"two homes is not a home"

This is a terrible situation, and I feel strongly for the poor children involved. At the same time I'd like to point out that doing religious apostolate work as a couple is not an indicator of the health of a Catholic marriage. Though many couples work in marvelous unity at various activities, the activities themselves are no proof of the holiness or the health of the marriage. Many secular couples take up vigorous activity as a way to distance themselves from problems in their marriage; Catholic couples can make the same mistake. Spouses need to do internal work to keep their marriage strong as well as external work to build God's kingdom.

But no-fault divorce is disgusting, and from all appearances Mr. McFarlane has done his family a rank injustice.

Sad indeed. I can't say that I'm shocked though, at the behavoir of someone who is clearly a kook. Have you read any of Bud's books?

He has a very unhealthy devotion to false apparitions, is a date-setter (well, was, since his date was wrong), and is basically no different than the Tim LaHaye's of the world. The devil tempts people to err on both sides, obviously. And I personally think that right-wing heterodoxy is more dangerous, as it claims (and appears to have) total orthodoxy, and is therefore more difficult to discern.

It's not surprising to me that someone whose books' contents fall too far outside of the realm of "rational and reasonable" would have other issues. Religious extremists often use their religion to hide behind some pretty deep personal issues.

"It's not surprising to me that someone whose books' contents fall too far outside of the realm of "rational and reasonable" would have other issues."

Eat my body, drink my blood.

"Religious extremists often use their religion to hide behind some pretty deep personal issues."

Yup, anybody willing to die rather than recant his religion is as extreme as they get, especially when that religion is only a few years old. But then, growing up in a poor backward village and being forced into your stepdad's trade at a young age is enough to scar anyone.

I have been through a divorce by the man that I chose to marry. I have been through the custody battle with my (at an earlier time) best friend. It has been the worse experience of betrayal that I have ever known.
Only God can heal those broken hearts. Mrs McFarlane can not rebuild her marriage without her husband's will to do so.
Such is the time to let go and let God. He will turn this nightmare to glorify Him, if she so chooses.
May God be with them all.

My best friend has been horribly betrayed by her husband. Then, she was horribly betrayed by the legal system of no-fault divorce in Minnesota. This whole thing makes me scream inside my heart for her and her children. I wish I could grab the idiots who came up with this crazy idea and turn them around and show them how much this system twists the family around into something disgusting instead of something to be revered and mourned over when it is lost. How much less her children would suffer and pass this legacy down to their own children if the courts showed that their father did WRONG and their mother did RIGHT and their father was NOT rewarded and their mother ended up with peace. This is not about money, this is about a roof over their heads and food on the table and dignity for a woman who stayed home, gave up her career, and tried to help an abusive husband learn to be a kind human being.

If we really care about marriage, we should not only work on our own marriages, but discourage friends and family from getting divorces, and encourage them to turn to God to heal their marriages. If you had a friend you loved who was about to get an abortion, wouldn't you do everything in your power to stop her? Why shouldn't we have the same zeal for our loved ones who are about to divorce? Our Lord made a point to talk about divorce and remarriage. If Our Lord thought it was important and of eternal consequence, shouldn't we? Speaking the truth in love won't necessarily make you the most popular person, but that's one of the costs of following Christ.

Other than here at the Curt Jester, I never see anything about this story anywhere (Thanks, Jeff.) Where is the outrage in the Blogosphere? Where are Bud McFarlane's apologetics buddies? Does this man not have a real friend who will tell him to go back to his wife and do right by his family?

Just a question, but no one seems to be considering whether maybe Bud Macfarlane has legitimate grounds. He did cite "extreme cruelty" and "gross neglect of duty," and as far as I can tell, he isn't taking this to the press and smearing her name. All I've heard about is how he's wronged her. Do you really think this is only about his "lapse in character" as Mrs. Macfarlane says?

The discussion in the blogosphere seems really one-sided here. If he's really done all of this "for no reason," then he'll have to account for it to a higher court. But what if she's misrepresented the situation? What will that do to her kids? What has that already done to his reputation?

"Just a question, but no one seems to be considering whether maybe Bud Macfarlane has legitimate grounds. He did cite "extreme cruelty" and "gross neglect of duty," and as far as I can tell, he isn't taking this to the press and smearing her name."

Well, if that last clause is accurate, then your only source for the first clause of that sentence would be court documents. Since the divorce was not granted on such grounds, but rather using whichever "no fault" clause their state prefers (for example, in GA, the expression is "irreconcilable differences"), we would need to see the documents in question, as all this seems to contradict itself.

Perhaps you have a link?

Here's a Godspy interview with Mrs. Macfarlane, from which I took the two phrases. I don't know on what grounds the divorce was granted, and I can find nothing that relates his side of the story. He could be a complete louse who bailed on his wife and took away their children. He could also be a man who put up with an abusive, twisted situation for 13 years and finally decided it was taking too heavy a toll on everyone involved. Or, as I suspect, the truth is somewhere in the middle. That's part of the problem. All the articles I've read have to do with her side of the story, and they paint him as being completely at fault.

Does it sound in the least bit suspicious that a child of 4 says, "Daddy broke our family"? How would a child get such a notion? Well, it could be that the father was so messed up and abusive that it was obvious, in which case I imagine there would be a clear indication (and I hope that state wouldn't put that parent in charge of the children). Or it could be that someone explained the situation to the child in those terms. Who's indoctrinating whom in the latter case, and what kind of person trains his or her children to believe such things?

No doubt, it's a sad situation, and the family needs our prayers. However, to paint her as a martyr and him as a villain on the testimony of one party is hardly charitable.

"Does it sound in the least bit suspicious that a child of 4 says, "Daddy broke our family"?"

No, not at all. See, I was a four year old child when I watched my mother break our family. It isn't the least bit suspiscious.

"How would a child get such a notion? Well, it could be that the father was so messed up and abusive that it was obvious, in which case I imagine there would be a clear indication (and I hope that state wouldn't put that parent in charge of the children). Or it could be that someone explained the situation to the child in those terms. Who's indoctrinating whom in the latter case, and what kind of person trains his or her children to believe such things?""

People dedicated to teaching their children truth, and "indoctrinating" them into such. Look, if you don't want to believe in the permanent sacramental nature of Catholic Marriage, or if you want to believe that divorce is an acceptable, but sad, way to end a marriage with children, that's completely your business. And its completely my business to say that such people are heartless scum with no regard for women and children.

We can agree to disagree, with you proclaiming the ok-ness of divorce on one hand, and me proclaiming your disgusting scumminess on the other.

I apologise for the tone of this post, I just don't have the time or inclination to craft unoffensive posts in response to such offensive drivel, especially when it is all wrapped up in piety.

Hmmm. So I ask for a bit of balance, and I'm wrapping it up in piety? I thought it was simply being reasonable. We don't have all the facts, and I don't think we have a right to judge someone whose case hasn't been presented.

You, as an adult, have a great deal more perspective than a four year old would. And again, unless the parent's behavior was extreme, I doubt a 4 year old would have the sophistication to put together that concept unless coached. Your situation may (and apparently did) differ. In my mind, a mother who tells her kids that it's all daddy's fault is in denial, at very least. Most marriages don't break down because of only one party.

Second, a civil divorce doesn't end a sacramental marriage in the Church, and it also doesn't relieve either party from financial support of the chilren. The Catechism notes in paragraph 1649 that sometimes a physical separation is necessary. The practical reality is that a civil divorce is the means by which two people divide the assets in such a situation. In fact, a civil divorce is usually required before annulment procedings can begin. What is explicitly condemned is divorce and remarriage (with no annulment). There's no indication that such a thing has taken place.

Sometimes people make foolish mistakes when they are in a state of rebellion and separation from the Church. Sometimes, people marry others who disguise their true intentions (or their true nature) until after they get into a marriage. Sometimes, people are mentally unstable and unable to make reasonable decisions when it comes to marriage. These are some of the people who find themselves in such situations. I happen to be one of them.

Since the Church assumes every marriage is valid until proven otherwise, then so should we. Prayers should be said that the husband returns, that their differences are mended, and that they can rebuild their family.

I am an attorney, and although I don't do "family" law, I have often been the first one to counsel people who are contemplating divorce.

As to the idea that there are always "two sides" to the story. That is nonsense. Particularly in dealing with a longer term marriage, there is almost always one party (usually the husband) who has made a decision to call it quits. Frequently (indeed, I would say a majority of the time) but not always adultry is involved. Even when adultry is not involved, the man (and I say man because this is most frequently the case) has made a decision to "start over" because he deserves a "new life."

Years ago, I was having a few beers with some co-workers - all men. We had a fellow co-worker wha had just married his paramour with whom he had had an adulterous affair that ended a ten plus year marriage with two children. Three of us, two Catholics and a Sikh, all agreed that while we liked working with the guy what he did was clearly wrong, and that he had wronged his wife and children. Two others said we were unfair, and that there were always "two sides" in a divorce. Four years later, both of them were divorced - rumor has it in the wake of extra-marital relationships.

The point is, that although some marriages are such that people are better living apart (this is not a comment on the sacramental marriage), this is not the typical case. Most marriages end because of selfishness. Once we begin to see marriage as an agreement that can be broken when is doesn't suit us, it is doomed, because (as anyone who has been married can tell you) it will frequently not suit us (particularly if we focus on ourselves).

Franklin Jennings, Bud Macfarlane is not Jesus of Nazereth. If you ever prove to me that I am mistaken, and that Bud Macfarlane really is God, then I'll be more open to believing that the world is going to end at midnight in the year 2000AD, and I'll start showing obsessive devotion to "Our alleged Lady of Medjugorje"

Since Bud is merely a fallible human being, I'm going to remain open to the possibility that he really is off of his rocker. Thanks for playing.

Chris,

Of course he isn't Christ. And we agree fully that the man is off his rocker. I hope we also agree that he appears to be a terrible father, to boot.

I just think your reasons given for believing so are so ludicrous as to be beyond the pale. They are a repudiation of the very call to universal sanctity that every jot and tittle of Vatican II was crafted around.

Huh? My reasons were:
1) Extreme devotion to Medjugorje
2) Proclaiming that he knew the date of the end of the world.

My objecting to these points constitute "a repudiation of the very call to universal sanctity that every jot and tittle of Vatican II was crafted around"?

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. And don't try to backpeddal - those are the two points that I cited, and are necessarily the two that you believe to be so ludicrous. This is a matter of record.

Do you believe date-setting (condemned by Christ, btw) and obsessive devotion to *false* apparitions to be rational, and beyond that, an expression of the universal call to holiness?

It would seem so, judging by the content of my posts and your replies to them. Troubling, indeed.

Sad. disposable culture = disposable marriage = disposable family. I am not inclined to comment on the MacFarlane's marriage. I wasn't there and I imagine no one else who has commented here was either.

What I do know is that Mrs. MacFarlane is calling attention to a very real problem. "No Fault" divorce is a cancer that makes it very easy to dispose of a family that has become inconvenient. Isn't it something that states are spending countless amounts of time and money to get rid of "no fault" car accidents in order to lower car insurance premiums yet "no fault" divorce is an untouchable third rail?

But I didn't respond to those statements, did I?

I specifically quoted you, twice:

"It's not surprising to me that someone whose books' contents fall too far outside of the realm of "rational and reasonable" would have other issues."

and

"Religious extremists often use their religion to hide behind some pretty deep personal issues."

Those were the statements I was responding to, those only.

To the person who feels that a four year old would not come up with "Daddy broke the family" on his/her own, I would love to introduce you to two of my grandchildren, who have spoken much wisdom ON THEIR OWN in their short lives. They are intelligent kids. They are the children of my own child who also came up with even more insightful things at that age. One said, very young, with no prompting from me, as I was still in denial... "Daddy drinks too much beer. He gets madder when he drinks beer". That said to my neighbor, who then began to 'help' me come out of denial.

To those who think that we have heard only that it was Bud's fault... at no time have I heard Bai say, nor have I read anywhere that she has said What the problems in the marriage were/are. What she has said is that he left, he served the papers, and he is the one getting the divorce.

With no fault, unilateral forced divorce, that is all it takes. There is no defense when one is the Respondent. And if one does not want it, and says so, and tries to stop it, that person is a 'problem'. That person becomes one who must be treated as though they are not facing reality, etc. That person becomes the one punished throughout the entire process by the system.

That person is told that they MUST sign papers, or the judge will make a decision that is worse than the 'agreement' that was drawn up...and that is coersion. And THIS is most often done by their own attorney, who is supposed to DEFEND US, and help us, and is paid by US, not the Petitioner!!! You see, we even become a 'problem' to our own attorney. It is not fun to have a 'contested' divorce, it is not desirable, it is time consuming, it is just not done.... WE are not facing reality, etc. WE need to get ON with our lives. We need to LET GO, etc.

Though I do not agree with everything that Bai has done, she is fighting the same thing that I have fought for over 20 years. No fault, forced, unilateral divorce is EVIL. It punishes the wrong persons and rewards the ones (very often) who have had the affairs, etc. There is no other system where the 'wronged' individual is the one punished.

Further, in some states, in order to begin the divorce process, 'grounds' must be given. This is true in only a few states. Those 'grounds' are on record, BUT, in Ohio, if one simply waits a year, they can then file under no fault (sometimes called irreconcilable differences). This then gives them a guaranteed divorce, but ALSO ROBS the person named in the original papers from being able to defend and prove that they are NOT cruel, etc.

To try to make a case out of 'legalese' that the Respondent must have been abusive, etc, is ridiculous, since this was often the only way to serve papers to begin the process. Had this system been 'fair', a trial would have taken place with witnesses to PROVE the allegations, and others to DISPROVE them. That did not and does not happen.

Finally, according to our Canon Law, we are to have our Bishop's permission to separate/divorce, before we proceed. AND that means that the current way it is done here, requiring a Civil Divorce prior to petition for Nullity is not in line with the Canon Law.

Bai went public to fight the evil of no fault forced unilateral divorce, and to force the courts to recognize the antenuptial papers we have all signed prior to our marriages, which makes it a Catholic marriage, not just a Civil Marriage. Her stand is that those papers take precedence over any Civil actions. As Catholics, we are subject to Canon Law.

That is what Bai speaks of when she speaks out. NOT the fact that Bud did or did not do this or that while they were together.

I told my husband that he could NOT tell our children that 'we' had agreed to anything relating to divorce. It was his decision alone, and he must take responsibility for it. I do not share in his decision, nor his guilt regarding the destruction of our marriage in any way.

For those things that I did to hurt him or to hurt our marriage, that were MINE to repent of, I did so long ago, and asked his forgiveness for Long before he served papers. He chose to tell me he would not forgive me. Our counselor said... of course not. He can't. If he did, he would have no excuse to stay away, he would have to return home.

Hardness of hearts is what Jesus said caused divorce.

Hardness of hearts, unforgiveness and selfishness is still at the root.

Today, it only takes one, with no proof given by the Petitioner, and no defense by the Respondent.

For more information, read Judy Parejko's book, STOLEN VOWS which is available at her website, AND has a few chapters available to be read onsite:
http://www.stolenvows.com/preview.htm

I'd feel so illegitimate if my parents divorced. I'm so thankful they've been together for 20 years now!
Somewhere in one of the later books of the Old Testament, there is a small verse that says "God hates divorce" (in my St. Ignatius Press Bible). It breaks the family with little regard for anyone but the ones getting the divorce.
"I'm sorry, we just don't love each other anymore because of reason x, y, or z" isn't good enough. I'm sure people could stand to suffer during hard times a little bit, even though the culture says "we shouldn't suffer".

Malachi 2:14-16
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.
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.

"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."

Obviously a pseudonym, and you'll see why. c. 30 years ago my father decided he "deserved to be happy" (his words) and divorced my mother, leaving her with me and my seven brothers and sisters. He admitted to my mother last year (!) that he knew he was doing the wrong thing while he was doing it, he knew he was making a mistake at the time, and he knew he wasn't going to be "happy," whatever that might mean. While the grounds he gave were "cruelty and abuse" by my mother toward him (!), he admitted he knew he was lying when he testified in court. Nonetheless, I feel that the cruelist thing he did -- withholding child support, blackmail, preventing us from obtaining employment (being forced to move out of town to do so) notwithstanding (etc.) -- was to tell my mother 30 years later that he knew it was a mistake when he was doing it. To this day I don't think he realizes that actions have consequences, and he was (once again) trying to make himself feel good at someone else's expense. Bud MacFarlane may be having some real problems, but dragging his wife and children through a cesspool isn't going to do one thing to solve them. He needs real help, but that also means being man enough to seek it and act on it.

For everyone that has wrote about their own sorrows with divorce, I am sorry for your pain! I do believe there is more to this story. I don't know if it warrents Bud and Bai divorcing, but something we don't know must be the cause. Pray for them and their children! Pray there is some good down the rode.