Divorce, American style: What if one mate says no?

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^

[CatherineSiena]

In the year 860, a king named Lothair II sought a divorce from his wife, Theutberga. Her marital transgressions, according to the king, included incest and sorcery. Theutberga denied the charges and demanded a trial by ordeal. A stand-in jumped into a kettle of boiling water and emerged unscathed, proving Theutberga's innocence.

Nothing so dramatic awaits Marie Macfarlane, a 41-year-old mother of four from Westlake. But a trial is what she wants.

Her husband, William "Bud" Macfarlane, has filed for divorce, accusing his wife of "extreme cruelty" and "gross neglect of duty" - a brutal legalese that she says cannot describe her marriage. So Marie, a devout Catholic, is taking a stand not often seen today: She's fighting to stop the divorce altogether.

"I'm innocent. There's no way my husband is going to prove that," she said of the charges raised against her in Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court. "From my perspective, I'm being punished and my children have been punished because my husband is having a lapse in character."

William Macfarlane and his lawyer, Thomas LaFond, would not comment for this story.

Avoiding an unwanted divorce is much harder than it was in Theutberga's day, when the pope would refuse one even for a king.

These days, divorce is commonplace, and of less moral stigma than it used to be.

Where once some states didn't even recognize it, today a Nevada boarding house known as the home of the "quickie" divorce is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Where once some states didn't even recognize divorce, today a Nevada boarding house known as the home of the "quickie" divorce is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Marie Macfarlane is among the growing number of people who don't think this is a healthy trend. Some researchers and sociologists, both conservative and liberal, have come to view marriage as an essential social institution, benefiting children in particular. With politicians, they've coalesced into a so-called "marriage movement" seeking to promote long-lasting marriages, and to employ the government to help.

Couples in Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana now can agree to "covenant marriages," contracts creating self-imposed obstacles to divorce stricter than those in existing law. Citing the high number of single parents and children in poverty, President Bush and Congress have encouraged marriage - and, by implication, discouraged divorce - in their welfare-reform agendas.

"There is a cultural war going on over values in this society," said Macfarlane's lawyer, Kevin Senich. "It's influencing the way some people are looking at divorce court and their rights."

Threads of those traditional attitudes can still be found in many state divorce laws, including Ohio's.

Divorce in Ohio is still viewed as a contest, with one spouse proving the guilt of the other to win a decree from a judge. But in response to the "no-fault" divorce reforms of the 1970s, lawmakers made it easier for couples to divorce if both spouses say they are incompatible, or if they have been separated for a year. (Couples also can receive a marriage dissolution if they come to court with a joint agreement in hand.)

Otherwise, a divorcing husband or wife must prove one of 11 grounds against his or her spouse, such as abandonment, adultery, bigamy, "habitual drunkenness" or fraud. The grounds most commonly invoked are the most subjective ones: extreme cruelty and gross neglect of duty.

While the law seems to juggle both traditional and liberal views of marriage and divorce, the courts seem to tilt to the latter, broadly defining what's cruel or neglectful to minimize litigation and avoid leaving people in unhappy marriages.

Trials in domestic court are uncommon, and they tend to be about child custody or property, not whether a divorce should be granted in the first place.

"If somebody wants a divorce, they usually get it," said Lorain County Domestic Relations Court Judge David Basinski, who has denied just four divorce petitions in 15 years.

Because the law presumes there are grounds for a divorce after a one-year separation, some judges see little reason to dismiss divorce cases only to see the couples come back after a year apart. Last year, more than 3,900 divorce petitions and 1,900 dissolution agreements were filed in Cuyahoga County.

"Even if we don't grant the divorce, we can't make people live together," said Timothy Flanagan, administrative judge for the Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court.

So in those rare cases like Macfarlane's, where one spouse doesn't want a divorce, the trials can become somewhat farcical, as the lawyers massage one person's unhappiness to fit the law's definition of extreme cruelty or gross neglect. And judges are given great discretion to decide when that threshold is met.

Records of court cases from around the state show that the most everyday annoyances can add up to extreme cruelty. The husband who avoided housework and made noise while his wife studied? Extremely cruel.

The name-calling husband who wouldn't cough up the money to fix the house? Extremely cruel.

So was the obnoxious pot-smoker, the wife who refused to cook or clean, the guy who called his wife "squaw," and the woman who wanted to bury her husband next to her two ex-husbands.

"Courts have become very creative in finding fault," said Senich, who also is challenging the grounds of a divorce in appeals court. "It's eroded people's desire to stick through the bad patches in a marriage."

This doesn't sit well with Macfarlane, for whom divorce still carries a stigma. She says she wants to reconcile with her husband of 13 years, but fears the court procedures are aimed at splitting them up, rather than offering alternatives that could help her and her husband avoid it.

"I believe we do have the ability to be happily married," Macfarlane says. "Isn't it worth giving reconciliation a shot? Maybe not every marriage will get fixed, but some of them will."

Flanagan says the current law is better with the modern reforms. In the '60s and early '70s, when fault had to be shown in all divorces, a spouse could threaten to challenge the grounds as leverage for a more lucrative settlement of property or alimony.

"We were finding that grounds were being used as a bargaining tool and people had to buy their way into getting a divorce," Flanagan said. "It wasn't right."

But Flanagan doesn't believe Ohio should adopt a purely no-fault system, like California and 15 other states.

"To some people, the grounds are very important, and I think we should have that opportunity," he said.

[Askel5]

Thanks for helping Loyalist stuff feathers back in the pillow so quickly.

I'm glad I wasn't the only who was thinking I knew this couple as I read the story.

[Askel5]

Oh dear ... well, nevermind.

I'll keep them in my prayers.

[Askel5]

=== How can one write about marriage the way MacFarlane does and then do the very thing he was warning against a short time later?

I don't know about Mr. McFarlane, but I can tell you from my own posting history that my strongest arguments and most meticulous study generally is centered on those issues with which I myself tend to struggle most or which most hit home with me for whatever reason.

"I need to hear it," in other words.

[Askel5]

Thank you, Siobhan.

[tiki]

I know just what you mean.

[Domestic Church]

" issues with which I myself tend to struggle most "

"I need to hear it," in other words."

Thank you for these pearls of wisdom!

[Mike Duke]

These are the facts as far as I can establish them.

Bud served divorce papers on Bai August 2003 (according to the date on the Court records), so he's been separated for at least that long. That is only 4 months after he published the article (referenced above) about 'fasting' in order to love your wife even more.

Bud's life story through his twenties and how he came to be married (in his own words). Deleted from the original source page but still found here:

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:yMeCoPLJrv0J:www.smcenter.org/stories_dreamlady.htm+%22bud+macfarlane%22+bai&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Someone called Hilary who runs a Catholic blog and clearly knows Bud Macfarlane first hand makes these comments below.

--
I am utterly dumbfounded! Not that Bud and Bai are getting divorced, but that it is Bud who is suing Bai! I have seen Bud's behavior around other women and, knowing that the marriage was in trouble, I had assumed that it was because of this. I would not have imagined for a moment that it would be Bud publicly humiliating his long-suffering wife!! I am completely floored!
Hilary 03.26.04 - 2:06 pm |
--

Hilary's blog is http://www.fiatmihi.blogspot.com

--

It is not hard to work out what lies at the root of this. Bud Macfarlane 'might' be being attacked by the legions of hell, he 'might' be mentally ill also; but referencing the above links, his instigation of the divorce, the eight months without reconciliation in between, (when Bai clearly wants that) it would appear that the main cause of his problems is plain old-fashioned male narcissism and immaturity.

[Codie]

It would seem he didn't have it all that rough through life.Perhaps this is Bud's "Dark night of the soul".

[Siobhan]

It may be his Dark Night. I went and got a St. Joseph seven day Votive candle for Bud and lighted it today. May the Light of Christ shine in his mind, heart, and soul, and may that same Light of Christ likewise shine within all of us.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Ping to #68.

[Codie]

That's gossip.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

and you're on the thread reading it!

[Mike Duke]

Is it 'gossip' to talk about a member of the Catholic clergy who is a known sodomite, or abuser of adolescent boys? Is it 'gossip' to talk about a Pope or Cardinal that commits an openly heretical act? Is it gossip to discuss and investigate a President who is alleged to have committed lewd acts with an intern in the Oval office? Or a Princess and mother of the future King of England who dies with her Muslim playboy lover in Paris?

Should we maintain silence about any and every publicly sinful act just in case we damage the reputations of Popes, Presidents, Priests, Princesses or the owners of well-known lay apostolates? No, of course not, because all those things affect the ability of the person in question to do their job in that they affect our trust of a person in a position of trust.

In the words of Pope Gregory the Great. "It is better that scandal arise than that truth be silenced".

So can we squash this 'gossip' argument once and for all. The only people who give a rat's posterior about this issue are fairly serious blog reading Catholics who have been influenced by and/or financially supported Bud's apostolate.

Bud Macfarlane has MADE HIMSELF a public figure. He has written three novels, promoted himself and sought financial donations for Catholicity. By my reckoning and his published numbers, he was pulling in something around $1m a year. A Christmas appeal netted him some $110,000 dollars. None of those events happened by accident.

Moreover, a lot of his writing was about marriage and the seriousness of it and the efforts a MAN should go to to love his wife, (including fasting out of love for her). He put his family up as a model and espoused saying the family Rosary regularly and all sorts of other devotions. For him to then divorce his wife shortly after is a matter of public concern. Did he really do all those things? Was he speaking from the heart or the head? Was he simply writing what he thought his readership wanted to hear? To suggest that looking at the facts and evidence (as well as can establish them) is "gossip" is being overly scrupulous and frankly incredulous.

The above quotation is written by a person who claims to know him and would seem to have witnessed certain behaviours toward the opposite sex. She runs a Catholic blog, which I have referenced. Write to her and ask her if you have any doubt about what she wrote in a public forum.

In light of the fact that Bud served divorce papers 8 months ago (fact) and no announcement of his divorce or resignation has been made on Catholicity, (fact), which presumably continues to solicit funds from good willed Catholics who are in ignorance of the current situation, I would say we were within our rights to discuss these issues.

In light of the fact that his wife has gone public about their divorce and made it clear that she is seeking a reconciliation, it is REASONABLE to assume that he is not seeking a reconciliation.

I think we have to use our common sense here and work out whether by discussing these sad events we are adding to the harm already done or the good that can come out of it. Think for a moment how many good Catholics that have supported the Catholicity apostolate have had their faith shaken by these events. (A family that prays together, stays together.... really?)

If every Catholic was as concerned about gossip as you then we would still have hundreds of active pedophile priests running parishes over America because some overly scrupulous person would be telling those abused not to engage in "gossip". Had more people been prepared to 'gossip' earlier about priests that abused them perhaps we would not have the scandal we have today.

I'd encourage everyone reading this to pray for his return to his marriage, as I have encouraged in my other posts above. But on the balance of the evidence it does appear that the reasons for this divorce are NOT particularly unusual and given the proximity to certain pious writings from Bud about the sanctity of marriage, I would have to express my concern about buying another Macfarlane book or tape. I clearly wouldn't have those same reservations if there was strong evidence that he was mentally ill.

For those still feeling scrupulous here is a good article from 8 years ago making much the same point about the dangers of having a false sense of charity.

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_1996/features_june-july96.html

And for those STILL not convinced here is a Christian weblink that might interest you. I am sure he still takes donations.

http://www.jsm.org/exploreJSM.cfm

[Conservative Iowan]

"If every Catholic was as concerned about gossip as you then we would still have hundreds of active pedophile priests running parishes over America because some overly scrupulous person would be telling those abused not to engage in "gossip"."

I would only change this to active homosexual priests, as the priest scandal is overwhelmingly one of homosexual acts, as opposed to pedophilia, which is against pre-pubescent children. The vast, vast majority of these cases were against post-pubescent youth, hence, homosexual in nature. Of course, those promoting (not you) the homosexual agenda, don't want us to know the truth of what has been going on with regard to the priest scandal.

[ChevyZ28]

I oppose divorce. A vow is a vow that must be kept. Marriage is covenant that exists between the man, woman and God. A covenant can not be broken so easily, one must have permission, reference the statements made by Moses, and Jesus in regards to divorce. However, I can not help but wonder why this woman would fight so hard to stay with a man who clearly has demonstrated he does not love her, and does not want to be with her. I must say though, I admire her, she has an open door to cut and run, yet she doesn't. The only possible good thing that could come from her contesting this divorce is that she able to protect her good name, and keep him from saying untrue things about her. I will pray earnestly that the Lord will guide her and be with her. Perhaps a miracle could happen here. Only time will tell in the end. God help this woman and her precious four children. I commend her for having a strong desire to save her marriage.

[Mike Duke]

"I can not help but wonder why this woman would fight so hard to stay with a man who clearly has demonstrated he does not love her, and does not want to be with her".

Err.... now let me think.... Because she loves him, perhaps? Because she loves her four little boys and doesn't want them to grow up fatherless. Because she is prepared to spend the rest of her life with a man that has abandoned his marriage vows. That's what love is all about and Bud had better wake up and smell the coffee. He will never find a better woman.

Why does God fight so hard to stay with sinners who demonstrate (every day) that they do not love Him and don't want to be with him?

Because HE loves us.

[Mike Duke]

"vast, vast majority of these cases were against post-pubescent youth, hence, homosexual in nature".

You know, I don't think the millstone is going to feel any the less heavy or the fires of hell any the less hot because of this legal distinction of demonic perversions. But, granted, clerical abuse tends to happen to young boys and therefore is more homosexual than pedophilic. The greater scandal, however, is that the clergy covered it up for so long.

[ChevyZ28]

I hear what you are saying, I agree this man Bud needs to open his eyes. However, no one can make a person feel what he or she does not feel. This man Bud is not God, he does not love this woman unconditionally, thats obvious or she wouldn't need to be contesting a divorce. All I am saying is this, in the end if he wants out, he will be. She is not going to be able to stop it, all she will have done is put herself and her children through a living hell for nothing.
Divorces get ugly, I know I went through them as a child. My mother was married and divorced more than one time, I am ashamed to say. I don't condone divorce, but when one considers the impact said divorce has on the children, perhaps getting it over quickly so the emotional wounds can begin the process of healing is better. I hope Bud will open his eyes, I doubt he will find a woman who will love him in this manner ever again. Of course, we don't know the whole story either.

[Mike Duke]

I wasn't suggesting he was God, you missed the point. I was suggesting that his wife's love for him might be a reflection of God's unconditional love for us. Her strategy of offering an olive branch is both charitible and honours the vows she made at their wedding. Whether they get legally divorced is irrelevant, she is and will always be his wife.

I agree challenging it legally is hopeless, she will never win and she must know that. After all the fact that devout Catholics in good standing can't honour their marriage vows is PROOF (to a pragmatic lay judge) that you need civil divorce in modern society. If these people can't keep it together then what chance have non-religious people got?

But I reckon the legal challenge is simply the temporal manifestation of what she sees as an unbreakable spiritual bond for life. Nothing more. I am sure she spends longer in prayer than with her lawyer.

We don't know the whole story, we will never know the whole story. Even Bud and Bai will only know the part of the story that they tell each other. Bai wrote recently that Bud hasn't even explained to HER why he left her, so how the heck could we know?

But from what scant evidence we do have it would seem that Macfarlane has left his wife and four kids and his wife loves him enough to take him back, despite an eight month separation. Maybe she really believes the "until death do us part" bit of the vows, rather "until emotional wounds have healed do we part".

I am praying for her and the young boys that Bud comes around. Whatever 'living hell' they experience over this will end. Bai's priority from her own writings on this subject seem to be saving her family from the HELL that never ends. At least with a mother like her they cannot easily end up blaming the Catholic faith.