Topic: Once again, Bill Oreilly is an evil douche bag
Anonymous A started this discussion 13 years ago #26,460
Bill O'Reilly wants his ex-wife to go to Hell. Literally. As we previously reported, the Fox News falafelist became separated from his former wife Maureen McPhilmy at some point in 2011, and later went on an apparently corrupt crusade to destroy the career of the Nassau County Police detective she was dating. We have now confirmed that O'Reilly and McPhilmy have been formally divorced, that she has since married the detective, and that O'Reilly is in the midst of a scorched-earth custody battle—dubbed, appropriately enough, Anonymous v. Anonymous—over the ex-couple's two children. It involves a surreptitious attempt by O'Reilly to undermine his custody arrangement by hiring, as a member of his household staff, the woman he and his ex had agreed on as a neutral arbiter of their disputes. It also involves O'Reilly's attempts to annul his marriage and have McPhilmy potentially booted from the Catholic Church.
To catch you up: In May 2010, O'Reilly and his wife began living in separate houses less than half a mile from each other on Long Island. In 2011, O'Reilly used his connections with the Nassau County Police Department (and the potential for donations to a nonprofit affiliated with the department) to try to launch an internal affairs investigation into McPhilmy's new boyfriend—a Nassau County detective—for the crime of sleeping with Bill O'Reilly's wife. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, we are currently suing the NCPD for access to public records, including O'Reilly's correspondence with former commissioner Lawrence Mulvey, about the episode. That case is on appeal to the Second Department of New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division.
O'Reilly and McPhilmy separated on April 2, 2010.
They divorced on September 1, 2011.
They agreed to share custody of their two children, aged 13 and 10.
The couple's separation agreement included provisions allowing for shared custody—they each got the children on alternating weeks. And it also appointed a "neutral therapist" to, according to the opinion, "act as a neutral mediator to help them resolve any parenting disputes."
And here's where it gets interesting. In October 2011, McPhilmy took O'Reilly to court after learning that the woman she thought had been a neutral therapist serving the needs of her children was in fact a member of her ex-husband's household staff. The therapist, a Long Island licensed social worker named Lynne Kulakowski, was working long days and some evenings in O'Reilly's house, on his payroll, and basically acting as the children's nanny. From the opinion:
The mother claimed that the [father] had repeatedly violated conditions of the agreement. The mother further alleged that, after the execution of the agreement, the father had hired the children's therapist as a full-time employee to perform virtually all of his parental duties.... The mother's affidavit contained specific allegations concerning the father's repeated violations of the custody provisions of the agreement since its inception.... Moreover, the full-time employment of the children's therapist, the person designated in the agreement as a neutral third-party "arbitrator" of custodial disputes, by the father, constitutes a significant change of circumstance which could undermine the integrity of the agreement's custodial provisions.
To catch you up: In May 2010, O'Reilly and his wife began living in separate houses less than half a mile from each other on Long Island. In 2011, O'Reilly used his connections with the Nassau County Police Department (and the potential for donations to a nonprofit affiliated with the department) to try to launch an internal affairs investigation into McPhilmy's new boyfriend—a Nassau County detective—for the crime of sleeping with Bill O'Reilly's wife. With the help of the New York Civil Liberties Union, we are currently suing the NCPD for access to public records, including O'Reilly's correspondence with former commissioner Lawrence Mulvey, about the episode. That case is on appeal to the Second Department of New York Supreme Court's Appellate Division.
O'Reilly and McPhilmy separated on April 2, 2010.
They divorced on September 1, 2011.
They agreed to share custody of their two children, aged 13 and 10.
The couple's separation agreement included provisions allowing for shared custody—they each got the children on alternating weeks. And it also appointed a "neutral therapist" to, according to the opinion, "act as a neutral mediator to help them resolve any parenting disputes."
And here's where it gets interesting. In October 2011, McPhilmy took O'Reilly to court after learning that the woman she thought had been a neutral therapist serving the needs of her children was in fact a member of her ex-husband's household staff. The therapist, a Long Island licensed social worker named Lynne Kulakowski, was working long days and some evenings in O'Reilly's house, on his payroll, and basically acting as the children's nanny. From the opinion:
The mother claimed that the [father] had repeatedly violated conditions of the agreement. The mother further alleged that, after the execution of the agreement, the father had hired the children's therapist as a full-time employee to perform virtually all of his parental duties.... The mother's affidavit contained specific allegations concerning the father's repeated violations of the custody provisions of the agreement since its inception.... Moreover, the full-time employment of the children's therapist, the person designated in the agreement as a neutral third-party "arbitrator" of custodial disputes, by the father, constitutes a significant change of circumstance which could undermine the integrity of the agreement's custodial provisions.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 29 seconds later[^] [v] #399,568
At a Second Department hearing in January, McPhilmy's attorney claimed—and O'Reilly's attorney did not dispute—that Kulakowski was earning a six-figure salary from O'Reilly. All of this, of course, made a mockery of the custody agreement's appointment of Kulakowski as a neutral arbiter of disputes—O'Reilly rigged the game against his ex-wife. A lower court initially denied McPhilmy's request for a hearing about O'Reilly's co-optation of the therapist, but the appellate court agreed with McPhilmy and sent the case back for a hearing. In a highly unusual step for an appellate court, it also ordered the appointment of an independent attorney for the children, an indication that the dispute has become particularly poisonous.
Another indication that it has become poisonous: the Catholic Church has gotten involved. Gawker has learned that McPhilmy has been formally reprimanded in writing by her church for continuing to take communion in her Long Island parish despite having been divorced and remarried—a no-no according to the Pope. The reprimand also instructed her to stop telling her children that her second marriage, to the Nassau County detective O'Reilly tried to destroy, is valid in the eyes of God. It warned her that if she didn't comply, harsher measures may be in order.
Chad Glendinning, a professor of canon law at Canada's St. Paul University, couldn't say whether the reprimand was a first step on the road to excommunication. But he did say it appeared to be a first step toward barring her from the sacraments if necessary. "Public denial of holy communion is to be avoided as far as possible," he said. "Instead, pastors should take precautionary measures to explain the Church's teaching to concerned persons so that they may be able to understand it or at least respect it. It is possible that the letter you describe is such an attempt."
There presumably aren't too many people besides O'Reilly who know what McPhilmy is saying to her children about how God views her marriage. And O'Reilly, who interviewed Timothy Cardinal Dolan last year and donated more than $65,000 to New York Catholic parishes and schools in 2011, according to the tax return of his nonprofit foundation, carries considerable weight in the archdiocese.
While he's busy harassing McPhilmy for asserting the holiness of her second marriage, O'Reilly is trying to deny the existence of his first: He is, Gawker has learned, seeking an annulment of his 15-year marriage, which produced two children. Null and void. Invalid in the eyes of God. Never happened. This despite his manifest belief in the "stability" that straight marriage brings to the culture and concern at the (purportedly) declining marriage rates in countries that allow gay people to marry one another. If successful, the annulment would presumably render his 2004 escapade with former producer Andrea Mackris, whom he repeatedly and vividly sexually harassed with threats to take "the falafel thing...and put it on your pussy," retroactively kosher with Jesus. (It would also make him even more of an asshole than his familial nemesis Joseph Kennedy, who tried and failed to have his 12-year marriage annulled.)
The bow on this whole package is the matter of McPhilmy's attorney, listed atop the Second Department decision: She has hired a firm called Greenfield Labby, and is represented by one Casey Greenfield. Gawker readers will remember Greenfield as the daughter of network newsman Jeff Greenfield and babymama to CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, whom Greenfield had to sue for support in 2009 after the birth of their son. (Toobin was and remains married to another woman, and insisted for months that the child was not his; a paternity test proved otherwise.) Greenfield went on, according to the New York Times, to form a boutique divorce firm. She has apparently put her familiarity with TV assholes to good use.
Another indication that it has become poisonous: the Catholic Church has gotten involved. Gawker has learned that McPhilmy has been formally reprimanded in writing by her church for continuing to take communion in her Long Island parish despite having been divorced and remarried—a no-no according to the Pope. The reprimand also instructed her to stop telling her children that her second marriage, to the Nassau County detective O'Reilly tried to destroy, is valid in the eyes of God. It warned her that if she didn't comply, harsher measures may be in order.
Chad Glendinning, a professor of canon law at Canada's St. Paul University, couldn't say whether the reprimand was a first step on the road to excommunication. But he did say it appeared to be a first step toward barring her from the sacraments if necessary. "Public denial of holy communion is to be avoided as far as possible," he said. "Instead, pastors should take precautionary measures to explain the Church's teaching to concerned persons so that they may be able to understand it or at least respect it. It is possible that the letter you describe is such an attempt."
There presumably aren't too many people besides O'Reilly who know what McPhilmy is saying to her children about how God views her marriage. And O'Reilly, who interviewed Timothy Cardinal Dolan last year and donated more than $65,000 to New York Catholic parishes and schools in 2011, according to the tax return of his nonprofit foundation, carries considerable weight in the archdiocese.
While he's busy harassing McPhilmy for asserting the holiness of her second marriage, O'Reilly is trying to deny the existence of his first: He is, Gawker has learned, seeking an annulment of his 15-year marriage, which produced two children. Null and void. Invalid in the eyes of God. Never happened. This despite his manifest belief in the "stability" that straight marriage brings to the culture and concern at the (purportedly) declining marriage rates in countries that allow gay people to marry one another. If successful, the annulment would presumably render his 2004 escapade with former producer Andrea Mackris, whom he repeatedly and vividly sexually harassed with threats to take "the falafel thing...and put it on your pussy," retroactively kosher with Jesus. (It would also make him even more of an asshole than his familial nemesis Joseph Kennedy, who tried and failed to have his 12-year marriage annulled.)
The bow on this whole package is the matter of McPhilmy's attorney, listed atop the Second Department decision: She has hired a firm called Greenfield Labby, and is represented by one Casey Greenfield. Gawker readers will remember Greenfield as the daughter of network newsman Jeff Greenfield and babymama to CNN's Jeffrey Toobin, whom Greenfield had to sue for support in 2009 after the birth of their son. (Toobin was and remains married to another woman, and insisted for months that the child was not his; a paternity test proved otherwise.) Greenfield went on, according to the New York Times, to form a boutique divorce firm. She has apparently put her familiarity with TV assholes to good use.
doctor reddit md !jdTkvovFCQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #399,569
Whom
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 22 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #399,570
tldr Oreilly is trying to get his wife kicked from her Catholic Church for divorce, even though he himself has been trying annulling his marriage. He's also made huge contributions to the Catholic church. It has also been revealed that a neutral party hired to deal with their disputes, has actually been working for him all along.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 36 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #399,571
http://gawker.com/5834808/how-bill-oreilly-tried-to-get-his-wifes-boyfriend-investigated-by-the-cops
http://gawker.com/5990571/bill-oreillys-divorce-is-so-ugly-god-got-involved
http://gawker.com/5990571/bill-oreillys-divorce-is-so-ugly-god-got-involved
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #399,572
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #399,574
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #399,578
@previous (C)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/keith-olbermann-oreilly-marriage_n_944681.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/01/keith-olbermann-oreilly-marriage_n_944681.html
Anonymous C replied with this 13 years ago, 15 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #399,585
doctor reddit md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #399,588
Xan !se7SAVCDgs joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #399,590
How am I supposed to feel about this useless, irrelevant bullshit?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 16 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #399,596
> fights for custody of children> hires a nanny to deal with them
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #399,601
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #399,602
@399,590 (Xan !se7SAVCDgs)
If you cannot decide on your own feelings, well then I truly pity you.
If you cannot decide on your own feelings, well then I truly pity you.
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 13 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #399,603
Meta !PARAdoxiHw joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #399,609
Republican Family Valuesâ„¢
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 36 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,626
@399,596 (E)
A nanny is cheaper than child support.
@OP
Far worse happens to most men during divorce.
A nanny is cheaper than child support.
@OP
Far worse happens to most men during divorce.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,654
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
They get murdered you mean? Or they're sentenced to hell, and kicked out of church? Please enlighten us?
They get murdered you mean? Or they're sentenced to hell, and kicked out of church? Please enlighten us?
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,656
@399,626 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Wait, a nanny plus the cost of raising a child is cheaper than child support? Source? When someone has full custody of a child, over a lifetime, do they pay more to support the child, or does child support cover all bills, and child raising hours accrued? Please think about this a while, before you answer. Also, if a woman had been acting like Oreilly, you wouldn't have defended that behavior, and you know it.
Wait, a nanny plus the cost of raising a child is cheaper than child support? Source? When someone has full custody of a child, over a lifetime, do they pay more to support the child, or does child support cover all bills, and child raising hours accrued? Please think about this a while, before you answer. Also, if a woman had been acting like Oreilly, you wouldn't have defended that behavior, and you know it.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,660
@399,654 (A)
No. They lose half their assets, and have to pay alimony and child support until they die.
No. They lose half their assets, and have to pay alimony and child support until they die.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,664
@previous (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Which is more expensive. Raising a child for life plus labor hours or child support. Alimony isnt a given, and this woman is trying to remarry which takes that away completely. Also with prenups, are the assets split 50/50 the majority of the time?
Which is more expensive. Raising a child for life plus labor hours or child support. Alimony isnt a given, and this woman is trying to remarry which takes that away completely. Also with prenups, are the assets split 50/50 the majority of the time?
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,671
@399,660 (HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q)
Men usually come out of divorce in a better position, financially, than women do.
Men usually come out of divorce in a better position, financially, than women do.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,674
@previous (beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ)
Men usually provide the income in the home. They tend to work more professional positions.
Men usually provide the income in the home. They tend to work more professional positions.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 52 seconds later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,675
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,679
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 39 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,710
This man has been caught sexually harassing interns, said that a famous child raped victim probably enjoyed it, and is trying to send his wife to hell. But in Walt's view that's okay because of child support.
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,712
@previous (A)
I wrongly assumed that paying someone to raise your kids was cheaper than paying someone to raise your kids.
I wrongly assumed that paying someone to raise your kids was cheaper than paying someone to raise your kids.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,713
> divorced and remarried—a no-no according to the Pope.
they say that as if it's an innovation the pope brought and not the explicit commandment of christ lol
they say that as if it's an innovation the pope brought and not the explicit commandment of christ lol
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,716
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 33 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,717
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,718
@399,713 (I)
also lol It's a hoot that they allow annulments. Because you can definitely trick god with legalize. lol
also lol It's a hoot that they allow annulments. Because you can definitely trick god with legalize. lol
(Edited 12 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,721
@399,710 (A)
@399,710 (A)
> This man has been caught sexually harassing interns, said that a famous child raped victim probably enjoyed it,
source lol i hate this guy
> and is trying to send his wife to hell.
That's not how it works...
@399,710 (A)
> This man has been caught sexually harassing interns, said that a famous child raped victim probably enjoyed it,
source lol i hate this guy
> and is trying to send his wife to hell.
That's not how it works...
Anonymous I double-posted this 13 years ago, 52 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,722
@399,718 (A)
yeah i have to read up about them hey because they seem totally suss but I don't know enough about them
yeah i have to read up about them hey because they seem totally suss but I don't know enough about them
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,726
@399,721 (I)He's trying to keep her from taking communion, and confessing.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/oreilly-falafel-suit-turns-five
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,731
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,733
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 10 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,738
@previous (I)
He's getting an annulment. Its the exact same as divorce, but just different paperwork. This was after he had sexual talk with an intern, while he was still married. Doesnt that count as adultery?
He's getting an annulment. Its the exact same as divorce, but just different paperwork. This was after he had sexual talk with an intern, while he was still married. Doesnt that count as adultery?
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,739
You mean to tell me you didn't know O'Reilly was a vindictive backstabbing little bitch from his show alone?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,742
doctor reddit md !jdTkvovFCQ replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,823
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 25 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,830
@399,738 (A)
I don't know enough about annulments to comment.
That is certainly infidelity but not adultery.
I don't know enough about annulments to comment.
That is certainly infidelity but not adultery.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,836
@previous (I)
Why not read up then, before you make a comment? Both are married, is a divorce somehow worse, because god can be tricked with legalize? Why isnt it adultery?
Why not read up then, before you make a comment? Both are married, is a divorce somehow worse, because god can be tricked with legalize? Why isnt it adultery?
(Edited 50 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,839
@previous (A)
I would recommend you do the same.
> adultery:sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse
I would recommend you do the same.
> adultery:sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 51 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,841
@previous (I)
You've said that having a thought is just like performing an action. Also, please look into annulment. You probably will not, though.
You've said that having a thought is just like performing an action. Also, please look into annulment. You probably will not, though.
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,843
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 42 seconds later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,844
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,847
Anonymous A (OP) triple-posted this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #399,849
@399,843 (I)
Have you checked that annulment yet? Also,tell us exactly how this woman has brought this on herself.
Have you checked that annulment yet? Also,tell us exactly how this woman has brought this on herself.
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 3 days later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #401,673
@previous (A)
Have you checked that annulment yet?
The woman divorced and remarried. That is sinful.
Have you checked that annulment yet?
The woman divorced and remarried. That is sinful.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 7 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #401,675
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #401,712
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
It would seem you haven't checked that annulment yet if you have to ask that question!
It would seem you haven't checked that annulment yet if you have to ask that question!
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 21 minutes later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #401,728
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #401,729
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 13 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #401,841
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
It would seem you haven't checked that annulment yet if you have to ask that question!
It would seem you haven't checked that annulment yet if you have to ask that question!
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #401,859
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 1 day later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #402,342
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #402,343
@previous (I)
You cannot answer the question so why do you keep bumping this? Marriage is supposed to be for life, and you cannot trick god with paperwork.
You cannot answer the question so why do you keep bumping this? Marriage is supposed to be for life, and you cannot trick god with paperwork.
Anonymous I replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #402,344
Anonymous I double-posted this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #402,345
You should check out annulment! You should read an article about it!
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #402,348
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 13 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #402,354
Its odd, because the number of annulments has rapidly increased, just like divorces. Its almost like Catholics wish to end their marriages, but dont want to call this practice divorce. Well, I guess that all of those Catholics were unable to consent to marriage at the time.
kook !!32zdfdzi+ (OP) triple-posted this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #402,357
Interesting:
But what they most definitely are is popular - more popular today than at any time in the 2,000-year-history of the church. And nowhere are they more popular than in the United States, where at least 72 percent of all the world's annulments are granted.
A full 98 percent of the annulments given American Catholics are granted on psychological grounds - reasons drawn from testimony of witnesses and the couple themselves. "We want to know the important facts about the courtship and the wedding day itself," says Cox. "What transpires after that is not of interest to the church, but one's intentions at the time this contract was made are critical."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/305901/CATHOLIC-ANNULMENTS-INCREASE-IN-POPULARITY.html?pg=all
Wow, I guess that everyone who gets an annulment has mental problems, but everyone who gets divorces are evil sinners. You know, because they're so different from each other.
But what they most definitely are is popular - more popular today than at any time in the 2,000-year-history of the church. And nowhere are they more popular than in the United States, where at least 72 percent of all the world's annulments are granted.
A full 98 percent of the annulments given American Catholics are granted on psychological grounds - reasons drawn from testimony of witnesses and the couple themselves. "We want to know the important facts about the courtship and the wedding day itself," says Cox. "What transpires after that is not of interest to the church, but one's intentions at the time this contract was made are critical."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/305901/CATHOLIC-ANNULMENTS-INCREASE-IN-POPULARITY.html?pg=all
Wow, I guess that everyone who gets an annulment has mental problems, but everyone who gets divorces are evil sinners. You know, because they're so different from each other.