Right or Wrong??

[blueangel05]

My intuition tells me to tell the truth no matter the consequences. So, here’s a bit of the situation…

My best friend of 15 years, “Lucy”, and her boyfriend of 11 years, “Thomas” have been having serious problems for the last 11 years. I honestly have been getting upset with her for sticking around…still. Due to the current situation.

About a month ago another mutual friend, “Kelly” had some dire straights and Thomas suggested to Lucy that Kelly come stay with them until things get better. Not wanting Kelly to deal with the issue alone. Well, Thomas fell in love with Kelly and she refused him, being Lucy is her best friend. Thomas is Catholic and they have 2 children together. Kelly and Lucy’s relationship is VERY strong. Just like ours. A storybook or movie friendship cannot compare to their bond. Because Kelly refused him she had to leave so that Lucy & Thomas could work on things. Well, Kelly’s situation got worse and they asked her to come back. Kelly couldn’t hold her feelings back anymore and she eventually confessed that she loved Thomas as well. Of course, knowing him for 11 years she had already loved him…just in a different way. Lucy had cheated on Thomas multiple times in the past…but, most recently with someone from her work. Thomas questioned Kelly about it and she said that he had to ask Lucy about that. So, that night Kelly had told Lucy she needed to confess to Thomas about the affair. She did. He was furious and kicked her out. Then a couple days later he makes Kelly leave again and says that he wants to be with Lucy afterall. Well, Kelly’s situation gets worse yet again…this time she’s being evicted and has no family or other friends to go to. So, Thomas and Lucy fight over her coming back and Thomas eventually goes and picks Kelly up, 3 weeks after she left. He is still very much in love with her, obviously.

Well, Lucy and Kelly didn’t disclose the fact that Lucy had cheated on him with a different guy more recently and done other stuff with the 1st guy. Thomas questioned this to Kelly and she said that she was not vindictive. Of course, she told Lucy this and Lucy got upset with her. Kelly promised she would never tell him about it. And, Lucy said I would never do that to you. Thomas said that if Kelly loves him, he thinks she would tell him the truth.
She has felt awful ever since. Her nerves are driving her crazy because she doesn’t know what to do. She wants to tell him because she knows it’s the right thing to do and she knew that Lucy had no right to be mad at Thomas for doing it with her knowledge when she did it behind his back, multiple times. But, she knows she’ll lose her friendship, at least for awhile to Lucy. I’m pretty sure her heart is weighing more towards telling Thomas the truth but, she isn’t sure how to go about doing it. I think she’d rather do it somewhat discreetly yet, she feels like Lucy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

What should Kelly do??

 

[Barbkw]

What you write “cheated on” do you mean had sexual relationships with others?

When you write “kicked her out” are these people living together?

 

[chipeto]

My intuition tells me to tell the truth no matter the consequences. So, here’s a bit of the situation…

My best friend of 15 years, “Lucy”, and her boyfriend of 11 years, “Thomas” have been having serious problems for the last 11 years. I honestly have been getting upset with her for sticking around…still. Due to the current situation.

About a month ago another mutual friend, “Kelly” had some dire straights and Thomas suggested to Lucy that Kelly come stay with them until things get better. Not wanting Kelly to deal with the issue alone. Well, Thomas fell in love with Kelly and she refused him, being Lucy is her best friend. Thomas is Catholic and they have 2 children together. Kelly and Lucy’s relationship is VERY strong. Just like ours. A storybook or movie friendship cannot compare to their bond. Because Kelly refused him she had to leave so that Lucy & Thomas could work on things. Well, Kelly’s situation got worse and they asked her to come back. Kelly couldn’t hold her feelings back anymore and she eventually confessed that she loved Thomas as well. Of course, knowing him for 11 years she had already loved him…just in a different way. Lucy had cheated on Thomas multiple times in the past…but, most recently with someone from her work. Thomas questioned Kelly about it and she said that he had to ask Lucy about that. So, that night Kelly had told Lucy she needed to confess to Thomas about the affair. She did. He was furious and kicked her out. Then a couple days later he makes Kelly leave again and says that he wants to be with Lucy afterall. Well, Kelly’s situation gets worse yet again…this time she’s being evicted and has no family or other friends to go to. So, Thomas and Lucy fight over her coming back and Thomas eventually goes and picks Kelly up, 3 weeks after she left. He is still very much in love with her, obviously.

Well, Lucy and Kelly didn’t disclose the fact that Lucy had cheated on him with a different guy more recently and done other stuff with the 1st guy. Thomas questioned this to Kelly and she said that she was not vindictive. Of course, she told Lucy this and Lucy got upset with her. Kelly promised she would never tell him about it. And, Lucy said I would never do that to you. Thomas said that if Kelly loves him, he thinks she would tell him the truth.
She has felt awful ever since. Her nerves are driving her crazy because she doesn’t know what to do. She wants to tell him because she knows it’s the right thing to do and she knew that Lucy had no right to be mad at Thomas for doing it with her knowledge when she did it behind his back, multiple times. But, she knows she’ll lose her friendship, at least for awhile to Lucy. I’m pretty sure her heart is weighing more towards telling Thomas the truth but, she isn’t sure how to go about doing it. I think she’d rather do it somewhat discreetly yet, she feels like Lucy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

What should Kelly do??

What a tangled web we weave. And I thought my life was screwed up. I don’t think that “Kelly” has any obligation to tell Thomas anything about Lucy’s behavior, but I can see why she would want to. It doesn’t seem fair to Thomas, does it? Lucy may be desperate to retain as much moral high ground as possible in order to preserve her image, or to gain some advantage. I have seen this play out in the lives of people very close to me. It is painful for me, but I say nothing, because there is really nothing that I can do or say that will make anything better.

Perhaps Kelly should find a way to exit this situation entirely, as difficult as that may be. I do hope her financial situation improves.

Really, these people need Christ. I pity the children.

 

[blueangel05]

What you write “cheated on” do you mean had sexual relationships with others?
Yes
When you write “kicked her out” are these people living together?

Lucy & Thomas live together. They asked Kelly to come stay with them until her situation got better. But, they have tossed her around so much and now she has absolutely no where to go. I really hope she can hang on. When things get tough for Lucy & Thomas they tell Kelly she has to go but, then Thomas feels guilty and doesn’t want to be a “cruel” person but, Lucy knows that his feelings for Kelly will return. Kelly refused to go back last week but, Thomas pretty much told her she had no choice (being she really has no where else) and that he would just end up carrying her out anyway. So, she went back and when he couldn’t control his feelings for her…he got mad and distant from Lucy again and blamed it on Kelly this time and told Lucy to tell her to leave. Lucy always has to do the dirty work.
Anyway, I have told Kelly to just back away too. It is so much easier said than done. She has tried. Blocking both of them and she’s just going through so much and Lucy is pretty much the only friend she has of that magnitude. I mean, I am friends with her but, not that well.
The children are ok right now…but, when they were arguing in front of them Kelly tried to get them to stop and tried to tell them not in front of the kids and so it’s really hard on Kelly all the way around. Hopefully she will find the right guidance.

What a tangled web we weave. And I thought my life was screwed up. I don’t think that “Kelly” has any obligation to tell Thomas anything about Lucy’s behavior, but I can see why she would want to. It doesn’t seem fair to Thomas, does it? Lucy may be desperate to retain as much moral high ground as possible in order to preserve her image, or to gain some advantage. I have seen this play out in the lives of people very close to me. It is painful for me, but I say nothing, because there is really nothing that I can do or say that will make anything better.

Perhaps Kelly should find a way to exit this situation entirely, as difficult as that may be. I do hope her financial situation improves.

Really, these people need Christ. I pity the children.

See above.

 

[Barbkw]

I pity those children too. They are living witnesses inside a horror story.

 

[1ke]

Kelly is responsible for Kelly.

No one tosses her around without her permission to do so.

Kelly needs to grow up.

 

[Lubomyr]

What should Kelly do??

If Kelly confirms to Thomas that Lucy has been getting more males that a mailbox, then what possible purpose would it serve?

• First of all, BlueAngel, let’s get something straight. Lucy and Thomas are not married to each other. Therefore it is physically impossible for either one of them to cheat on the other. Lucy has no right to exclusive sexual intimacy with Thomas and Thomas has no right to exclusive sexual intimacy with Lucy. Therefore Thomas has no right to be mad at Lucy for having sex with anyone for any reason at any time, now or in the future. This has nothing to do with the fact that the other cheated on the one also. It’s not cheating if you’re not married. It’s called fornication, and fornication is a violation of a child’s right to be born of and raised by his own parents whom he knows to be such. And the very fact that they are in an illicit relationship in the first place means … that both of them are apt to carry on illicit relationships. So in a way, Thomas already knows, and Kelly’s little bombshell is irrelevant.
• Children have a right to a stable home life. It is not Thomas and Lucy’s job to save Kelly. Not only is Kelly unrelated to any of those four people in that house, but also she brings in a lot of drama with her. Therefore Kelly needs to get out of that house. It doesn’t matter what Kelly’s fate will be. There are public and private resources available to her. The financial hardship she is facing is no excuse for further messing up an already disordered living arrangement and violating those children’s rights even more.
• Your statement that Kelly “knows it’s the right thing to do” is really, really ironic. Not one of those three adults really gives a damn about those children, who have absolutely no control over, and no defense against, the firestorm of hurt, anger, and betrayal raging around them created by three incredibly childish and self-centered adults. If Kelly had any moral sense beyond an immature obsession with telling everyone else’s truths regardless of the consequences to innocent bystanders then she would make herself scarce. Those children will thank her for it eventually.

 

[blueangel05]

The children are fine. They are usually in bed when they argue but, I do know of one time where Kelly adamantly told them they could not be fighting around the kids. If anyone took into consideration those kids, it was Kelly. She has 2 kids of her own. She has sent them to her ex for the time being.

I find it interesting that you say “it is physically impossible” to cheat on someone when you’re not married. I think after 11 years (although common law marriage is not legal in our state) of being with the same person you’re still committed to that person. I guess that is just a Catholic point of view? Today’s society, from a non-religious perspective, would say they cheated on each other…

Anyway, I appreciate all the responses and I will definitely talk to Kelly and tell her to stop worrying about it. She has enough to worry about. I don’t think she’s self-centered…she has been the only one sane throughout this whole situation. If it weren’t for her Lucy would probably be somewhere on the street or in a hospital…she went completely coo-coo and had threatened her life. I hate the fact they got her caught up in their problems…I know it doesn’t seem like it but, there’s really a LOT more to the story than just what I posted above. But, again thank you all for the responses!!

 

[Lubomyr]

The children are fine. They are usually in bed when they argue but, I do know of one time where Kelly adamantly told them they could not be fighting around the kids. If anyone took into consideration those kids, it was Kelly. She has 2 kids of her own. She has sent them to her ex for the time being.

I find it interesting that you say “it is physically impossible” to cheat on someone when you’re not married. I think after 11 years (although common law marriage is not legal in our state) of being with the same person you’re still committed to that person. I guess that is just a Catholic point of view? Today’s society, from a non-religious perspective, would say they cheated on each other…

Anyway, I appreciate all the responses and I will definitely talk to Kelly and tell her to stop worrying about it. She has enough to worry about. I don’t think she’s self-centered…she has been the only one sane throughout this whole situation. If it weren’t for her Lucy would probably be somewhere on the street or in a hospital…she went completely coo-coo and had threatened her life. I hate the fact they got her caught up in their problems…I know it doesn’t seem like it but, there’s really a LOT more to the story than just what I posted above. But, again thank you all for the responses!!

Wow, do you *really *think that waiting until the kids are asleep spares them the ill effects of household strife? Even dogs and cats know when their owners are fighting, and bark and hide. And the fact that Kelly *actually had to tell them *not to fight around the kids only proves my point, that they are helplessly caught in the eye of a storm that their parents are creating and forcing on them when they have no choice but to be victims of it. Those children are entitled to better, way better, than what their parents are giving them.

But if Kelly herself has an ex … and I’ll bet it’s an ex-boyfriend, since marriage doesn’t seem to be too popular in that crowd … someone she is no longer with but who she dumps her own kids on when the going gets rough, then I’m not surprised she disregards the rights of Thomas & Lucy’s children as well. This only confirms it’s best that Kelly gets out of that house.

Thomas and Lucy are not committed to each other, BlueAngel. The commitment has a name, it’s called marriage. It’s made in front of society, not in the front seat of a car; in public under the authorities, not in private under a headboard. Because society’s and the children’s futures rely on, have a vested interest in, and are entitled to, the stability of that commitment. And needless to say, if Thomas and Lucy were “committed” according to any definition that isn’t a joke, they surely would not be fornicating, with each other, or on the side. According to you, in the last 11 years Lucy has slept with at least three different men four different times and that’s still being “committed” to Thomas? Is that the “non-religious perspective”? I don’t get it, maybe you can explain that one to me.

But again, it’s remarkable that this vague “commitment” is framed in terms of the relationship between Thomas and Lucy. This “commitment” is whatever Thomas and Lucy want it to be defined as, or not, depending on what they want, in “today’s society” as you said, or in tomorrow’s society if they change their minds tomorrow. Or society another 11 years from now. It’s something that can be dissolved at any time just by one or both of them waking up one morning and feeling differently. It’s something that exists just between him and her. The children are totally secondary. That’s not some “Catholic point of view”, BlueAngel. It’s the facts as they stand.

But to end on a lighter note … thank you, thank you, for not telling us more of the story. Personally I don’t think I can stomach any more of it! This sort of story is disturbingly common in my neck of the woods, and it’s really disappointing to hear that grown adults in other parts of the world are also treating innocent children, who are unable to protect themselves, in such a callous and unfair way.

Just out of curiosity, though … why is Kelly’s ex taking in Kelly’s kids, but not taking in Kelly?

 

[blueangel05]

Wow, do you *really *think that waiting until the kids are asleep spares them the ill effects of household strife? Even dogs and cats know when their owners are fighting, and bark and hide. And the fact that Kelly *actually had to tell them *not to fight around the kids only proves my point, that they are helplessly caught in the eye of a storm that their parents are creating and forcing on them when they have no choice but to be victims of it. Those children are entitled to better, way better, than what their parents are giving them.
This is true. Kids and animals sense things. I have gone over there a few times when Kelly was there and the kids cling to her a lot. Who knows what happens when Kelly isn’t there to “protect” the kids. She is the most maternal person I know. Very MamaBear-ish. It was devastating to her when she made the decision to send her kids to another state.
But if Kelly herself has an ex … and I’ll bet it’s an ex-boyfriend, since marriage doesn’t seem to be too popular in that crowd … someone she is no longer with but who she dumps her own kids on when the going gets rough, then I’m not surprised she disregards the rights of Thomas & Lucy’s children as well. This only confirms it’s best that Kelly gets out of that house.
Actually, no. Kelly was married for 5 years. Shocking? You know what they say when someone assumes something. She did not DUMP them on him. She was laid off from the hospital she worked at and in turn lost her apartment. So, instead of having her kids on the streets she thought of what would be best for them. Which meant going to their dad.
Thomas and Lucy are not committed to each other, BlueAngel. The commitment has a name, it’s called marriage. It’s made in front of society, not in the front seat of a car; in public under the authorities, not in private under a headboard. Because society’s and the children’s futures rely on, have a vested interest in, and are entitled to, the stability of that commitment. And needless to say, if Thomas and Lucy were “committed” according to any definition that isn’t a joke, they surely would not be fornicating, with each other, or on the side. According to you, in the last 11 years Lucy has slept with at least three different men four different times and that’s still being “committed” to Thomas? Is that the “non-religious perspective”? I don’t get it, maybe you can explain that one to me.
Again, I don’t see what difference it makes whether they have a piece of paper that says they’re legally married. People can have a ceremony without the marriage being legal, you know. I’m not sure why you’re arguing semantics here. The question was never about whether they were legally committed to each other or not.

But again, it’s remarkable that this vague “commitment” is framed in terms of the relationship between Thomas and Lucy. This “commitment” is whatever Thomas and Lucy want it to be defined as, or not, depending on what they want, in “today’s society” as you said, or in tomorrow’s society if they change their minds tomorrow. Or society another 11 years from now. It’s something that can be dissolved at any time just by one or both of them waking up one morning and feeling differently. It’s something that exists just between him and her. The children are totally secondary. That’s not some “Catholic point of view”, BlueAngel. It’s the facts as they stand.

But to end on a lighter note … thank you, thank you, for not telling us more of the story. Personally I don’t think I can stomach any more of it! This sort of story is disturbingly common in my neck of the woods, and it’s really disappointing to hear that grown adults in other parts of the world are also treating innocent children, who are unable to protect themselves, in such a callous and unfair way.
I agree. I have seen how Lucy handles the kids…she’s not abusive by any means…just not as nurturing as a mother should be and the kids, well…my 3 year old has known her ABCs for some time now and has been able to count to 10 since she was 13 months old. She doesn’t spend time with her 4 year old who can’t say half her ABCs. I just think she needs to spend more time with her kids since she is at home all day. I honestly think they need a lot of counseling and parenting classes because, you are right…it will effect them in the long run.
Just out of curiosity, though … why is Kelly’s ex taking in Kelly’s kids, but not taking in Kelly?
Well, because he is out of state and Kelly has things here that she MUST take care of before she can go out there. But, also because of well…it’s her EX!! They cannot reconcile at all because of his past alcoholism and violence. I know…that sounds a little weird as well, but, I know that he has been getting help for the alcohol which in turn helps the violence. When he got out of the military and they split up he moved in with his mom to save money while returning to school and they have limited space…not like Kelly would sleep with her ex!!

 

[Barbkw]

He has two children with this woman and still hasn’t married her?

If he dies, can she collect his Social Security in support of those children?

 

[Lubomyr]

Yes, BlueAngel, I know what they say when someone assumes something. But do you know what they say when people leave details out of a story? If you call ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands the same thing, you must think boyfriends and husbands are the same thing. This is beginning to make more sense.

So Kelly was married for five years? Shocking to me? No, not shocking. Actually I’m not surprised she would break her “commitment” after five years, since in your world a mother of two can have sex with three men four times in eleven years and you all still consider her “committed” to a fourth. But since you all think marriage is just a piece of paper then I guess it makes sense on some level.

So Kelly was laid off etc etc and according to her what’s best for the kids means going to their dad. Well BlueAngel going to their dad *used *to mean “going home”, that is, until Kelly and her husband parted ways. But children should be expected to tolerate the drama their parents create for them don’t you think? Don’t you think children owe it to their folks to just go along with the disruption, especially when they’re young, and their parents go through the trial and error process of finding out who they want to be with?

You said Kelly’s ex is her EX!!, which I guess means he is a violent alcoholic with two children from a woman he cannot reconcile with and now he lives with his own mother, what a man … and she’s handing them back over to him? And you say Kelly is the most maternal person you know? OMG what color is the sky on your planet? Tell me, BlueAngel, how do the kids feel about being uprooted from their home whats left of it and their friends and being sent off into a whole nother state? See, I was right when I said not one of those people gives a damn about the children.

Great to hear about your 3yo knowing her ABCs and counting to 10. Kids pick up on a lot of things from their environment, especially what the people around them say and do and model for them … Wait, *you *have have a child but no husband either?

You know, BlueAngel, you basically said that marriage is either a legal piece of paper or it’s just a ceremony … and then you turned around and accused me of arguing semantics? I’m arguing semantics, BlueAngel, because *you *redefined the word “marriage”. But you’re right that’s straying off-topic. Your original question was what should Kelly do, but, you know what they say about assuming things, and you know what they say about leaving out the rest of the story. I’m sure you see it now, what should Kelly do is kind of the wrong question to ask.

Anyway, BlueAngel, none of this sounds weird to me. Actually it sounds like “today’s society” and that “non-religious point of view” you were talking about that Kelly, Lucy, and Thomas live their lives based on. Hope it works for y’all … having fun yet?

 

[blueangel05]

Yes, BlueAngel, I know what they say when someone assumes something. But do you know what they say when people leave details out of a story? If you call ex-boyfriends and ex-husbands the same thing, you must think boyfriends and husbands are the same thing. This is beginning to make more sense.
Who said that I referred to ex-boyfriends being the same as an ex-husband?

So Kelly was married for five years? Shocking to me? No, not shocking. Actually I’m not surprised she would break her “commitment” after five years, since in your world a mother of two can have sex with three men four times in eleven years and you all still consider her “committed” to a fourth. But since you all think marriage is just a piece of paper then I guess it makes sense on some level.
So, it’s ok to be married to someone who drinks a bottle of rum every 2-3 days and becomes beligerant and had eventually become violent with her? She didn’t BREAK her commitment…he did. In my world? Who died and made you holier than thou? Your comments during this whole thread have been rude towards ME for no reason…that figures. A piece of paper…yes, it is. If what you are saying that getting married in front of the public…yada yada yada…then what difference does it make if someone has the official paper? They did it in public right?

So Kelly was laid off etc etc and according to her what’s best for the kids means going to their dad. Well BlueAngel going to their dad *used *to mean “going home”, that is, until Kelly and her husband parted ways. But children should be expected to tolerate the drama their parents create for them don’t you think? Don’t you think children owe it to their folks to just go along with the disruption, especially when they’re young, and their parents go through the trial and error process of finding out who they want to be with?
So it’s ok for Kelly’s kids to be on the streets and get sick and who the heck knows what could happen? Wow. I will bite my tongue.

You said Kelly’s ex is her EX!!, which I guess means he is a violent alcoholic with two children from a woman he cannot reconcile with and now he lives with his own mother, what a man … and she’s handing them back over to him? And you say Kelly is the most maternal person you know? OMG what color is the sky on your planet? Tell me, BlueAngel, how do the kids feel about being uprooted from their home whats left of it and their friends and being sent off into a whole nother state? See, I was right when I said not one of those people gives a damn about the children.
You are wrong. You are insane if you think she would allow her children to be on the street when they can be in a safer and warm environment! Where else were they going to go?? Lucy’s? Your house? Seriously.

Great to hear about your 3yo knowing her ABCs and counting to 10. Kids pick up on a lot of things from their environment, especially what the people around them say and do and model for them … Wait, *you *have have a child but no husband either?
Did I say that I was unmarried? No I did not. This is NOT about me. I think it’s best you leave this thread.

You know, BlueAngel, you basically said that marriage is either a legal piece of paper or it’s just a ceremony … and then you turned around and accused me of arguing semantics? I’m arguing semantics, BlueAngel, because *you *redefined the word “marriage”. But you’re right that’s straying off-topic. Your original question was what should Kelly do, but, you know what they say about assuming things, and you know what they say about leaving out the rest of the story. I’m sure you see it now, what should Kelly do is kind of the wrong question to ask.
I was referring to YOUR comment. No, I have my answer as to what Kelly should do. And, it didn’t take your off-topic ranting to figure that one out. Wow.

Anyway, BlueAngel, none of this sounds weird to me. Actually it sounds like “today’s society” and that “non-religious point of view” you were talking about that Kelly, Lucy, and Thomas live their lives based on. Hope it works for y’all … having fun yet?

Biting tongue again.

 

[Castello]

All of them need to get to Confession, amend their lives, live chastely and worry about getting themselves to heaven.

 

[chipeto]

Again, I don’t see what difference it makes whether they have a piece of paper that says they’re legally married. People can have a ceremony without the marriage being legal, you know. I’m not sure why you’re arguing semantics here. The question was never about whether they were legally committed to each other or not.

At the risk of further inflaming the tone of this thread, which I have no desire to do, I would like to point out that to most of us on CAF, marriage is much, much more than an irrelevant piece of paper. Since you described Thomas as a boyfriend rather than husband, it would seem that some distinction exists in your own mind as well. I would not have put things the way that Lubomyr did, but to me it is relevant that they are unmarried. I understand and respect that you may feel differently, but please in turn understand that this is a Catholic forum, not a secular one, and we have a different view of marriage then the rest of the world. .

That’s all.

 

[Lubomyr]

Who said that I referred to ex-boyfriends being the same as an ex-husband?

You did. It’s clear from every single word you’ve said about marriage up to and including this post. (And if you had a husband you would have said so when I asked instead of avoiding it.)

So, it’s ok to be married to someone who drinks a bottle of rum every 2-3 days and becomes beligerant and had eventually become violent with her?

So it’s ok for Kelly’s kids to be on the streets and get sick and who the heck knows what could happen? Wow. I will bite my tongue.

You are insane if you think she would allow her children to be on the street when they can be in a safer and warm environment! Where else were they going to go?? Lucy’s? Your house? Seriously.

Ask Kelly. She deliberately chose him to become their father. Or are you going to tell me this all came as a total surprise only after they got married?

She didn’t BREAK her commitment…he did. In my world? Who died and made you holier than thou?

So Kelly is handing her kids over to a violent alcoholic drinking a bottle of rum every 2-3 days, roughed her up, couldn’t reconcile, dumped her, now living with mom? And this is the same Kelly who stirs the pot while scoring points for being “maternal”? I don’t think I’m the one with the hypocrisy issues here.

it didn’t take your off-topic ranting to figure that one out.

It’s on-topic. The topic isn’t really what Kelly should do. The real topic is what’s best for the children. You came here asking for advice about “right or wrong”. You got an answer you didn’t like.

 

[blueangel05]

At the risk of further inflaming the tone of this thread, which I have no desire to do, I would like to point out that to most of us on CAF, marriage is much, much more than an irrelevant piece of paper. Since you described Thomas as a boyfriend rather than husband, it would seem that some distinction exists in your own mind as well. I would not have put things the way that Lubomyr did, but to me it is relevant that they are unmarried. I understand and respect that you may feel differently, but please in turn understand that this is a Catholic forum, not a secular one, and we have a different view of marriage then the rest of the world. .

That’s all.

Ok, let me be more specific.

Lucy & Thomas believe it’s just a piece of paper. I was merely stating that if what Lubomyr was saying about it being public…then it is just a piece of paper because the ceremony itself is more important. I came to the Catholic forum because he is Catholic, she is not obviously. I am fully aware of the way Catholic’s view marriage and I’m just saying my personal views have nothing to do with the original question.