Sunday, October 01, 2006

Bai McFarlane Back in Court Thursday



For anyone who has been following the sad events related to the McFarlane divorce, you may be interested to know that Bai will be back in court Thursday. The children's attorney, who made the recommendation to give the man who committed divorce custody of the four children, is after more money from Bai.

Her letter can be read here. I'm sure that any friends who can attend and lend their support would be most appreciated.

Bud McFarlane, who rakes in over $100,000 per year as head of the "non profit" (and I think we all know how that game works) Mary Foundation seems to be doing just fine. Bai who committed herself for life to the marriage and dedicated herself to homemaking and homeschooling, now has to find a job and pay him child support.

And that's Catholic marriage in the post modern world.

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

A $100,000 salary surprised me too, until I discovered that salary is quite ordinary for an executive director of a non-profit, especially since part of that is from book royalties.

Karl Keating's salary at Catholic Answers is nearly $200,000. You can find the documents as GuideStar.org.

Anonymous said...

Oops, forgot to mention that the link you posted to her letter cannot be accessed unless you belong to her group.

Petrus said...

The salaries are not surprising, its the fact that he's making 6 figures, and extorting his wife for more money.

Anonymous said...

The article above says "The children's attorney... is after more money from Bai." It doesn't say that Bud is after more money.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the children's attorney was just that -- the children's attorney, assigned to represent the children, not Bud. Granted he's taken Bud's side in the case, but I don't think he works for Bud.

I wouldn't be surprised if this attorney is ticked off that she posted pictures of him and arguably defamed him on her website and he's seeking more money from her out of spite.

M. Alexander said...

I think the commenter was referencing the child support that Bai is going to have to pay Bud.

Either way it is outrageous that a man w/ an income of $100K plus is going after his ex-wife for ANYTHING.

Well, I shouldn't be surprised, like the divorce it speaks to his character.

M. Alexander said...

On and another thing Anonymous-

an attorney is an officer of the court. He acts publicly in a public courtroom. His actions are "on the record". He should not mind his deeds being shown in the light of day. That is unless he is ashamed of what he is doing.

Only he and his conscience, if he has one, can speak to that.

Dymphna said...

I just can't understand how a man who makes 100K is asking for child support. What does he do with his money?

Petrus said...

Anonymous said "The article above says "The children's attorney... is after more money from Bai." It doesn't say that Bud is after more money."

Oh right, the children are after more money. Would that also mean that the same children who told their mother that they wanted to live with her, are the ones requesting more money from their mother whom they would prefer to live with?

Those kids... How does Bud deal with them? I'm sure he has to pay his nanny quite the salary to put up with those kids.

Anonymous said...

"Oh right, the children are after more money."

No, the lawyer wants more money. Lawyers get paid, you know.

You act like lawyers have no financial interest in a case.

Let's not forget that the whole reason Bai lost her kids to begin with was because she defied a court order.

She chose homeschooling over custody. And sadly, she'll pay the price for that choice the rest of her life.

M. Alexander said...

Anonymous, the price that Bai will pay is nothing compared to the price the children will pay. Remember the children? The ones who are supposed to be served by their attorney.

And I thought the court wasn't supposed to use children to take revenge upon their parents?

Anonymous said...

Yes, of course the children will suffer too.

"And I thought the court wasn't supposed to use children to take revenge upon their parents?"

The lawyer wants more money for his services (good or bad). How is that using the children to take revenge on a parent?

M. Alexander said...

You wrote:

"She chose homeschooling over custody. And sadly, she'll pay the price for that choice the rest of her life."

Because she chose homeschooling, she will pay. That sounds like the exacting of revenge to me.

Anonymous said...

I meant that she will suffer from the absence of her children for the rest of her life.

But you are right about that too. As a result of her choice, she will suffer severe financial repercussions for the rest of her life as well.

I think homeschooling is fantastic, but it takes the support of two parents to work. Homeschooling against the will of either spouse is doomed to fail.

Bai obviously chose homeschooling against the will of her husband, and later, against the ruling of a court, and now we're supposed to feel sorry for her because she lost her children?

Contrary to the apparent attitudes of some Catholics, homeschooling is not a moral obligation. Bai did not have a legitimate reason to ignore the mandate of the court and continue to homeschool.

Any mom in her right mind would have given up homeschooling in order to keep her kids (and possibly save her marriage), but she refused.

Don Kenner said...

anonymous wrote,

"Contrary to the apparent attitudes of some Catholics, homeschooling is not a moral obligation."

No, but for an orthodox Catholic to show disdain for homeschooling says a lot about his charactor. For example, a good Catholic does not have to espouse a Distributist view of property rights, strictly speaking, but what would we think of someone who sneered at the idea of common folk owning property? We'd think him a very deformed Catholic.


"Bai did not have a legitimate reason to ignore the mandate of the court and continue to homeschool."

But did the court have the right to stop the homeschooling in the first place? A husband may have good reasons to take the kids away from mom, but the court was wrong to consider homeschooling a legitimate reason. Simply wrong.

I'm no expert in the McFarlane matter. I'm just responding to your positions.

Petrus said...

Anonymous said: Bai obviously chose homeschooling against the will of her husband, and later, against the ruling of a court, and now we're supposed to feel sorry for her because she lost her children?

Uh... yeah. A so-called "husband" who would abandon her? What kind of a husband is that?

"ruling of a court" I can think of a lot of courts who wouldn't know the first thing about what's in the best interest of children. If they did, why would the foster system be so screwed up??

Yeah - she lost her children. The children that she bore for 9 months, dedicated her life to, taught to read and write. It may not seem like a big loss to you... but ask any mother.

This is absurd.

And since when do lawyers have to have a court date to bill their clients?? You seem to think this is just about the lawyers not getting paid.

Grow up.

Anonymous said...

"It may not seem like a big loss to you... but ask any mother."

Of course it is sad. Divorce is always painful. I feel especially sorry for the kids. I'm simply commenting on her victim mentality, as if she did nothing wrong.

"Uh... yeah. A so-called 'husband' who would abandon her? What kind of a husband is that?"

Why do you presume that her husband did not have a legitimate reason to leave?

What evidence do you have that he had no legitimate reason to leave?

The Catechism clearly states: "He becomes guilty... of RASH JUDGMENT who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor."

Please share the "sufficient foundation" you have to presume that her husband did not have a legitimate reason to leave.

Rash judgement is *always* a sin. Divorce is tolerated by the Church under certain circumstances:

"If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense." (CCC #2383)

Petrus said...

If one decides to abandon one's spouse, and break up the family they are the ones who need to defend their actions.

It is not appropriate that the person who is left needs to just assume that the person who broke up the family did it for a good reason.

Really, anonymous. Unless you have some inside information, I'm amazed that you rush to judge a home-wrecker.

Anonymous said...

Petrus said: "If one decides to abandon one's spouse, and break up the family they are the ones who need to defend their actions."

He certainly does not need to defend his actions to the public. That would be detraction:

"He becomes guilty... of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them." (CCC 2477)

In addition, Canon Law 220 states:

"No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy."

In fact, Canon Law 1548 specifically addresses your call for him to defend himself:

"those who fear that, as a result of giving evidence, a loss of reputation, dangerous harassment or some other grave evil will arise for themselves, their spouses, or those related to them by consanguinity or affinity... are exempted from the obligation of replying to questions [of a judge]."

Isn't it possible that he has not defended himself publicly (as far as I know) because doing so may essentially require him to harm her reputation?

Petrus also said: "Unless you have some inside information, I'm amazed that you rush to judge a home-wrecker."

How am I rushing to judge him? Rushing to judge him, by definition, is assuming the moral fault of a neighbor. I am doing just the opposite. I will not presume he left her unlawfully without sufficient foundation.

Bud may be the biggest punk-ass bastard that ever lived. But the fact is, we don't know. We don't know why he left, so we cannot know whether or not he had a legitimate reason to leave.

As difficult as it may be, charity demands that we not rush to judge him. If he did in fact leave his wife without a sufficient reason, then he will have to answer to God someday for that. That should be good enough for us.

Too many Catholics bloggers seem to completely disregard the Church's teaching on rash judgment, detraction, and calumny. Of course we can and should make moral judgments, but the willful destruction of reputations is immoral.

Regardless of how unlikely it may be, what would happen if it someday became known that Bud had a legitimate reason to leave?

After countless newspaper articles, radio interviews, blog articles, forum posts, and verbal discussions, do you honestly think that his reputation could be restored?

M. Alexander said...

To the brave and noble anonymous posters,

I am sure that Bud McFarlane would be gratified to see so much support. After all it's a man's world isn't it? If he wants to dump his wife of ten years, take her kids and then try to get money from her- why shouldn't he?

Now, you want to believe that there is a "good reason" for his abandonment of her. Even if I granted that (which I will not do) what good reason is there for him to demand child support from her and for him to have her pay attorney's fees to the monster who recommended to the court that she lose custody?

That attorney should be disbarred. But we all know that the Holy Father, John Paul II directed Catholic attorneys not to try divorce cases. But let's ignore that because it doesn't suit our purposes.

There is sanctity and then there is self indulgence. If you cannot clearly see who has engaged in which then I feel very sorry for you.

Jeff Culbreath said...

I'm not the anonymous poster, but you can put his words to my lips and quote them as mine anytime you like. He's absolutely right. No one besides the McFarlanes and their closest associates know much of anything at all about this tragedy. Insofar as what we think we know comes from Bai's publicity campaign, repeating it is detraction and it is sinful.

M. Alexander said...

Wow Jeff,
It really works whenever you disagree with someone to throw the "detraction and it's sinful charge". That effectively silences your opponents in most cases I bet. If you can't defend your position that is a good tactic.

So how do you hunger and thirst for righteousness when all you are after is appeasement? How do you defend the defenseless when you have to be silent about injustice?

You've convinced me chivalry really is dead. And so is Catholic marriage when men will not even defend it as the inviolable seal of permanence that Our Lord intended. God hates divorce but it seems to work just fine for a lot of other people.

So ignore the words of Our Lord, Canon Law, the Holy Bible and Tradition and come down in favor of Bud McFarlane because (?) well he wrote some pulp fiction and he started the Mary Foundation- cool.

Jeff Culbreath said...

"Wow Jeff, It really works whenever you disagree with someone to throw the 'detraction and it's sinful charge'."

If it's detraction, it's detraction. In the case of the McFarlanes it could even be calumny. The point is that you have absolutely no idea what is behind the McFarlane divorce and neither do I.

"That effectively silences your opponents in most cases I bet. If you can't defend your position that is a good tactic."

I'm not defending Bud McFarlane. I don't know anything about him except that his organization used to send me annoying e-mails until I put them in my spam filter.

But am I going to automatically assume that Bai's allegations are true and her story complete? Absolutely not. The only things I know about Bai's character are:

1. She is doing the worst possible thing if she truly desires marital reconciliation.

2. She disobeyed her husband who did not want her to homeschool. That decision is legitimately the father's call.

3. She disobeyed the court on the same point and placed custody of her own children in jeopardy- a decision which simply boggles the mind.

These do not strike me as admirable characteristics.

For whatever reason her husband has chosen not to defend himself in public. That might be because he is a miserable low-down snake and his position is utterly defenseless. Or it may be, as Anonymous says, that he is protecting his wife's reputation and trying not to damage his children's perception of their mother. (One wishes, at least, that Bai McFarlane had similar concerns.) We just don't know, and it isn't our business anyway.

"So how do you hunger and thirst for righteousness when all you are after is appeasement?"

Who is appeasing who? This is nothing but tabloid rumor-mongering: there is no substance to oppose or to appease. There are, however, reputations that might be further damaged, and children who someday read a Google cache of salacious internet comments about their parents.

"How do you defend the defenseless when you have to be silent about injustice?"

You don't have to be silent about injustice. You just have to know what you're talking about lest you commit an injustice yourself.

"You've convinced me chivalry really is dead. And so is Catholic marriage when men will not even defend it as the inviolable seal of permanence that Our Lord intended."

As the Anonymous commenter reminded you, according to Catholic doctrine there may be legitimate reasons for a *civil* divorce. I don't know whether those reasons exist in this case and neither do you.

I would suggest that Bai McFarlane work on saving her own Catholic marriage, and the priceless children it has produced, before trying to save the world from the scourge of no-fault civil divorce. I can't help but think that this, which should have been her primary task, would have been much easier before she made a public speactacle of her family tragedy.

M. Alexander said...

Bai McFarlane responds:

Hi Mary,

Thanks for the info. I don't know of anything that I could write on
your Blog that quickly address the comments. Perhaps people who
care about scandal could write our bishop. Can you ask the Blog to
write to our new bishop? I had requested people write to our old
Bishop two years ago and don't know of anyone getting any response.

When people assume that my husband had licit reason to leave, they
are rashly judging me as being either dangerous, or adulterous. When they assume my husband had no licit reason to leave, they are
assuming he is an immoral abandoner. Anyone close to our family
knows the truth.

Mother Chruch is wise in making folks get ecclesiastic authorization
for separation because all the misplaced judgement would be
prevented. Innocent abandoned spouse (husbands and wives) wouldn't
have people afraid that they are dangerous. AND "malicious
abandoners" would get the spiritual shepherding and fraternal
correction they need for their eternal salvation. I use quotes
because this is the phrase used by the commentary on canon law
recommended by the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts.

The scandal now is that all the abandoners don't even hear they are
committing grave sin. And children think abandoning is condoned by
the Church because the institutional church remains silent AND
unhappy spouse run away instead of fighting for Truth, which could
involve their own working on their own sinful habits or learning to
love their spouse despite their sinful habits. The only one who
didn't marry a sinner was St. Joseph.

Below are some excerpts from my letter request to the old bishop. We
have a new bishop now.
Bishop Richard Lennon


http://www.catholicmoms.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=39

Most Rev. [change to new Bishop]
Cleveland Diocese
1027 Superior Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44114


[ if you use e-mail: info@... and state "Message
to Bishop [Lennon] regarding Macfarlane Scandal" in the Subject line]

Your Excellency:

I have enclosed for your consideration a copy of a letter I just wrote to Mr. William "Bud" Macfarlane, a professed loyal Catholic, who is causing great scandal among thousands of Catholics who know he has separated from his wife and used the civil courts to forcibly remove their four children from their mother. Further, he has not obtained the ecclesiastical authorization required by canon law for separation, nor obtained the required authorization of his bishop
before approaching the civil forum (canon 1151-1155, and 1692 copied
below). I understand that people have been sending [your predecessor ] letters since September [2004] asking for you to help this family.

Will you please assure me that you are taking appropriate action to
ensure that Mr. Macfarlane has been authoritatively notified that he
may not seek civil divorce without first obtaining a separation
decree as described in canon laws that specify the just reasons to be
separated from his wife; and second, that he must obtain from you,
his bishop, a decree authorizing him to get a civil divorce that
considers which civil court orders will not contradict divine law. I
trust you will advise him of the consequences a Catholic faces who
deliberately ignores the laws of Christ and His Church as specified
in the Code of Canon Law.

Can. 1153 §1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to
the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life
unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave,
either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in
delay, even on his or her own authority. §2 In all cases, when the
reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be
restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 1692 -- § 1. Unless lawfully provided otherwise in particular
places, the personal separation of baptized spouses can be decided by
a decree of the diocesan Bishop or by the judgment of a judge in
accordance with the following canons.

§ 2. Where the ecclesiastical decision does not provide civil
effects, or if it is foreseen that there will be a civil judgment not
contrary to the divine law, the Bishop of the diocese in which the
spouses are living can, in the light of their particular
circumstances, give them permission to approach the civil courts.

§ 3. If the case is also concerned with the merely civil effects of
marriage, the judge is to endeavor, without prejudice to the
provision of § 2, to have the case brought before the civil court
from the very beginning.

I'm looking forward to your reply, and I do pray that God bless you
as you undertake your pastoral responsibilities in the Cleveland
Diocese.

Sincerely,
N.

FURTHER, IN SAMPLE LETTER TO PAPAL NUNCIO
In order to minimize scandal, I ask that the faithful be advised that
the ecclesiastic authorities have intervened appropriately. We would
like to know if Mr. Macfarlane has not properly followed Church
teaching by abandoning his wife and seeking divorce, or that he has
properly followed Church teaching and an ecclesiastic decree has been
issued authorizing him to permanently separate from his wife and to
approach the civil forum for divorce.

David L Alexander said...

Mr Culbreath, thou hast writ:

"No one besides the McFarlanes and their closest associates know much of anything at all about this tragedy."

Well, you have to include anybody who reads the court records that appear on the internet, at the site of Mrs MacFarlane's organization. While they never tell everything, they go into pretty good detail about the sequence of events leading to the breakdown. In my experience (and I've had my share of it here), there's most likely plenty of blame to go around. But the validity of the bond aside, there are few good reasons for a WOMAN to leave her husband, and evern fewer for a MAN to leave his wife.

If you're in Washington for the next few days, Bud is one of the keynote speakers at a Prayer Vigil to End Abortion at the National Shrine. Unless he wears a brown bag over his head to hide his face, I can't imagine where he gets the nerve to show it at a time like this.

Anonymous said...

Jeff said:

"But am I going to automatically assume that Bai's allegations are true and her story complete? Absolutely not. The only things I know about Bai's character are:

1. She is doing the worst possible thing if she truly desires marital reconciliation.

2. She disobeyed her husband who did not want her to homeschool. That decision is legitimately the father's call.

3. She disobeyed the court on the same point and placed custody of her own children in jeopardy-a decision which simply boggles the mind.

These do not strike me as admirable characteristics."

Agreed, although we must be careful not to rashly judge Bai as well, despite her mind-boggling actions.

Anonymous said...

Bai said:

"When people assume that my husband had licit reason to leave, they are rashly judging me as being either dangerous, or adulterous."

Are you saying that avoiding the sin of rash judgment is impossible?

Canon 1153 states:

"A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult ..."

Your recommended but non-authoritative commentary ignores the second half of that statement
. If the Church intended abuse and adultery to be the only legitimate grounds for divorce, she would have stated that clearly in an authoritative document like the Catechism or Canon Law.

Thankfully I do not have to commit the sin of rash judgment by presuming you are dangerous or an adulterer, because, as the Church very clearly teaches in the Catechism, abuse and adultery are not the only legitimate grounds for a civil divorce.

"If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense." (CCC #2383)


God hates divorce and I do too, but divorce is not black and white. Grave sins like abortion and gay marriage are never tolerated by the Church, but divorce is.

If you continue to tell people that abuse and adultery are the only grounds for divorce, then you are lying.

M. Alexander said...

I wonder if the crucifixtion was "unduly difficult"?

Probably not.

Jeff said...

David Alexander:

If I were on either side of a civil divorce and wanted to protect my wife and children from the scandalous effects of certain information being made public, I certainly wouldn't tell everything - not even to the judge. So I don't think that strangers can make any kind of an informed decision based upon the transcripts publicized at Mrs. McFarlane's website.

As to your assertion that men have fewer reasons to separate from their wives than women, perhaps so, but that is news to me. Maybe that explains why 70% of divorces are initiated by women. In any case the Proverbs do say that it is better for a man to dwell on the corner of his roof than to share a house with a quarrelsome wife ...

As to Bud McFarlane's public appearances, I don't know what to make of it. I suppose I'd rather see him go into total hibernation and work on rebuilding their marriage, but once again, I don't know what his options are. When you people can show me that he's shacking up with another woman, or seeking an annulment, or some other such foolishness, then maybe I'll climb on board the condemnation train. In the meantime, as a total stranger to these people, I'm not going to presume anything one way or the other.

David L Alexander said...

Jeff, not to be outdone, hast writ:

"I certainly wouldn't tell everything - not even to the judge. So I don't think that strangers can make any kind of an informed decision based upon the transcripts publicized at Mrs. McFarlane's website."

You'd sure as shootin' tell everything, mister, since you're under oath, or risk contempt. And I wasn't referring to the transcripts, but to the affidavit. That's under oath too. (The other party is free to submit a counter-affidavit in response.) Again, I can't say that Mrs MacFarlane is a completely innocent party, anymore than I could any other party to the breakdown of a marriage. But it is not a matter of mere conjecture that HE left HER, took children of "tender years" from their mother (which is quite a stunt to pull off in most states outside of California, unless you have a better-funded attorney than your spouse), and is on the lecture circuit banging the drum to call us all to conversion. Amazingly, no one at the National Shrine seems to have a problem with this. (Duh.)

I don't give a rat's behind how justified he was in walking out; the best message he could send on behalf of his apostolate, is to stay in Ohio and salvage what's left of his FIRST vocation.

Anonymous said...

David said:

"You'd sure as shootin' tell everything, mister, since you're under oath, or risk contempt."

You are required to answer all questions truthfully. You are not required to answer questions that are not asked of you.

"I don't give a rat's behind how justified he was in walking out; the best message he could send on behalf of his apostolate, is to stay in Ohio and salvage what's left of his FIRST vocation."

This is precisely why rash judgment is so dangerous.

Bud Sr. is the man speaking at the Prayer Vigil. Bai married his son, Bud Jr.

Anonymous said...

I'm not a member, so this might not print. The truth here is that nobody but the McFarlanes themselves know why the marriage broke up, if even they truly do. Some things are obvious, though. First, the one who is "going public" is Mrs. McFarlane. Second, her defiance of the court order is inexplicable and, as near as I can tell, still unexplained. The children were in a decent Catholic school. It makes no sense. Third, if one reads the case, her arguments before the Court of Appeals were simply bizarre. Perhaps her attorney hatched them up and thought they would work. I don't know. There were arguments she might have made, but didn't. I don't know anything about their personal lives. But Mrs. McFarlane's actions and arguments, to me, bespoke a sort of inflexibility that would admit of no compromise whatever. Again, perhaps this was on her attorney's advice, and should not be attributed to her.

Veritas said...

Karl Keating's salary is more than $200,000 per year, Anonymous. See for yourself:

A Copy Of The Latest Tax Return Catholic Answers Filed With The IRS

I wonder how many contributors to Catholic Answers are aware that almost the first $5,000 that gets sent into Catholic Answers each week goes straight into Karl Keating's pocket. I wonder how many more are aware that Catholic Answers pays a ghost writer over $65,000 a year to write "appeal letters." Funny, but every appeal letter that I have ever received from Catholic Answers was signed "Karl" and claimed to be "from the desk of Karl Keating." Why would Karl Keating, an author and an attorney, need a ghost writer anyway?

Moreover, Karl Keating also gets paid for promoting those Catholic Answers cruises and/or pilgrimages. (Not to mention getting a free trip out of the deal as well.) He also uses the Catholic Answers web site to promote the sale of books that he wrote. Karl Keating can do this because he and his business partner, Philip Lenahan, are the only members currently on Catholic Answers' Board of Directors.

It must be nice to determine your own salary, particularly when that salary is paid with the contributions made by others to "your" 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

Veritas said...

I meant "Phillip" Lenahan ... typo

robbie said...

Dear friends . . .

I speak here as one who is a sinner and has recieved God's mercy in my unworthiness. I don't know if contributors here have chosen sides in this sad affair or not. It appears that some have - one way or another. I understand the strong feelings of loyalty that some may have either towards Mrs. or Mr. MacFarlane. Our response, however, to this sad business must be prayer, sacrifice, fasting and silence. By praying we will draw down God's grace to penetrate hearts, heal, console, forgive and reconcile. By remaining silent we avoid adding to the deposit of anger and judgement that spills over into our hearts.

God is merciful . . . be merciful.

Anonymous said...

For your information The Macfarlanes were happily married and worked well together as a family and in business. She had beeen a good wife and an outstanding mother. She cared for the children mostly by herself and did most of the early work in their business and much of the technical work later. She tried to save their marriage and family. Most of those involved in their tapes have confronted Bud andobject to what he is doing. Most of the Catholic leaders also Object to his action. heir closest friends testified in court that Bai was a good mather and should have custody of their children. Bud was a strong supportedr of home schooling in conferences and on his site and amoung his friends. The court is unjust and corrupt.

John C. Hathaway said...

"Detraction" is such an easy out to avoid facing the "gorilla in the room." It's just the thing the bishops use to cover up scandalous behavior by priests.

Scandal is also a grave sin. Scandal consists in publicly setting a bad example. Bud MacFarlane regularly wrote about his marriage and what a great Catholic marriage it supposedly was. When things started going wrong, he stopped writing about his marriage.
Suddenly, he left his wife.

His wife, outraged at the crime of no-fault divorce, took up the cause of fighting no-fault divorce on principle.

Her kids were taken away from her because she said she didn't want a divorce, not because of the homeschooling.

And let's not forget that this is the same Bud MacFarlane who used to regularly appear at homeschooling conferences!! He was always pro-homeschooling before this divorce case.

As for judgements against him, divorce is itself a mortal sin, except for extreme circumstances. As Bai said in her post above, to imply he had legitimate reasons to divorce her is to make rash judgements against her.

And a "rash judgement" is based upon little evidence. The evidence here is clear:

1. Man brags to tens of thousands of people about his "wonderful Catholic marriage."
2. Man leaves his wife. Drops out of public view.
3. Wife says, "I had a valid Catholic marriage, and I love my husband, and I don't want a divorce. Divorce is a sin."

America has 6% of the world's Catholics and 3/4 of the world's annulments.
American Catholics are too lax on divorce, which should *always* be a disgrace and a scandal, in and of itself, regardless of the "reasons" that go on behind the scenes.

Yva said...

I don't know Bud or Bai personally but I would venture to guess, by rash judgement reversed, perhaps, that all Bud's earnings were poured back into the Mary Foundation, or that he had to have enough to keep kids and Bai and home going, same like anyone else. And those books he wrote were being offered mainly for free, or some silly sum like $2 each. I have ordered them often enough to vouch for it. I paid next to nothing. How do you think he can live luxuriously or comfortably with that?

I would venture to guess that he begged Bai to consider working to support the family and she is strong-minded and refused as she wanted to homeschool. And he was hurt to be not accepted as head of the household and be obeyed as any husband would hope to be. Which is why he was in the E5 society. E5 for Ephesians, Chapter 5. "Wives obey your husbands,..."

Bai in her website claimed that she was not without faults in her character. See the strength with which she stands up to him now and argues her side of the picture while he, poor silent male, is unable to make a stand without consulting his friends in the E5 society or his lawyers.

I will continue to pray, as I did fervently, that they will both throw away their legal claims and just get together again to settle their differences uh, man-to-woman and come to a Christian settlement full of forgiveness. So that Bud would be worthy of the ideals that he knows about and have preached about. Do you think he is evil and changed overnight? See how the Devil is working to demoralise a nation like this?

They both can't do a thing with their respective lawyers tying up their hands and mouths. Any sign or wish to offer love and reconciliation to the other will be shot down as admissions of guilt or of fault in their dispute.

Lord have mercy on them and all of us who are party to this!

Anonymous said...

Painful isn't it! Got on the net inspired to get bud's book "pierced by the sword" e-book if possible and I come across dis nasty divorce. I had planned wen I got it I would use it to convince people about how very true the catholic faith is... but how can dis b, wen dis sad and to me most tragic aspect of its author's life is spread over d internet.
Comments like "it works on theory not in practice" that I expect to recieve in the course of my mission would be quickly validated by using a search engine! My heart weeps cause in my many failures as a catholic looked up to our lord Jesus Christ his mother Mary, the saints and offcourse men and women like bud and bai for comfort and refuge... there is a saying dat goes "d most relevant of issues and things are those which you can not see". I wish that in the midst of this contentious situation, you see that what you do affects not only you but all a round you, both those close to you and those far off (I'm a Nigerian)... May God give you d grace you need to resolve your differences amicably

Anonymous said...

I am saddened to know about this divorce between two devout Catholics. (And yes, just because their divorcing, doesn't make them 'bad' Catholics.) However, the hostility between the two really makes for a saddened affair.
I don't know them and it makes me sad, because this fine author once boasted about his beautiful wife and it made me proud to see that there are folks who can still make it in this world where every thing seems out of place more and more everyday, but it seems ultimately, money rules...And if I don't know them and if affects me this way, how do you think it affects their kis.

C from Upland

Anonymous said...

I am saddened to know about this divorce between two devout Catholics. (And yes, just because their divorcing, doesn't make them 'bad' Catholics.) However, the hostility between the two really makes for a saddened affair.
I don't know them and it makes me sad, because this fine author once boasted about his beautiful wife and it made me proud to see that there are folks who can still make it in this world where every thing seems out of place more and more everyday, but it seems ultimately, money rules...And if I don't know them and if affects me this way, how do you think it affects their kis.

C from Upland

Lisa said...

Once again, marriage ends and children suffer because of issues below the belt. Mr. Macfarlane decides to leave his wife, taking his children with him, into an adulterous relationship and has the nerve to punish her for wanting to instill in her children morals? And we are suprised and saddened. He obviously prefers to teach his children his own perverted morals after making money from telling other people how great the Catholic Church is! God help him! And God Bless his precious, innocent babies!

Trimelda said...

Okay guys, I have had it up to here with the old "It's the Dame's Fault" HERESY. If I remember the story of Adam and Eve, The Man was standing right there when the Serpent was doing his temptation thing. Yet it seems that people happily forget that fact over and over again and point their fingers at the woman when something goes wrong in a relationship.

In this case, once again, it's the Dame's Fault. This "man" walks out on his wife and takes the kids from her while asking for support when he's the one with the cash. The anonymous posters who feel pious can whine about her sin of detraction as Bai defends herself against charges that she must somehow be a bad mother because HE got the kids. But the truth is that any person who would command a six figure income and then ask for CHILD SUPPORT from the spouse who does not make any money is a class A, dyed in the wool, walking, talking, JERK WAD.

SEXISM is a sin spawned from the pits of Hell by Satan who HATES women and exploits kids. That is what Bud is doing by demanding money from an abandoned wife and then having the nerve to hide behind his reputation as a good Catholic. Well, guess what, Bud, Mary is not some milk faced, namby pamby little miss. She is also Virgin Most Powerful and is often pictured in Italian culture as a Queen with a stick beating the Devil to protect and save her children. You had better step off abusing one of her images as mother and wife in Bai and start acting like a real man before she comes down from Heaven and kicks your sorry excuse for manhood from here to Eternity.
Shame on you! and shame to anyone who defends your greedy, manipulative butt. And if that makes me guilty of the sin of detraction, then fine, I can roast right next to Bud in the no smoking section when we both get judged by God.

PS: By the way, Jesus said "JUDGE ye with righteous judgment. For by their fruit you shall know them." Judgment is not a sin. Blindness to evil is.

Jeanne said...

I'm a little confused here about the "continued to homeschool against her husband's wishes" bit.

I have a tape here someplace by a Bud McFarlane extolling homeschooling and bragging about his wife homeschooling their kids. Is this the same guy you all are talking about?

Jeanne said...

Another thing that confuses me: what does Karl Keating's salary have to do with this subject?

If you don't think he is doing a good job, don't give to/buy from Catholic Answers.

Perhaps the money would be better spent by the Mary Foundation, where the salary can go to pay the lawyer for this nasty divorce.

Sandy said...

Sandy in Houston
I too went on line to buy the books and found the sad news. I see only the "enemy" in the attack on the Macfarlane Marriage. Please, let's all say a Rosary for them tonight at eight PM. God can take away their pain and anger in the blink of an eye. I see them hugging and laughing and saying they are sorry. Don't forget the St Michael prayer at the end of our Rosary. Thanks be to God and our beautiful Mother.