I remain true to my beliefs by remaining single after a civil divorce.

Cherishing

Ath

being a Catholic and someone who came close to wrecking my M I have since looked closely at what the church teaches after some years away from it. I do not think the church's position is wrong for those of the faith.

A question was raised about a divorced person prevented from receiving any sacraments in the Church
If a person has not remarried and is in no sexual relationship, they can receive the sacraments of Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance or Anointing of the Sick.
A declaration of nullity, sometimes called an annulment, says that you are free to marry within the Church or that an existing marriage can be convalidated (regularized).
Declarations of nullity do not render children illegitimate because the Church presumes that the bride and groom married in good faith—even if that marriage is later declared null.

The Catholic Church believes that a valid, sacramental marriage (between a baptized man and a baptized woman) cannot be dissolved except through death. The biblical basis for this is Matthew 19:6: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
What appears to be a valid, sacramental marriage, however, may not be that. There are many reasons why a union between a man and a woman might be declared null. For example, one person’s “I do” could mean “as long as I like how this relationship is going.” If such an intention could be proven by testimony from firsthand witnesses, then the marriage might be declared null because one partner was not making a permanent commitment.
A valid, non-sacramental marriage (where one or both parties are unbaptized) can be dissolved under certain conditions.
Your former spouse or spouses (one case at a time) has to be informed or a reasonable effort must be made to do so, but your case can proceed even if he/she does not cooperate. Depending on the baptismal status of each of your former husbands/wife and where those weddings took place.
The Catholic Church does not say that divorced people cannot receive the Eucharist. It says that those who are divorced and remarried cannot.
Why? Because of the Scripture passage quoted above. The Church feels that any other policy would fail to recognize the sacredness of marriage and would undermine family stability.

The Law of Moses includes regulations about which people are too closely related to allow them to marry each other (Leviticus 18:6-18).
Jesus said that the Law of Moses was too lenient on the subject of divorce and did not reflect God’s intention from the creation of the world (Matthew 19:4-8).
St. Paul addressed the situation of Christians married to unbaptized spouses who were no longer willing to live with them because of their Baptism (1 Corinthians 7:12-16).
The Catholic Church’s thinking about declarations of nullity comes from centuries of pastoral care with people whose marriages have broken up. In fact, some people have found the Church’s process to be a healing one rather than restrictive. The increase in annulments granted by the Church is a source of confusion and sometimes anger for many Catholics, as well as some non-Catholics. Some wonder how could a marriage go on for years and still be sacramentally invalid.
Marriage is still considered permanent, and the indissolubility of sacramental marriage remains a central Catholic teaching. But the Church also is obliged to provide justice for anyone whose marriage has failed—when it can be shown with moral certainty that the marriage lacked from the beginning some essential element for a true, life-long bond. Pope Paul VI, in the 1960's, noted that delayed justice is injustice, and streamlined the annulment procedure.
Some people say that you can buy an annulment in the Church. I doubt that they BUY the annulment but they do hire experts in Catholic theology to guide them through the various processes and act on their behalf I presume at great expense which you or I probably could not do. In addition you would have to bribe at least six different Church court officials in two different dioceses and any one of them could throw the case out in a second for whatever reason. However I suppose where there are people there are also human weakness.

AW - Very interesting.

I'm wondering about the annullments though. A good friend of mine got divorce from his wife (both Catholic) after 16 years of marriage. She wanted the divorce, he didn't. They had a 15 year old son.

After 2 years, he went to our highschool reunion, and met a lady who had been a nun for 15 years, and decided to quit. They fell in love, but she insisted that she would only marry in the Catholic church.

Well it took them 2 years, but he did get his marriage annuled, and they did get married in the Church. I never did figure that one out. Of course, I know nothing of the particulars of the annulled marriage, only that they seemed to be quite happy.

It sure wasn't. They tell me that the mystical bond cannot be created if one of the spouses is planning to refuse to have children. Probably because creating children is the purpose of marriage according to another doctrine.

So you do believe marriage is indissolvable and your belief has made you reluctant to even consider a civil divorce.

You're probably all those things in the eyes of people who watch a lot of TV programs. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> On the other hand, the whole "communion of saints" thinks you're orthodox and trying to be a good Christian. So there are pluses and minuses to living according to your beliefs.


Did having this belief about your 2nd M and not your 1st change your behavior in any way that you noticed? Will it seem unfair to you not to be able to remarry if that happens?


That's 1Cor7. It's surprising how often 1Cor13 gets read at weddings compared to 1Cor7 <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


You shouldn't feel guilty. Nor should you feel guilty for not feeling guilty! But may I ask, did that awareness of non-recognition from the Church make the M seem less real or less committed at the time?


This is sobering to read because I have some idealistic notion that if I combine orthodox beliefs, obeying the moral law, and MB principles, the M HAS to be spiritually satisfying.


Ephesians 5:25 again. I should start a whole thread on this....

You're welcome. You sound so exhausted and sad. Remember that Our Lord knows His way back from the grave, and when the women came to embalm His Body, He was walking in the garden in the cool of the dawn.

Exactly, marriage's main intent is for procreation and keeping our needs taken care of within the confines of the marriage union.



Oh, I have considered it often and more recently but just can't bring myself to actually do it...this little voice inside me keeps telling me I would be just as wrong as WH if I discard the beliefs and promises I committed to.



I did not struggle with the decision as much in M#1 b/c I knew it was never truly a marriage in the eyes of God...sorta like a sin-a-thon. I felt guilty the entire M b/c we never married in the church, guess that ended up being a good thing in the long run. Your question about if it changed my behavior for M#2...yes, I have a much stronger committment, I am less reactionary, I tend to try to look for the cause of the problem and treat it instead of the symptoms, I have been more tolerant and forgiving which at times I feel has been a negative in that I feel my tolerance enabled some of the A behavior with my WH knowing that I don't believe in divorce he basically knew he could cake eat to an extent. I feel obligation more than anything else to uphold my end of the promises I made. I feel like just b/c WH chooses to neglect his committments and responsibilities that does not give me permission to do the same. I know biblically I have legitimate reason for divorce but am not 100% that I have done everything in my power to attempt to reconcile...this changes day to day according to my emotions...some days I feel there is nothing humanly possible left for me to do...other days I think that being patient is actually an action in itself...



WH and I had this great spiritual bond, discussed theology endlessly, had same morals, beliefs and values...I don't know what happened...maybe it was all hype or he knew what I wanted to hear...he once told me it was a privilige to pray together and was more intimate than any other act of sharing...we never had much of a bond after that...he basically refused to indulge me in that area and made it clear that it was a purposeful choice...that was the singlemost painful moment of my M...



I am. It is a huge effort to try and be open to reconciliation when you carry such baggage of pain and resentment. I pray daily for God to remove "hardness of heart" and help me to be more forgiving...I try to hand all I cannot control over to him and not to worry as I know he has plans for me that are more wonderful than I could ever imagine.

In general I am happy...I have so many blessings and am thankful to be able to enjoy them...I got a second chance at life recently after a trauma and have a new appreciation for things...I am sad b/c I want to enjoy my blessings with my H...they are much sweeter when shared with those you love and whom love you in return...my children bring me great joy but it is exponentially greater when shared with H.

I appreciate your support and interest. Do you think that having all this knowledge will shape your behavior? What is your expectation of M? Will you enter M thinking it is indissolvable? If you fell in love with someone and then found out they had previously been married would this be a deal-breaker for potential marriage? If so, why?

"Walk the Line" is a good movie for understanding another person's view of the indissolubility of marriage because it is the story of an affair that led to a long-term marriage.

My husband's take on it was that Johnny Cash redeemed himself by having a second marriage in which he treated his wife well. My take on it, left unsaid, is that there is no redeeming the effects of disposing of your first wife. Johnny's first wife certainly didn't benefit from a happy second marriage.

Dr. Harley, in his emails to me, has used the word "sabotage" to describe my husband's actions. I am left with the question: is my husband's intent to create conditions that end his first marriage so that he can move on to better things?

Cherishing

Athanasius – Good luck young man. This is not possible(no theology, no Bible). The third item in your list IS possible, but irrelevant if the first two items are adhered to.

I think you will find it impossible to separate a discussion of marriage from the one who created marriage, and your own subsequent posts in response to others indicates to me that you, yourself, can’t separate the two. Why? Answer: you are attempting to discuss something that was established BY God in “non-God” terms. In essence, you are attempting to approach the subject from a “worldview” standpoint that either eliminates God or places Man and his will, interpretations, reasoning ability ABOVE God. In addition, YOU laid down the premise of religion (specifically Roman Catholicism) being a PART of, not excluded from, the discussion in your TITLING of the thread. To now ask that "religion" be kept out of the discussion seems a bit disingenuous at best and antithetical to the Thread Topic. To keep "religion" out of the discussion of marriage reduces and confines the discussion to Secular thought only and Secular Humanism as THE authority on the subject of marriage. Secularism has already "spoken" on the subject and established "no fault" divorce as the "standard" for dissolving marriages, with the attendant implication that marriage is NOT permanent and only exists so long as it is "convenient" to both the husband and the wife.

So, imho, there will have to be reference to, and discussion of, the Word of God, since that is HOW God has revealed His will to us. But it will be interesting to see how you attempt to keep faith out of the discussion.

I DO think it is wise for you, as a young man and a bachelor who might consider marriage to think about marriage as God has intended it, especially for believers in Christ who are themselves the “bride of Christ.”

Errr.. yes, completely fair since 1Cor7:10-16 when take in context... and reading the "but's & "and's... shows that divorce is in fact permissable.
As far as Lk 17:18... again, you see this 180 degrees away from what I think is meant. It is not the "faithful" spouse that "puts away" the wayward... it is the faithful spouse that has been put away.... and as clearly outlined above... there are certain circumstances where divorce and remarriage are acceptable.

Let me ask you a question... having had experience in the Church for so many years...how much time have you spent in the Bible vs. Catholic Doctrine? What authority do you see the Pope as having over the Church... and its members? I ask this since one of the tenets of the Church is Papal Infallibility. Now, I have a clear understanding of what this is and what it isn't... but how do you as a Catholic explain if this "postition" was handed down by Christ himself, the obvious missteps (that's putting it kindly) of Popes over the years?

Also, can you explain how an organization that has strayed so far from Biblical teaching, that has a corrupt foundation in its leadership and an inordinate number (when compared to the general population the %'s are staggering!)of pedophiles shepherding the flock, is in any way qualified to teach what it is our Lord has or has not said regarding divorce or any other topic? It seems to me that if Christ were to return today that the Lion would be loosed in a RCC that has taken great liberty with His Word and His flock.
You have asked for theology to be kept out of this... I would suggest then that you rename the thread to a more secularly neutral position. I see no way around a discussion of theology when the subject is touched on in this manner. And if we are going to speak of God... perhaps we are best left returning to His Word and not relying on a "rock" that has shown itself to be more unstable than sand.

How sad for you to say that the Catholic Church has strayed so far from Biblical teaching. I compare the Catholic Church trying to deal with pedophile priests to a BS who doesn't instantly divorce a spouse who has been unfaithful.

Cherishing

Thanks for sticking around, ForeverHers.


You're right. I'm being inconsistent. I suppose there is no way to separate them.

What I was trying to express is that I hope the thread can be about the psychological effects of holding this belief... which is something that as a bachelor I can only guess about....rather than arguing about the justifications of the belief itself. But I suppose that the justifications for the belief also influence the whole way the belief affects behaviour and relate to all other kinds of beliefs which are also affecting behaviour.

Also I'm afraid that, since there are differences of first principles, discussions of specific theological doctrines and the reasons for holding the belief are liable to waste a lot of time and get people angry in a way that prevent the thread from being any good for the more personal, intimate, emotional discussion.

But I guess I don't own the thread I started and shouldn't try to boss people around.

Yes, that's right. I believe that human reason and divine Revelation work together. I believe that God reveals information that is superior to but never contradicts human reason. I'm attempting to discern to what extent these beliefs are based on purely human habits and so variable over time and space, to what extent they are based on universally valid reasoning and so applicable to all humans, and to what extent they depend on Divine Revelation and so are binding on those who accept that Revelation but not on anyone else. I had the notion, which you contradict above, that I could do so by excluding the Revelation-based arguments and see what could be done by human reason alone.

This is just an intellectual tactic. Also to allow non-believers to participate.
I suspect that this touches on one of our differences of first principles. Do you agree with what I outlined about human reason and Divine Revelation above? Or do you think that is putting Man above God?


I was imprecise. I really just wanted to talk about the psychological effects of the doctrine. Not engage in a general free-for-all about Faith vs. Works, principles of Biblical exegesis, pedophile priests, financial corruption, etc.


Yes, I realized that and changed the title to be more precise.


Secular Humanists only judge according to human happiness and don't accept any Revelation. It seems charitable to try to become able to offer them a defense of morality in their own terms, which will therefore be able to help them resist temptations.

Obviously I would prefer them to accept God. But in the mean time, their only defense against sin is their reason. IMHO if we can convince them to obey the moral law out of selfish reasons based on their own pleasure, the effort to try to obey the moral law will lead them to greater understanding of morality and human nature and possibly an eventual acceptance of the Founder of both. "When the feet are on the right path, the head and heart will follow", as a mutual Friend of ours once said....

How Revelation functions is another difference in first principles.

You've convinced me that it's pointless to try to keep faith out. But if you want to argue about Protestant-Catholic issues, could we start another thread? I appreciate your concern for my holding "another gospel" which very well might endanger my soul. I feel the same way about you. Perhaps Christian charity demands that we do our best to convince each other?

I assure you, ForeverHers, that for my own life I am thinking about it only in those terms. I'm trying to increase my understanding of God's will for marriage.

I would think that the church was indeed trying to fix things IF they got rid of pedophiles. That they have CHOSEN to keep some of these monsters in their fold is unforgivable.

mkeverydaycnt:
I think it is the same with a BS. Look, the Church tried to fix things by providing counseling to these priests. To call them monsters is not to understand that they were human beings who had presented themselves and been accepted as men called to be priests.

Your words remind me of my parents words in describing my husband. My parents have not seen him in five years. They were just in town last month. My mother has called him a monster. What he did was monstrous -- he broke my arm 12 days after I had surgery which kept me in the hospital a week, and the reason why he broke my arm was because he had brought up this woman and said something about how he was afraid she would call him to wish him a Merry Christmas, and I threatened to call her, and he pleaded with me not to, and I picked up the phone. That was pretty monstrous.

Here is something from a book I am reading:
"We believe that certain persons never muster the strength to fight their mistakes because they have never met anyone willing to believe in him... Because love is essentially related to faith, it is also intimately linked to hope, the hope that the one I love will one day become what I know he is called upon to be. Hope is patient."

Every BS faces the question of whether to try to restore the marriage. The Catholic Church has learned that pedophile priests cannot be put in positions in which they have contact with children again, just like the BS learns that the WS must take precautions so that his infidelity is not repeated.

It's really very easy to just throw the bum out. I knew a woman several years ago whom I got to know well enough that, knowing her to be divorced and remarried, I asked her about her first marriage. She said she'd been happy in her first marriage, but she came home one day early from a business trip and found another woman's underwear in the living room. She didn't ask any questions. She just moved out and filed for divorce from her husband of 10 years. Six months later, her husband called to tell her that he'd made a big mistake. She agreed. She said she would not try to rebuild the relationship because she'd never trust him again.

The BS who considers marriage to be indissoluble is more likely, I think, to try to work with the WS to restore the marriage because the BS faces a single life is that choice is not made. The sad part here is that I think there can be WSs who decide to be unfaithful in part because he/she can take advantage of the Christian commandment to forgive. My husband would go to confession on Saturday night, receive communion on Sunday, and meet his lover for coffee on Monday morning.

Things are not so clear, mkeverydaycnt. The pedophile who remains a priest can serve the church in ways that do not put children at risk. The WS who remains married can work with the BS to create precautions so that the spouse is not hurt again.

I have never met a priest known to be a pedophile, but I would guess that they act very much like other priests. There are things they can do to benefit the church, but they must be watched so that there is no contact with children. They are not monsters. They are human beings, loved by God, with a desire that hurts others terribly. They are very much like WSs in that their desire for personal pleasure overwhelms their commitment to care for their spouse.

Cherishing

Psychological effects of holding this belief can vary...overall I think they significantly increase your dependence on God, test your faith, break you, humble you and make you realize you are nothing without HIM. It makes you more reliant on God as well as self-reliant especially when you do not have a contributing partner in the M.

It could make you feel claustrophibic, smothered or plainly just a prisoner or be approached as a challenge, long term endeavor or "cross to bear" as some fondly term it. Some feel "obligated" to endure or blessed to be burdened.

OTOH, the effects could actually tempt you to turn from God, leave the church or possibly live a miserable existence in an abusive relationship. Depression, frustration, anger, resentment, bitterness all psychological effects of feeling you are in an long term committment with no "outs". Flip side of that is that it also forces you to look for the positives, the "roses amongst the thorns" and you can gain a new appreciation for all that is taken for granted.

I think the list is endless, the process is dynamic and much is dependent on the unique marital stresses and situations as well as the stage of life you are in when being tested.

I'm not being consistent myself about theology and ForeverHers called me on it.

I realized that the name was too vague and tried to make it more precise, it's now "Catholic Doctrines & Marital Happiness." Perhaps I should change it to "The RELATIONSHIP between some beliefs which happen to be taught by the Catholic Church and Marital Happiness" ? That would be even more precise but seems a bit wordy.


Well, as I said to ForeverHers, my hope in trying to exclude theology was to avoid wasting time and getting angry, which is all I expect from a discussion of specific theological content when the participants differ on first principles. Indeed the time-wasting and anger are already happening.

I was hoping to have a discussion of the way holding certain beliefs affects the psychology and behaviour of spouses in a marriage. This forum would be valuable to me for that purpose as I have no experience of marriage. Those beliefs interest me because they are taught by the denomination to which I belong. I want to understand their ramifications inside a situation to which I have no access.

It's essential for this purpose that the thread remain safe, protecting, and respectful....not an angry, intellectual, defensive, free-for-all about Faith vs. Works, Bible vs. Hierarchy, pedophile priests, financial corruption, etc. al....so that people like Cherishing can share the kind of emotional information I actually would like. I am willing to argue about first principles in an intellectual, theological way, if you like. I'm also willing to sit around listening to you express the white-hot lava which the Church's hideous betrayals have created. I even have some venom of my own that I might want to unleash on Her. But could we start a different thread for that? How's this for a title: "Catholic Doctrines & Marital Happiness: Rage and Theology Overflow" ?

Athanasius

How about naming the thread -- belief in the indissolubility of marriage and marital happiness? The Catholic Church holds that marriages are never dissoluble, but my guess is that there are non-Catholics out there who also believe in this.

As far as I'm concerned, any BS who doesn't walk away the second that infidelity is exposed has a commitment to marriage that is very great. Most of the people on this board as BSs, and some even are dealing with spouses who continue in an affair after exposure.

Dr. Harley is big believer in separations as a way to address marital problems. In the end, you cannot control your spouse's behavior. You can only choose between staying, hoping it gets better, and walking away to send the message that you are willing to separate rather than be treated without care. I spent years staying, hoping it would get better. Sadly, from the exposure until we attended the MBW, I switched to trying to control my husband's behavior. Now I recognize that separation can be an appropriate option when the spouse is unwilling to build a relationship of care and respect that will lead to passion and love.

Cherishing

Maybe you should call it Catholic doctrines and marital longevity.

I do know that Catholics stay married longer than others in this country. In other countries, divorce is almost unheardof - Mexico for example. In Mexico the divorce rate is something like 5%. Of course, the Catholic men have numerous "amantes". In the end, when they are old and worn out, they end up back with their wives.

You are *******kidding me right? Trying to fix things DOES NOT MEAN PUTTING THEM IN ANOTHER CHURCH OR ALLOWING THEM AROUND CHILDREN AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT IS THAT THE RCC DID FOR DECADES. THEY ARE MONSTERS! And your defending them is sickening.... the church hid these people and their crimes so they could protect their assets. Read the reports and see what the RCC did to protect these criminals. There has NEVER been a concerted effort on the part of the Church to protect the children... not then... not now. To say otherwise is just flat out ignorance to what really has happened and happens today. And a lot of these men that were "caaled and accepted" as priests did so because they would have easier access to other men and boys! Ever since these scandals broke do you think it is any coincidence that so many are ignoring their calling. Perhaps they now KNOW that it is not quite the safe hunting ground for pedophiles and homosexuals that it once was.
I suggest that before you go defending the Church agaion regarding this... that you educate yourself about their crimes...I have posted a link to the Grand Jury Report from just one city... and it tells all anyone needs to know about this group of called men! AND IT IS NOT THE SAME WITH A BS.... A BS IS NOT A CHILD THAT WAS RAPED. IT IS THE ATTITUDE THAT YOU DISPLAY HERE THAT HAS ALLOWED THIS
**** TO GO ON FOR YEARS.

This has to be one of the sickest things I have ever heard from anyone. You seriously need some help if you think that they can do good in the church and they are not monsters! I feel sad for people like you that have their heads so far in the sand!

I don't consider anyone to be a monster. I believe that all people should be treated with respect, even those who have done great harm.

The pedophile scandal happened to break three weeks after my husband broke my arm. I remember my husband telling me that he heard from two people that Sophia had talked to them about my husband's possible reaction to the scandal. Looking back, I now realize he had heard this from Sophia, not from those two people.

Children are vunerable, sure, but so are adults. Remember that I hid physical abuse for years -- even physical abuse after surgery, when I was recovering surgery so extensive that I had to stay five days in the hospital. Why? Why did I hide it? I have been following the story of the 15 year old boy who was found, and I have some understanding of why he said nothing. It's the same with the Church. It's the same with me. Confusion can paralyze. Seeing the fruit of choices (a broken arm, abuse of a child) can cause a person to question personal values (commitment to marriage no matter what, belief that are people can be forgiven and redeemed) and find a new course of action that would prevent intolerable harm.

To label someone a monster, to view the Catholic Church as evil, is to prevent yourself from understanding the choices made by the Church from the inside. I am not saying, in any way shape or form, that choices made by the Church were appropriate, just as I am not saying that my choices were appropriate. What I am saying is that I don't believe that any person, Saddam Hussein or Ted Bundy or a pedophile priest, is beyond the reach of Christ. That doesn't mean that legal action shouldn't be taken or that steps should not be taken to prevent further harm.

You have not walked in my shoes. You have not been a bishop dealing with a priest who says he is sorry, who has gone through counseling and the counselors have said he is reformed. Please try to understand.

By the way, there are changes in our Catholic school. Everyone who volunteers must go through training on child abuse and must pass a criminal background check. There are changes in the classroom as well, such as that the window into classrooms can no longer be covered with children's artwork. There is concern, and there is effort to protect children.

And, sadly, this whole discussion is way off the topic of how a belief in the indissolubility of marriage affects the happiness of marriage. I've said enough. There is no defending the Catholic Church's choices in the scandal. There is only an effort on my part to understand why the choices were made and to compare them to choices of a BS in dealing with the ultimate betrayal of infidelity.

Cherishing

this is getting entirely too heavy ... lighten it up!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

3-year-old Reese:
"Our Father, Who does art in heaven,
Harold is His name.
Amen."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A little boy was overheard praying:
"Lord, if you can't make me a better boy, don't worry about it.
I'm having a real good time like I am."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After the christening of his baby brother in church,
Jason sobbed all the way home in the back seat of the car.
His father asked him three times what was wrong.
Finally, the boy replied,
"That preacher said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home,
and I wanted to stay with you guys."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I had been teaching my three-year old daughter, Caitlin,
the Lord's Prayer for several evenings at bedtime.
She would repeat after me the lines from the prayer.
Finally, she decided to go solo.
I listened with pride as she carefully enunciated each word,
right up to the end of the prayer:
"Lead us not into temptation," she prayed,
"but deliver us from E-mail."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One particular four-year-old prayed,
"And forgive us our trash baskets
as we forgive those who put trash in our baskets."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Sunday school teacher asked her children as they
were on the way to church service,
"And why is it necessary to be quiet in church?"
One bright little girl replied,
"Because people are sleeping."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Six-year-old Angie and her four-year-old
brother, Joel, were sitting together in church.
Joel giggled, sang, and talked out loud.
Finally, his big sister had had enough.
"You're not supposed to talk out loud in church."
"Why? Who's going to stop me?" Joel asked.
Angie pointed to the back of the church and said,
"See those two men standing by the door?
They're hushers."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A mother was preparing pancakes for her sons,Kevin 5, and Ryan 3.
The boys began to argue over who would get the first pancake.
Their mother saw the opportunity for a moral lesson.
"If Jesus were sitting here, He would say,
'Let my brother have the first pancake, I can wait.'
Kevin turned to his younger brother and said,
"Ryan, you be Jesus!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A father was at the beach with his children
when the four-year-old son ran up to him,
grabbed his hand, and led him to the shore
where a seagull lay dead in the sand.
"Daddy, what happened to him?" the son asked.
"He died and went to Heaven," the Dad replied.
The boy thought a moment and then said,
"Did God throw him back down?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A wife invited some people to dinner.
At the table, she turned to their six-year-old daughter and said,
"Would you like to say the blessing?"
"I wouldn't know what to say," the girl replied.
"Just say what you hear Mommy say," the wife answered.
The daughter bowed her head and said,
"Lord, why on earth did I invite all these people to dinner?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace, love and happiness

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~