marriage from taking predecence over those born inside it.

      This move, by a neurotic and cynical Church, was driven not by piety, but by self-interest and politics.

      Delete
    2. Which 11th Century papacy are you referring to?

      Delete
  9. People born before the twelfth century could all be in hell?
    Or is it just just those of us after then that committed sin are doomed ?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 10.45 Couldn't agree more.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Marriage is the sacrament that precedes all others, even baptism. Sr Lucy of Fatima said that the definitive battle between satan and God would be over the sacrament of holy matrimony. There are many false prophets in these times who are leading many people to perdition.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, 12:25, did Satan triumph for the first thousand years of Christianity when there was no 'sacrament of holy matrimony'?

      Were the unions of Mary and Joseph satanic? And that of the Apostle Peter? Because neither of these was ratified by 'the sacrament of holy matrimony'.

      As the Nazi Pope Benedict acknowledged, moral 'filth' is being brought into the Church by priests The greatest danger to society is not the destruction of what you call 'the sacrament of holy matrimony', but the Trojan horse of Roman Catholic clericalism. Priests, arguably more than any group in history, have done incalculable moral damage to the Church.

      Lucy of Fatima was wrong, even if she uttered the words you attribute to her. She was not infallible.

      I base my claims on evidence. She?

      For every convert to Roman Catholicism, six Catholics are leaving the Church, because of the sexual abuse scandals. It astonishes me that you could believe 'the sacrament of holy matrimony' to be an apocalyptic battleground rather than that of Roman Catholic priesthood. You are either wilfully blind, or another clericalist priest.

      The wolves are hiding in clerical garb.

      Delete
    2. Magna at 13.09. So the wolves are hidi g in clerical garb!!... You - A POISONOUS VIPER - stay under your rock!! You're tiresome. You must be lost without this blog...

      Delete
    3. 12.25 When I first came bank to the church 27 years ago I was shocked that the laity didn't think and the clergy rarely told the truth. They were experts at deflecting questions. If Satan is the father of all lies....where does that leave us. "Papal Sin...the structures of deceit" by Gary Wills, is a very good read.

      Delete
    4. 13:42, another clericalist priest. Quelle surprise!

      When is one of you priest -parasites going to be bold enough to answer my query?

      Delete
    5. To poster 12,25
      Sorry! Wrong!
      BAPTISM IS THE SACRAMENT WHICH PRECEDES ALL OTHERS.

      In Catholic teaching (--isn't that what this blog purports to be about?) a person cannot receive ANY other Sacrament until he/she first has been baptised, either as an infant or later in his life as an adult.
      That is the reason why the Primary school Staff have to carefully collect and check the Baptism certificates of all the children prior to their reception of Sacraments of Confession, First Communion and again for the P7 Confirmations. A Baptismal record is carefully kept in the school and parish records. If the person as an adult wishes to have a Catholic wedding, he will have his Baptism checked on again. I remember occasions when a child entered the primary school from say, another school maybe in England and there was no Baptism certificate forthcoming from the parish where he had been living. So a provisional Baptism was done for the family of the 7 year old. This happened now and again. Similarly, a convert is baptised if necessary and it has to be BEFORE his Catholic wedding.

      Delete
    6. Re/Baptism being of necessity always the first and gateway Sacrament to the other Sacraments. You are in every detail correct. Thank you for spotting that surprising error!

      Delete
    7. Marriage is the primordial sacrament that existed before the creation of the church and the fall. Go right back to Genesis and Adam & Eve if you need proof. So 12:25 is actually precisely correct.

      Delete
    8. Why on earth, Magna Carta, would any self-respecting priest, or anyone else for that matter, waste their precious time and energy engaging with your vicious, scurrilous and hate-filled diatribes?

      You are the Screaming Lord Sutch of Blogdom and we are sick of your trolling. I scroll past your bile now. It would take a very long time to unravel you and "quite frankly, madam, I don't give a damn".

      Delete
    9. So you scroll past my posts now? Er, why then did you respond to my post at 14:22?

      I swear to God some of you people are baffling neuro-science by proving cognitive ability without brain function.

      Delete
    10. It is remarkable that so many contributors here, who either directly claim to be clerics, or infer it, criticise Magna in such vitriolic hostile terminology. As Magna says, it is all very 'ad hominem' as opposed to arguing or debating the points raised.
      Whether it is liked or not, Magna does raise some very valid, albeit contentious points, and it seems that both their content as much as their forceful expression creates the hostility. Yes at times MC's comments can be thought OTT. But perhaps we need extreme expressions to shake of lethargic narrow thinking, as well as the more considered thoughtful comment.
      But surely it is worth considering also whether such articulations of hostility from certain clerics to this blog betray a narrowness of thought processes said to be endemic to the RC clerical ediface, nonwithstanding other praiseworthy examples of compassion and care within its ranks.
      MMM

      Delete
    11. Not all of them, by any means are clerics, MMM. And as regards "vitriolic", they are simply replying in kind. MC is a bully and an unstable loudmouth. He provokes people with his acid-tongued scathing contempt. Your sympathies are wasted on him. He's an aggressive drunk who abuses people. He's a victimiser - not a victim.

      Delete
    12. MMM - 20.32. Mostly you make interesting, rational comments. Nit on this occasion.Magna is deserving of all criticisms. He is one man who doesn't know the meaning of respect, tolerance and fairness. He is the nastiest, most unlikeable contributor on this blog. He is profoundly unstable as evidenced by his uncontrolled, loudmouthed and hurtful comments. He requires professional help to enable him to be a more humane person. Till then he deserves all that's given to him. Trollop that he is....

      Delete
    13. 17:33, Geneis is pre-history, you bloody, embarrsssing fool!😆

      Delete
    14. And that remark is not ad hominem--??How the silly bear walks into his own pit..

      Delete
  12. The fact is that if a man and woman have no legal rights and are no a married couple in the eyes of the state they are not really married. Marriage is about civil rights and protections. What good is it being married if all that happens is a rite or promise or ceremony with no legal status?

    Regardless it is commitment that matters not marriage.

    We must stop lying about how good Jesus was and understand the full horror of his respect for marriage and opposition to divorce. The fact remains that female children were routinely married by force to males in his time. They were raped. Their bodies were not ready for babies and many of the girls died. The woman did not even speak while the man made the vow to regard her as his wife. Yet he banned anybody from marrying a divorced woman on the basis that she was still married to her husband. I agree with the Catholic historians and theologians who argue that Jesus made no provision for divorce. Saying divorce is wrong – but pornea is a separate case – as Jesus did only means he was not going to talk about pornea not that it was an exception. The notion he allowed divorce only for adultery is nonsense. That would mean a battered wife is stuck with her husband until he cheats on her.

    Not all marriage is sacramental. The doctrine that marriage is a sacrament automatically implies that those who marry and don’t want God’s blessing or sacrament must blame themselves if the marriage breaks down. It leads to looking down on such marriages.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Am I in a sinful sexual relationship with my widowed partner ? I'm a widow.
    We live miles and miles apart, have family commitments, so marriage is a non runner, not that we even contemplate this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you think yourself? Having sex with a woman you're not married to. Catch yourself on.

      Delete
    2. Shouldn't that have been ".. with a man you're not married to.."
      The original poster told you that she was a widow.

      Delete
    3. 13:44 to 15:34, thanks for the correction. Was too quick off the mark. Can't be too careful in these complicated times.

      Delete
    4. Too quick to judge.

      Delete
    5. Baptism is the Sacrament which must precede all other Sacraments.
      That is Catholic teaching.
      People who are referring to Matrimony being first seem to be confusing marriage as a contract (in one primitive form or another from the earliest times) with the SACRAMENT of Matrimony as defined by the Church. All of the other six Sacraments must be preceded by Baptism in order to be validly received.

      Delete
  14. The Roman Catholic Church made a number of important decisions about marriage at the Council of Trent. For the first time it required Catholics to exchange their marriage vows before the Parish Priest in the presence of two witnesses. The Council went out of its way to make clear that this law did not apply to Protestants. The Catholic Church has always regarded Protestant marriages as valid even when the vows were exchanged informally and in private. The Council of Trent was also careful to say that it was making no criticism of the Orthodox practice of allowing second marriages to those who had failed the first time round. Hence a number of curiosities. People accustomed to the idea that Catholics are "not allowed" to marry in the Registry Office are often surprised to learn that the Catholic Church fully recognises the Registry Office "first time" marriages of non-Catholics and indeed identifies the Registry Office marriage of two baptised Protestants as a Sacramental marriage. The influx of Orthodox immigrants nowadays poses an interesting problem for the local Catholic Church. What happens when an Orthodox Christian, who is fully entitled to a second marriage, wants to marry a local Catholic?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before the reformation the papacy was fairly liberal on handing out annulments. Henry VIII was only refused because of his wife's relationship to the Roman emperor. It was then that the church dug in their heals to differentiate from 'the liberal' reformers.

      Delete
  15. The local Catholic can only contract a valid Catholic marriage with a person who is free to marry him /her. Both the man and the woman have to be validly FREE of impediments to their union.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't remember the Catholic Church ticking off the Widow Kennedy for marrying the divorced Onassis.

      Delete
    2. That's because it hypocritically didn't.

      Priest-parasites who post here are loyal to the whore institutional Roman Catholoic Church, not to Christ.

      Delete
    3. 19.44
      That doesn't mean it didn't happen.
      Perhaps they forgot to tell you!

      Delete
  16. Maggie's fallen off the wagon again lol. I could take his ravings about priests etc with some seriousness if it wasn't for the fact he wanted to be one himself.
    If he isn't actually a priest, that is...
    You having a go at Maggie today, know that the problem is actually Pat. He has actually moderated Maggie's ravings and allows him to abuse everyone here.
    I would say aim at Pat since he is the problem but I've come to the conclusion he wants this blog to be a hostile place.
    I do have one question - ehich he won't amswer - ever been married yourself, Maggie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 17:27 Carta is a confirmed bachelor ;-)

      Who would have the shrewish old harridan?

      Delete
    2. Maggie a "confirmed" bachelor??!!
      Good grief!
      What "parasite" bishop dared to edge up close enough to him to confirm him! Must have been a brave man indeed...

      Delete
  17. Pat, thanks for raising the annulment issue. I've yet to be convinced that it's not Catholic divorce.

    I believe it to be a fairly causuitical device to get round the Dominical teaching on "what God has joined together etc".

    I can see circumstances where an annulment is prima facie, eg duress, consanguinity, and there are State annulments in such circumstances too.

    But by far the great majority of cases concern immaturity or faulty understanding of the obligations of marriage. A court tries to untangle motives, often from decades before.

    Also, somewhat conveniently, annulments are only sought when the marriage is in trouble. The Armagh Regional Marriage Tribunal requires that the applicants have a civil divorce first.

    The explosion in annulment stats tells a story. In the US in 1968 there were around 370 granted; forty years later it was around 27,000.

    Interestingly, the number of cases in Ireland is falling, coinciding with the legalisation of divorce and its increased social acceptance.

    Pat, are any other sacraments annulled? Even with laicization a priest remains a priest, and even with excommunication a bishop remains a bishop.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Annulled of course would still imply the sacrament wasn't conferred in the first place. The church tends to be particularly careful about consecration of bishops - to prevent exactly the kind of havoc caused by the realisation the bishop isn't one really!
      Interestingly the sedevacantists assert that ordinations since 1968 are invalid, and the papal throne is empty (they differ on the last pope). If their position was accepted regularising everyone else's situation would be interesting!

      Delete
  18. @Pat, C'mon Pat get with the programme. Patsy McGarry has it in the Times all about Maynooth today. He says just 6 started in Maynooth. The lowest since its foundation in 1795. He also makes the point that the Church of Ireland have 12 admissions this year, and double the amount that Maynooth has.
    Pat, don't take your eye off the ball. Annulment blogs and theological blogs and UK blogs are all welcome. Don't take your eye off the Irish clerical gossip blogs either. Do you have any contacts in Maynooth this year? Or have they succeeded in ridding themselves of a troublesome bishop? What news of Galway and Meath? What news of Maynooth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Church of Ireland". What cheeky Planter nonsense.

      Less than 10% of the population of Ireland attend "Church of Ireland lol" churches and 98% of their clergy and laity have English or Scottish surnames LOL.

      I think that Bishop Pat broke the news that there were, tragically, just 6 new Maynooth seminarians. Patsy McGarry has many agenda so take care. He has to look after his "No Catholic need apply" Irish Times employer (such ads appeared in the paper well into the 1960s) but also get titbits from his Catholic contacts.

      Delete
  19. Sedevacantists have doubts about Confirmation too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All sacraments really except baptism and marriage - the only two you don't need a priest for.
      As time goes on I find their argument more and more compelling.

      Delete
    2. Jesus f**k**g Christ! You don't need a so-called 'priest' for anything. Jesus HIMSELF is the ONLY priest.

      When are you elderly MORONIC pricks going to awaken to this FACT?!

      Delete
    3. And we have doubts about sedevacantists too! - lots of doubts, believe me..

      Delete
    4. Lol at another outburst from MC.
      Btw I'm 23 pmsl
      From the aged poster about sedevacantists.

      Delete
  20. I'm having a good laugh at Magna Carta ranting at people then telling them to talk to him and telling them they're being stupid.
    What an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Wish you lot would leave Magna alone.
    Whether is was ordained or not..does it matter?
    Whether he likes or dislikes priests is his business, it's no sin to dislike priests, he prob has his reasons
    And why call him Maggie
    People complain about most of us posting anonymous, but Magna doesn't...so ???? he can't win
    From the sinful widow, no I don't need contraception .....and I still receive holy communion,hope that's ok with the holy joes here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you love selflessly, you love well...and PERFECTLY.

      God bless your love.

      Delete
    2. Ha ha! Don't tell us Magna has scored a rich widow on here!! Which priest will go and do the wedding!? Whoops... maybe not.. unless you're heavily insured..

      Delete
    3. Ah, God bless you, love too..

      Delete
    4. 21:44, So Magna Carta's not anonymous? Listen luv, if you'd brains, you'd be dangerous.

      Delete
  22. So has Fr X left or not ?????

    ReplyDelete
  23. So should this widower and widow marry so that they are not committing sin having sex, even though they have no intention of moving in together.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Oh Magna Carta's as anonymous as I am...

    ReplyDelete
  25. 21.44: Are you serious? MAGNA CARTA - A real name!! When Maggie treats others with respect, kindness and understanding, he might receive the same in return. But not while he is so nasty and unacceptably ignorant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Magna enjoys his apoplectic state!!

      Delete
  26. Can you imagine living with Magna Carta?
    I knew the words priest, catechism and Latin would give him a tizzy. It's no surprise sedevacantism would be another one but annulment?
    You'd be frightened to say anythung in case you found a random word like teapot set him off!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Magna Carta wrote:
    'You don't need a so-called 'priest' for anything. Jesus HIMSELF is the ONLY priest.'
    On a blog owned by...a *bishop*!
    I'm wiping tears of laughter away.
    What a tosser.
    One of these days Bishop Buckley will wake up and realize what MC is doing here.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Pat, another discussion ruined by MC. The widespread view is that you and MC are one and the same person, and the MC interventions allow you to express your true feelings, stir the pot and drive up blog traffic. It's getting boring now.

    ReplyDelete
  29. One does not have to be rich or famous to obtain an annulment, the personal questions are very relevant and are asked in a sensitive manner and it does not take ten yrs for oucome

    ReplyDelete